Humanism in the Twenty-first Century.

I believe when we refer to humanism we are thinking of that modern lifestance which is rooted in rational thinking and provides a way of understanding our universe and our place in it in naturalistic rather than supernatural or theistic terms. By humanism we mean a philosophy of life that offers all of us--both as individuals and as members of society--a secular ethic grounded in human values.

Our humanism is a living philosophy of freedom and democracy and, as humanists, we are deeply conscious of our common humanity. We are impelled by a sense of the moral worth of all human beings and are guided in our actions by compassionate reason and the realization of humankind's common destiny. As humanists we reject absolute authority and revealed wisdom; we promote free inquiry, which is the basis of the scientific spirit; and we defend intellectual integrity, refusing to let custom replace conscience. Responsible freedom of thought and action, as well as civilized law, are of paramount importance to us.

Usually this broad understanding lets me get on with my life. In social living the understanding of human dignity causes opposition to any trend that makes the human being an instrument to serve a "higher" purpose: God, nation, community, class, or creed. Reason and reasonableness serve as guides to tackling human problems--hence our attachment to them. Our skepticism (we are skeptics but not cynics) helps us look critically at our world and try to improve it for ourselves and others. As advocates of secularism we want secular societies--not merely the separation of religion and state but the more complex weaning away of people from religion, so that humanity can come into its own. Committed to ever expanding the frontiers of human freedom, we are vigilant that this enterprise doesn't encounter any hindrance. There's enough work for each of us for several generations.

But a few of us, as Marie Alena Castle of the Atheist Alliance has said, are victims of "paralysis by analysis." We go about discussing whether humanism is religious, secular, ethical, spiritual, transcendental, and so on. Other humanists come up with objections, saying that humanism is too anthropocentric--that we don't pay enough attention to other forms of life. There is also the claim that humanism, with its emphasis on reason and science, doesn't value the arts and has no appreciation of beauty. Still others object to humanism as being too harshly critical and unaccommodating of other lifestances and insensitive to alternative viewpoints. And some others exhort us to concentrate on the positive aspects of our work rather than fight religion.

Of course, as the philosophy of the human being, humanism tries to help us answer, as best we can, the great questions of life: Who are we? What are we? How did the universe come about? What is the good life? And so on. But are these questions religious? Are we religious when we try to answer them? Is humanism a religion because it tries to answer these questions?

There is no doubt that we are trying to answer some of the same questions that religion traditionally has attempted to answer, but philosophy is not theology and humanism is not religion. We should be clear in our mind about the essential difference: while we might be engaged by those same questions that religion was and is busy with, our interest is not in religion's eternal answers; for us what is permanent are these questions. It is the pursuit of truth that is most important to us, not its possession. Humanism is nothing if it is not a continuous interrogation about our universe and our place in it. It is true that we try to find out what this world is about, what we are doing here, and how best to lead a life that is both personally satisfying and socially useful. It is also true that we try to give meaning to our own lives because we see no set purpose other than that which we give to it.

Not long ago while dining with Parveen Darabi, an ex-Muslim and a humanist colleague from Iran, I choked when she told me that in Islam the reparation for the murder of a man is that the culprit pays the victim's family a compensation of either 100 camels or 200 cows; if a woman were killed, then the victim's family would receive either fifty camels or 100 cows. I gasped at this medieval practice as I am sure you do now: how can we accept in today's modern world the gross injustice of equating one camel with two cows? You may think I'm joking, but how would a cow feel knowing that it may take 100 of her kind to equal a single human woman?

Humor aside, I believe that, despite what is being suggested by our critics, as humanists we should be concerned less by the camel-cow equation and more by the man-woman equation. Of course we need to respect other forms of life and live in harmony with the rest of nature, but it is pointless to object that humanism--the philosophy of the human being--is anthropocentric.

Then there is the criticism that humanists have no appreciation of beauty, no aesthetic sense, and can't appreciate the arts. Is this really true? Science is a quest for knowledge. And if truth is but the content of knowledge, as M. N. Roy put it, and if with Thomas Hardy we can say that the beauty of truth is as eternal as the truth of beauty, I think we have given an adequate response to this criticism. Those who can't tune into the rhythm of the cosmos through a knowledge of its laws, those who can't appreciate the passion in inquiry and the ecstasy in discovery, those whose spirituality isn't awakened to this wonderful and unique aspect of human life, those who can see beauty and aesthetics only in elegant line and beautiful form have lost the plot somewhere.

There are also those who tell us that humanism has a positive not a negative message and therefore we shouldn't criticize religion; we should just emphasize that "positive." But as Levi Fragell, president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, once asked: how can challenging religion be truly negative when the result is the restoration of common sense? As Voltaire pointed out, those who believe in absurdities commit atrocities. Have we no interest in ensuring there will be no future Dark Ages, that a "Taliban" like that of Afghanistan won't repeat itself elsewhere? Should the intolerable be tolerated? When we criticize others, we aren't challenging their right to hold their ideas; it is their ideas themselves that we put in the crucible of reason. For what idea is worth holding if it can't be examined on "the dissecting table of reason"?

There are two additional views that strike me as most damaging to my conception of humanism. The first is demonstrated by the question: "If we don't believe in a god, how does that lead us to our support for human rights?" Surely we believe in human rights not because we disbelieve in God but because we believe in the inherent dignity of the human being. The other is seen in the question: "While science is wonderful, how does it help me to understand human dignity or become kinder to my fellow beings?" Those who ask this fail to connect knowledge to freedom. They fail to comprehend that, unless we understand our position and place in the universe, we won't be able to understand limitations on the scope of our freedom.

As a lifestance, humanism helps us understand our place in the universe, and we depend on science to give us the knowledge to do so. Science empowers us by explaining our capability to fathom the depths of the universe, thereby adding to the dignity and self-worth of humankind. This doesn't impede our appreciation and enjoyment of nature, nor does it make us less prepared for the creative and artistic enterprise. Let us just remember the violin in Albert Einstein's hands.

Our naturalistic understanding of the universe, the valuing of the scientific spirit, the concept of the morally autonomous being, the democratic culture, the desire to rebuild the world, the sense of responsibility to fellow human beings and to the rest of nature, our understanding of the true nature of beauty--all of this ties up into a life-stance deserving to be adopted by the world. This hope was eloquently articulated in 1973 in Humanist Manifesto II, which begins with the grand declaration that the next century--the twenty-first century--"can be and should be the humanistic century."

So, are we then in that humanistic century?

Obviously not. There is a confederacy of irrationalism--of religion allied with the tribal values of nation--and a widespread disregard for human values that is regressing us into our social memory of intolerance and of inconsiderateness toward our fellow human beings. Somewhere down the line, humanists seem to have lost the effort to transform the world into the humanist image. I think this has happened because, by a steady process of self-elimination, we have pushed ourselves out of the mainstream of human activities. Today we don't even preach what the other side practices! Three hundred years ago the beacon lights of the world were our spiritual ancestors. Name a social reformer of a few centuries ago and it's very likely he or she was a humanist; our spiritual ancestors were articulators of inspiring visions for the world. Today our leaders are merely heads of organizations, not leaders of people.

We somehow have lost touch with our grand humanist tradition. Twenty-first century humanism should try to rediscover that tradition which aimed to rebuild the world and tried to lay down the blueprints for a new century. One of humanism's spiritual ancestors was Thomas Paine. When Benjamin Franklin said, "Where there is freedom, there is my country," Thomas Paine nobly retorted, "Where there is none, there is mine."

We therefore need to set the direction for new changes, create freedom where there is none, and defend it where it is threatened. We need to identify the most pressing problems of the world and apply humanism's liberating principles to find solutions to them. There is no reason why humanism should triumph in the current world if we continue as we are--after all, humanists believe in Darwin's natural selection!

Even though I believe today's world is a happier place than it has ever been in the past, there are several disturbing trends which need to be addressed. As has been repeatedly said, globalization of the world is underway--a new world order is being established. What a misleading term that is; there is no discernible order in this new world.

Today's globalization is economic in nature. People in the West refer to other parts of the world as "emerging markets"--not as people but, rather, as targets for economic activity, clients for debt industry, and customers for the death-peddling arms industry. This predatory attitude must be opposed with all the means at our disposal. The globalization that humanists should fight for is not that of the market--free or regulated--but of the free mind.

It is the globalization of the mind, of the universalization of our achievements, that we must strive for. Let us not forget that humanism is a cultural achievement of humankind, and it matters little whether it derived from Greece or India or wherever. I am astonished at some claims made recently in the West as to the origins of humanism. We are stuck into molds devised by etymology, chronology, and geography and, thus, miss the point. Humanism originates in human nature, and it is for that reason that it is universal. Some humanists feel alienated just because it didn't sprout in our backyard, and that's a failing in our understanding of our common humanity. In a world "divided by maps" we need to spread the understanding that it is enough that we are all human.

The West should theoretically epitomize the grandest achievements of humanism: democracy, free choice, human rights, the spirit of science, a spirit of openness. But when one looks at those who are at the receiving end of these achievements, it is natural to develop doubts. When you are a citizen of the "Third World"--in reality the two-thirds world--then your government is either under one of the "kleptocracies" or propped up by the active collusion of the West and being sold destructive technologies.

One-fifth of the world--the West--participates in four-fifths of global economic activity. Of the $23 trillion of global domestic product, $18 trillion belongs to that one-fifth of the world. To be fair to all, the resources of the world should be equitably shared--not all of it exported to the West. Even though all of humanity historically has benefited from achievements made throughout the world, over the last 100 years knowledge has begun to be held in chains called intellectual property rights. These property rights, which don't apply to algebra (which didn't come from the West), to medicine (which didn't come from the West), to astronomy (which also didn't originate in the West), suddenly apply to new technologies. Bacterial strains and genetic information are being patented.

Humanists want all people of the world to benefit from the achievements of science and technology, and we hope that this will lead to a better way of life for all the inhabitants of the planet. But the current Western model of development of consumption is not the road to achieve this.

Humanism strives to break the chains of religious despotism, so why not the despotism of the market? And if the global society we seek is to be formed on universal principles, then how can we let the impoverishment of the planet happen unchallenged? We need to demonstrate that our values are not just an elevated particularism but have a universal significance as well.

What about politics? Are humanists to play politics? I suggest we should. But not the power politics we are accustomed to. Not the strife of interests disguised as a conflict of principles. Not supporting a democracy which prides itself and believes in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. But the politics of freedom--a politics of liberating people by fighting for their human rights.

The humanism of the twenty-first century has be an angry humanism--an all-embracing humanism, a humanism not defeated by the pessimism of thought but fired by the optimism of the will, a humanism that is willing to assert itself. It must be a humanism beyond religion, a post-religious humanism.

When we throw our arms open, how far do we go? I have heard a suggestion that humanist organizations should open their doors of membership to even the religious because humanism is inclusive. I say that it is society's job to be all-inclusive and to make sure no thought process is excluded--and, indeed, we must work for such a society. However, a humanist organization should be open only to humanists because we share objectives to pursue and common goals to attain.

In our context, we need to think in organizational mode. Granted, the organizational mode has its own hazards, and undoubtedly we frequently are caught up in organizational identities (at times the organization we belong to may even become our own identity). I believe our identity should be as human beings first and last--unburdened by adjectives like ethical, religious, or secular. And such an identity can best be realized through humanism.

I have just advocated that humanists must go beyond religion and embrace other fields of human activity, like economics and politics. But I also suggest a deepening of our identity at the same time. We need to be clear about who we are: that we are children of reason. As Edd Doerr, president of the American Humanist Association, has said, "Let passion fill your sails, but let reason be your rudder." And in this regard, we have yet to create a global identity for our way of thinking.

So this is the mission for humanists: to re-create the world according to our conception of the human being, to be true to the spirit of Thomas Paine. And to succeed in this grand task, this cultural project, we need to reengage with our grand tradition. I am not a nonbeliever. I am a believer. It is people on the other side--those who deny humanity's ability to improve itself --who are the nonbelievers. Humanists are the believers and we have changed the world.

As we go out into society and try to influence people with our rational, secular, liberating, modern ideas, we work toward humanizing our society. Whether or not people join our organizations is less important than achieving a society built on human values. A society built on human values is a human society and necessarily a humanist one. Since we look at our tradition as a human tradition that exists within and without our groups, we should be able to build alliances with people, even outside our groups, to achieve our common purposes.

Perhaps the best vehicle for achieving this global humanist society is the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). Today the IHEU has eighty-seven member organizations from thirty-seven countries and maintains privileged nongovernmental organization status with all the important international bodies--the United Nations in New York, Geneva, and Vienna; the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris; the United Nations International Children's Educational Fund (UNICEF) in New York; and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. As the only international organization for rationalists, humanists, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and Ethical Culturists, how can the IHEU represent our minority interest and advance the aims of humanism?

First of all, the IHEU represents humanism, with no sectarian or qualifying adjective added to it--for a common and clear identity is most important when we forge a tool to achieve our objectives. Second, the IHEU needs to--as should all national humanist groups--analyze today's problems, apply humanism's universal principles to them, and come up with creative responses.

This is a time of great opportunity for us: the United Nations is opening up its doors to the participation of civil society. In the UN, peoples are being welcomed--in parallel with nations and the leaders of nations--to represent their viewpoints, to come with their creative ideas. Technically, the IHEU has representative status at the UN, but until recently the UN didn't open its doors to nongovernmental organizations. It is imperative that we respond to this opportunity to strengthen our representation and work cooperatively to achieve our goals.

So in closing I issue a challenge to the leaders of all humanist organizations, to the scientists among us, indeed to humanists everywhere: stop merely discussing the etymology of humanism and start talking about the global citizen, celebrate the cultural achievements of humanism, and show people how knowledge will lead to freedom.

One of the most vital roads to freedom is the separation of religion and state. Many of the violations of human rights throughout the world are in one way or another allied with religion entangling itself with the state. The IHEU is calling for an international conference on the subject and on the issues it impacts. One committee has been established to devise a humanist declaration on what universal values are. Another committee is examining how children's rights are being violated in the name of religion. I call on all humanists to get involved.

Humanism's time has come. We must put aside our passiveness and become engaged in liberating society. By uniting our efforts--for example, in an international body like the IHEU--we can achieve our goal of a humanistic world where all are free and equal.

Babu Gogineni is the executive director of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (www.iheu.org). This article is based on his lecture at the joint conference of the American Ethical Union and the American Humanist Association this past June.