Why I Am Not a Humanist

Although I like people just as much as anyone else, I don’t like people just as much as everyone else…with perhaps the exception of secular Humanists. Of course, like everyone else who likes and doesn’t like people, secular Humanists are no exception to hypocrisy and irrationality and so I’m taking this opportunity to examine the views of secular Humanists – or just Humanists with a capital “H” – to point out some flaws in their thinking. First, what is Humanism (as it relates to secularists)?

Hu·man·ism n.

1. A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.

2. Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.

Moreover, “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” – The American Humanist Association (AHA). Er, okay. Perhaps the official statement defining Humanism accepted worldwide by Humanists will be more helpful (or laughable, pick one). Note that my thoughts on each bullet point follow each bullet point in brackets. [ ] 

“The official defining statement of World Humanism is:

• Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction. [Okay, Humanism is ethical. Only, what kind of ethical system are we dealing with here, one that is evolutionary in nature? If so, their ethical system will be inherently flawed since many conscious, biological activities are irrational. (To be fair, it would be inherently flawed no matter what.) Sure, their ethical system is one that affirms worth, dignity, and autonomy, but who decides what worth a person has? Or does everyone have inherent worth and if so, how is that ethical view an intrinsic part of human nature? I mean, visiting violence upon each other is also an intrinsic part of human nature, so how are Humanists squaring the two? While I do agree that everyone should be as free as possible unless such free actions interfere with the freedom of others, Humanists don’t seem to realize that the greatest possible freedom to be had that does not conflict with the freedom of others demands the abolishment of 90% of existing cultural practices.]
• Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends. [So, for laughs, let’s say we’re up against an enemy who is determined to destroy us and cannot be reasoned with. How do we use science creatively to solve this problem, build a rocket to take us out of harm’s way or build an impenetrable wall? Or are Humanists saying we should build clever (that is, non-lethal) weapons to take our enemy out of the fight? If we take the enemy out of the fight, how will justice be balanced between our enemy’s neglect for our freedom and their inherent worth? As for human values tempering science, good luck with that. History is rife with counter-examples.]
• Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government. [Wait. One bullet point ago Humanism said it was rational, but seeing how democracies play out in the real world demands we keep looking for a better system of governance. Just because a democracy is the best system going does not mean it is a good system at all. (Arguably, democracies cause the least harm among its participants, outside of a benevolent monarchy anyway). Moreover, what IS the fullest possible development of every human being? How do we know when it has been achieved? My ‘deepity’ sensor is starting to go through the roof.]
• Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognizes our dependence and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination. [Whoa, whoa, whoa. The first bullet point made a huge deal out of autonomy and now they’re telling me to be socially responsible? Okay, so I’m NOT autonomous, great. Worse, “Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents.” Yet, they feel the need to write down their dogmatic bullet points. What’s next, that they’re going to tell you that you don’t HAVE TO use reason in your life and that you’re allowed to question whether 1 + 1 = 2? Humanists are lying through their teeth there.]
• Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-view on all of humanity. Humanism recognizes that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision. [So the alternative to dogmatic religion is dogmatic science? While science eventually winds up correcting itself at some point, science has been known to be almost as dogmatic as religion. Again, notice the hypocrisy of the Humanists telling you their not trying to impose any world-view.]
• Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognizes the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment. [Art is often irrational, so what is it Humanists; do you want us to be rational, irrational, or both? Can a Humanist even define ‘art’? If they did, how would that not be imposing a world-view?]
• Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our time. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere. [Sure, it CAN be a way of life as long as you don’t ask the kinds of questions I’m posing here. And this shit’s just off the top of my head. I mean, “…an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our time”? Here, again, as I’ve pointed out in two recent blogs, if secular people want rationality to govern our lives, a rationality that is based upon evidence that supports beliefs, the tenets of Humanism has some feeble legs to stand on.]

The Amsterdam Declaration explicitly states that Humanism rejects dogma, and imposes no creed upon its adherents. [Except that you must abandon your faith!] The Amsterdam Declaration was endorsed by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) at the 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress in 2002. According to the IHEU, the declaration is the official statement of World Humanism.
It is officially supported by all member organizations of the IHEU including:

• American Humanist Association
• British Humanist Association
• Humanist Canada
• Council of Australian Humanist Societies
• Council for Secular Humanism
• Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
• Human-Etisk Forbund, the Norwegian Humanist Association
• Humanist Association of Ireland
• Indian Humanist Union
• Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)”

One would have to be exceptionally stupid to take Humanism at face value. After all, if we’re using reason – which they say we should – we should nitpick Humanist principles to death to be sure we’re not fooling ourselves. Unfortunately, Humanism doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory examination, meaning, we’re screwed even if religion were abolished. One bad system would just be replaced by another. Pick one. It’s a no-win situation.  

The Flaw of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism, in its normative understanding, can basically be defined as the belief that every culture is of inherently worth or value. I’ve heard it said that subscribing to this belief is basically what keeps a homogenous society stable and its citizens from killing one another, with those proposing such an idea often offering The United States of America as their prime example. Certainly the example is a faulty one if the need to distinguish between hate crimes and non-hate crimes is any indication. It is also a faulty example if one considers the proclivity of equal rights proponents – be they American or otherwise – to demand rights for or protections of certain populations within other countries or cultures. 

For example, as of this writing, crimes in India over the past year or so have brought recognition to India’s “culture of rape.” Of course, their “culture of rape” has always been there but only now is it recognized how widespread the problem is. Obviously, no inherent worth or value is afforded to this India sub-culture other than from the perpetrators within that culture. It is similarly hard to imagine that in the Western world either a social liberal or conservative is going to claim that any culture that suppresses women to the degree that some Islamic societies do has some inherent value. It is clearly not true that people, at least in the Western industrialized world, actually subscribe to the full onus of multiculturalism’s definition. Perhaps qualifications are in order. 

Qualifications always are in order when considering the idea of multiculturalism, implying that the culture that thought up the idea clearly thinks they are superior to every other culture by insisting other cultures accept the premise of multiculturalism. What I mean is that if multiculturalism is to be accepted, even by the people who thought of it, caveats are in order since the people who thought of it obviously do not condone the suppression of certain segments of a population or rape. To insist other cultures accept multiculturalism implies that the one culture insisting another culture be multicultural clearly thinks the ideas of their culture are superior to the ideas of the other culture. If a caveat is inserted here which amounts to multiculturalism’s defenders saying, “We accept the other culture’s right to exist as they have some inherent value, but that doesn’t mean we have to like their values,” such a caveat is so belittling that the opposing culture’s value is degraded to the point of nothingness. It also allows the saints to go marching in in an attempt to tweek the other culture’s values until the other culture’s values are worth something to the proponents of multiculturalism. Essentially, multiculturalists are saying it is fine for other cultures to be different – in fact, it’s encouraged! – so long as the other culture doesn’t differ in their values too wildly. 

I do find the idea of multiculturalism (such as I have laid it out which is to a large degree how it viewed on college campuses if nowhere else) offensive on grounds other than it’s backhandedness. When I consider a culture such as the Taliban, I do not believe all cultures have inherent worth. I do not condone a culture that bans self-expression, violently suppresses it’s women, and calls for the literal deaths of those outside their culture for simply being outside their culture, especially the ones an ocean away who are so different from they are. Can a defender of multiculturalism actually argue for the worth of the Taliban as a culture without laughing? If they can, can they defend a culture which practices cannibalism or practiced live human sacrifice without laughing? Perhaps they can having defended the mostly laughable idea of multiculturalism for so long. 

I say multiculturalism is “mostly laughable” because I will not go on the record as claiming one culture is superior to another, so I do believe some degree of respect for most other cultures is warranted. Most cultures have as many good and bad ideas as any other, though I suppose in the case of the Taliban I consider that particular culture mostly full of bad ideas as I am not within that culture or subscribe to similar beliefs. Multiculturalism does have the possible benefit of considering ideas or problems through differing cultural lenses (among other lens), so I cannot discount a necessity for multiculturalism entirely. I believe some value can be found in most cultures although sometimes we may have to go looking for that value. Usually, the best value can be found at a downtown ethnic food cart. 

Accepting multiculturalism has never been what keeps groups of people from killing each other. It’s just that people don’t kill each other when resources aren’t an issue (and to a lesser extent, unless a group’s ideology comes under attack). Cooperation among groups born out of evolutionary necessity probably plays a much greater role in cutting across cultural divides than the idea of multiculturalism itself. That said, I politely ask multiculturalists to stop pretending they came up with a great idea. It was never theirs to begin with.