Humanist Manifesto I
A Humanist Manifesto was a document published in 1933 to express evolving ideas on ultimate values, particularly within the liberal Unitarianism. It is also referred to as Humanist Manifesto I to distinguish it from later manifestos. Its main authors were Raymond Bragg (project leader), Roy Wood Sellars (who produced the first draft), Curtis Reese, A. Eustace Haydon and Edwin H. Wilson but the final version was based on a consensus of many discussions with their collaborators. Among the other contributors where J. A. C. E Auer, Burdette Backus, L. M. Birkhead, Albert C. Dieffenbach and John H. Dietrich. It argued for a future non-theistic religion and to build "a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world". It was one of the influences on the broader Humanism movement, which eventually distanced itself from its religious origins.
- "The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."
The document was written during the US great depression and reflects some of the social movements of its time, such as its suspicious of capitalism and enthusiasm for non-Marxist socialism.
The final manifesto was signed by 34 invited people, most of whom were Unitarian ministers or philosophers, the most famous of which was John Dewey. It was published in the bi-monthly journal The New Humanist.
Summary[edit]
The manifesto states that contemporary religion is at risk of becoming irrelevant in light of the great strides made in human knowledge and religion's failure to address current problems. Religion should aim to assist in "realizing the satisfactory life". Religion requires updating by being a "synthesizing and dynamic force". The following points are affirmed:
- The universe was not created but is "self-existing".
- Humans are part of nature.
- Rejection of Cartesian dualism
- Religion is a product of culture and humans' interaction with the natural world.
- Values cannot have a supernatural origin. They are based on the "relations to human needs".
- Rejection of theism, deism, etc.
- Religion should be entirely concerned with human actions and experiences.
- Religion should develop and fulfill the human personality.
- Religion should be expressed by a "heightened sense of personal life" and social improvement rather than prayer.
- There are no uniquely religious emotions or attitudes.
- Support for education and rejection of wishful thinking. It speculates that some form of social order will be necessary.
- Support for creativity and achievement.
- Institutions, particularly religious ones, should be reformed to encourage the "fulfillment of human life".
- Profit motivated society is inadequate. It should be replaced by a "socialized and cooperative economic order".
- Affirm life, explore the possibilities, "satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few".
History[edit]
Early humanism movements were influenced by the Enlightenment, the theories of Charles Darwin, the writer Ralph Waldo Emerson and Biblical criticism. There were many varieties of humanism but were often the result of a common social context. A very early group was the Humanistic Religious Association of London, founded in 1853 and aimed to cultivate science, philosophy and art. Little is known about the group. In the US, the Free Religious Association, a group of free thinkers and radicals at the end of the 19th century, were the forerunner to 20th century groups. This group was intensely individualistic when compared to later movements.
"[...] Religion is a principle inherent in man and is a means of developing his being towards greater perfection. We have emancipated ourselves from the ancient compulsory dogmas, myths and ceremonies borrowed of old from Asia and still pervading the ruling churches of our age."
- — Humanistic Religious Association of London, 1853
In the earth 20th century, religious thinkers within Unitarianism were attempting to harmonize their beliefs with new discoveries in physical and social sciences. They believed that truth could be discovered outside of the Bible, which was not considered to be divine revelation. Human reason and conscience was also considered a valid starting point for values. The Unitarian church did not emphasise strict religious belief in creeds or dogma, particularly in the Eastern United States, and was quite welcoming of its members questioning theism. This attitude continued into the Humanist Manifesto which also doesn't claim to be a creed. Documents such as Religion and the Modern Mind (1909), The Next Step in Religion (1918), The Humanist Pulpit and Humanist Sermons (1928) begin to outline a religious humanism that rejected superstition and called for reform of religious traditions. However, humanism did meet resistance as it spread. An attempt to exclude religious humanists from the Unitarian Church failed in 1920 and strengthened the security of their membership within the church. Humanist students at Meadville Unitarian Theological School were told they were not welcome in 1927.
April 1928 saw the first publication of The New Humanist, which continues to be published as thehumanist.com. It included contributions from a diverse range of humanist writers.
The early 1930's saw a wave of humanist organizations being founded, often by the schism of ministers from Unitarianism to found their own association. The Quakers also saw members break away to form their own groups such as the Humanist Society of Friends. There was no national humanist association in the US until 1935.
Literary humanism was a separate group and based around the ideas of Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More. They were anti-science and not supportive of social change. Edwin H. Wilson and others believed they had misappropriated the term humanism. The movement was short lived but was sometimes confused with religious humanism.
Drafting and publication[edit]
The staff at The New Humanist felt the need to release a more definite statement about humanism. Raymond Bragg took charge of a project to draft this statement, starting around late 1932. The authors hoped to reform liberal religion without causing a schism. It thought that writing the statement entirely by committee would be difficult. Roy Wood Sellars was asked to produce a first draft as a basis for further work, based on discussions and notes from Raymond Bragg. The document was revised, modified and edited on several occasions by a committee. Later in his life, Roy Wood Sellars claimed that he wrote and circulated the manifesto himself, which is disputed by the other alleged contributors. The editing committee regularly circulated updated drafts to collaborators outside of Chicago. The correspondence to reach a consensus was "torrential". In April 1933, a version was reached that was thought suitable to circulate to potential signers. A response from Dr. E. A. Burtt questioned the need to make statements in the manifesto that were not central to humanism, as well as committing to specific and "old-fashioned sort of materialism". Dr. Morgan responded whimsically:
- "While I agree generally with what is stated, I find my tempo unequal to the task of assimilating and appraising a new statement of a philosophy of life on a busy Saturday morning. Therefore I must forego the historic opportunity for being one of the charter members of the first universal religion."
He later suggested the manifesto take a "more inclusive and adequate view" of humanism. Dr Morgan also questioning the outcomes abandoning the profit-motive, the "unjustified cocksureness" of its dismissal of the supernatural and the lack of significant of life. John Haynes Holmes commented that he did not see any incompatibility between humanism and theism, as well as questioning the relevant of rejecting deism which he though was anachronistic. He also thought modernism was so poorly defined as to be highly confusing.
- "In other words, in using this word, "theism," traditional or otherwise, and casting it out into utter darkness, I think you are doing as arrogant and fundamentally as ignorant a thing as any dogmatist who ever lived."
The astronomer Harlow Shapley replied that he felt unqualified to speak on the matter but wondered if humans were ready for a "cold" and rational philosophy such as humanism. Despite the manifesto denying it was a creed, four Unitarian ministers declined to sign because it was perceived as too dogmatic.
- "Any creed excludes and this is no exception.[1]"
Dr. Bruce Swift responded saying the manifesto was unnecessarily hazy and criticised its "complete ignoring of literary values". After minor adjustments to the draft manifesto, it was circulated to a wide pool of potential signers. Only one woman was invited to sign. F. C. S. Schiller wrote a response pouring scorn on the manifesto, saying it would be better called "Positivism". Many philosophers and Unitarians were overlooked by the committee to sign the manifesto, partly due to time pressure, gender bias, communication breakdown, lack of resources or human oversight. Only one social scientist was invited to sign but he did not respond. The editors asked a wide variety of professions to sign, including an economist, a judge, an attorney, a historian, a literary critic, but many did not respond or declined. Humanists that used traditional religious language, such as Edward Scribner Ames, were not invited to sign.
The manifesto was published in the May/June 1933 issue of The New Humanist (VI:3:1-5) together with some of the feedback received. Roy Wood Sellars wrote an interpretation of the document called Religious Humanism which appeared in the same edition. He notes that many of the values in the manifesto are diametrically opposed to traditional Christian values.
- "We conclude that the humanist movement is a religious movement in that it is deeply concerned with the furtherance of human life along the lines indicated by reason and sympathetic intelligence. It is true that it represents a break with the traditional religious interpretation of life and the universe, but this is a sign of its vitality and novelty. [...] If some prefer to speak of humanism as a philosophy of life, I would not be averse.[...] We adopted the term humanism because it was, quite obviously, the one suitable term. Reject theism as the logical center of religion and the only alternative is to take man as the center. The new religion is homocentric and not theo-centric.[...] between naturalism and theism it is a case of either-or. Either a reality corresponding to the God-idea is at the center of reality in a directing, planning way or there is no such reality.[2]"
Impact[edit]
Response[edit]
The manifesto was reproduced in several newspapers. The authors' inexperience with public relations meant that it did not receive as wide attention as it might have achieved. Unsurprisingly, many expressed the opinion that traditional religion and theism should be maintained. A column in the Los Angeles Times said:
Not only are these boosters of humanism in error in their main premise, that the religious forms and ideas of our fathers are no longer adequate for the needs of this age, but in their fifteen points they persistently put the secular before the sacred....
"Religions the world over," cry the humanists, "are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions." On the contrary, new conditions are under dire necessity of coming to terms with the religions of the world. Their failure to do so is illustrated in the miserable plight of the Russian workers, for whom, if the Soviets had not thrown over all reliance on the Divine, they might have been able to afford some relief.
In many quarters the manifesto was misrepresented, being called a creed and a work of college professors. Some mainstream religious writers supported the general goals but still insisted on theism. Many letters were sent to the authors in support and offering further suggestions. One letter said:
- "The Manifesto fails to state why I want to be a humanist. What moves me to forsake the traditional affirmations, launch out into the dangers of uncertainties, and constrains me to desire to spend myself in the interest of man?"
This is consistent with the manifesto aiming to address ultimate value; therefore it cannot appeal to an external system of values. Frank H. Hankins questioned if the ideals of individual freedom are compatible with the manifesto's call for socialism.
Calls for a revised edition[edit]
The manifesto authors received suggestions for revisions and requests for an updated manifesto, to reflect new ideas, to revise its style to make a wider impact and to attract celebrity signatories. The general view was to release a new manifesto rather than attempt to revise the existing one. The effort "fizzled out" because the committee members were dispersed and no funding was available for travel expenses.
In culture[edit]
Many of the authors went on to be involved with the Humanist Press Association, which was later renamed to the American Humanist Association.
In the 1940's humanism began to distance itself from its Unitarian roots. The movement also became more international with the International Humanist and Ethical Union being founded in 1952.
Twenty years after publication, Ray Bragg wrote:
- "The immediate aims were achieved: to stir up discussion, to prompt debate. The editorial note accompanying the publication was explicit on that score. And, for the greater part, that spirit was carried in the reporting of the document.[3]"
Some of the signatories commented that while they agree with the sentiment of item 14, they would not necessarily agree that socialism is the only viable humanistic economic system. Some felt unease about item 14 because of the cold war and the association of socialism with Soviet Russia. Curtis W. Reese argued that this statement did not relate to communism because humanism was opposed to totalitarianism of all kinds. The removal of item 6, which rejected theism, also had several suggestions for removal since it was confrontational and dogmatic.
During the Cold War, the Manifesto was attacked as being a tool of communist sympathizers. Edwin H. Wilson warned that humanism faced a new threat from anti-communist measures:
- "In any new Humanist Declaration there should be a reaffirmation of the freedoms and adequate delineation of antidemocratic and anti-Humanist forces which threaten to destroy the democratic way of life here at home under the guise of protecting our security from alien forces abroad. McCarthyism; crypto-fascist attacks on the UN and UNESCO; clericalist pressures to invade our public schools; efforts to impose a theocratic basis of citizenship ("freedom under God"); the subversion of free, modern public education in behalf of a program of ritualistic indoctrination to favor a confluence of reactionary forces-all these need resisting with all the force we can muster."
The 1973 Humanist Manifesto II was strongly influenced by the original manifesto.
The manifesto was again attacked in the 1980's by the Christian right and the "Moral Majority", with humanism being made scapegoat of other social and religious movements. Humanism was accused of causing moral decline and encouraging "any form of sexual perversion".[4]
Criticism[edit]
Changes with the times[edit]
- "The overly optimistic interpretation of the earlier humanists were obviously not robust enough to survive the times. Predictably, their "absolutes" change as times change, a sign of a faulty belief system. If the theses which support a belief system are changed from time to time, then what is the truth, and who is it who defines such truth?[5]"
- "Humanism, therefore, is not exactly a static religion, fixed for all time by some primeval revelation. [6]"
Not fully defined[edit]
- "We must now simply recognize that the humanist ideal is far from representing a firmly established, well thought-out belief system. Since a humanist creed cannot or will not be developed, the manifestos become indicative of an emotional response rather than a statement about a particular belief system.[5]"
- "First, the lack of consensus among humanists is obvious. The term some humanists portrays division in the opinion of what humanism fundamentally is.[5]"
- "Another point-the repeated insertion of "human" before "life" implies that only in the species Homo sapiens can there be significance.[7]"
Others argued that precise definitions would be counter productive:
- "There should be just two or three very broad principles which make you a Humanist or not-and the lines should not be precisely drawn.[3]"
No solutions[edit]
- "Humanism comes across, then, as a wish list for the way society ought to be, but not as a concise statement about how we might achieve those ends. In fact it is quite revealing to notice, as we work through the humanist arguments to follow, that there truly are no solutions or methods suggested to bring about the change humanists hope for.[5]"
Religious connotations[edit]
Many contemporary Humanists would distance themselves from the overtly religious language used in the manifesto, although they might agree with the overall message.
- "Modern humanists, however, seem to take issue with the religious connotations presented by their forebears.[5]"
- "The Manifesto defines religion as the quest for the good life; but I do not think that philosophers of religion generally would define religion in this way-for this quest may be pursued with or without religion.[8]"
- "As long as no content is given to the word "religion," should it and its adjective be omitted from the Manifesto, as being question-begging and lacking in meaning? [3]"
- "To me it is unfortunate that the framers of the Manifesto implied that religion is almost everything under the sun except possibly Mrs. MacGillicuddy's cooking of cabbage for dinner.[3]"
Rejects God[edit]
- "It is a philosophy of life based on the false premise that there is no God, and therefore it is bound to fail.[9]"
- "The Manifestos are also naturalistic: they think nature is all there is. Scorning “salvationism” as a distraction from the pressing problems of the present life, they disavow belief in God and call upon human beings to “save” themselves. [10]"
Supports genocide and indoctrination[edit]
The manifesto is accused of social Darwinism, eugenics and indoctrination.
- "“Social hygiene” and “altering the course of human evolution,” of course, mean eugenics; “mental hygiene” and “altering the course of human cultural development,” indoctrination. [10]"
This is a misinterpretation of the manifesto. A better interpretation (by apologist Norman Geisler) would be:
- "Humanists believe that humanistic education will promote social well-being by discouraging the wishful thinking and worrying that stem from ignorance.[11]"
One persons education is another's indoctrination. In any case, mainstream religion can hardly say indoctrination is unacceptable without severe hypocrisy.
Leads to selfish existence[edit]
- "This notion that the "here and now" is all that matters provides license to those whose idea of "complete fulfillment" is to exploit everyone and everything to maximize their own personal pleasure. And why not? Do unto others before they do unto you. He who dies with the most toys wins.[...] It follows that moral self-restraint will be thrown out the window, and that "do as thou wilt" will become the guiding principle![...] When man thinks of himself as nothing more than an animal, he behaves as nothing more than an animal. Some will choose to be sheep, others will be wolves.[12]"
Overly broad, dogmatic and potentially alienating[edit]
Some humanists commented that the manifesto risked alienating many in its own movements by making pronouncements that were not central to it.
- "I am sure that a manifesto in this form will distress and alienate from the humanist movement a large number of people whom it is not at all necessary to alienate. [...] it seems to me imperative for such a pronouncement as this to be clear and uncompromising on the fundamentals while carefully avoiding implications which are not essential to fundamentals.[13]"
- "I believe that it is a repressive and futile effort to establish a uniformity of opinion in a dynamic religious movement, particularly at such an early stage in its development. The best we may do in this direction is to point out certain tendencies, and not to clinch it with a new dogmatism.[14]"
The authors later defended the manifesto against the accusation of being authoritarian:
- "And that is just what a manifesto is. It is a public declaration of principles giving reasons and grounds. It presents something to be debated, something which its proponents are ready to defend to the best of their ability because they have a sincere belief in what it stands for. There is no suggestion of the authoritarian about it.[8]"
The manifest itself denies it is a creed:
- "It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed."
- "It is definitely a dated instrument and represents what I have come to feel is a dated philosophy-a philosophy too narrow in its conception of great cosmic schemes, about which we know so little, and concerning which we should be less dogmatic and arrogant. It in no [way] reflects the humility which becomes the real seeker after truth.[15]"
Needless advertising[edit]
- "I am of the opinion that Humanism, as I understand the philosophy of it, cannot be "sold" to men and women; it must be attained by them, and that means slow, painstaking work. [...] Why must we, too, advertise? [...] A set of fifteen principles, detached from the living experience which precipitated them and lacking the life and warmth of the interests they represent, can do little to inform the mind and nothing to stir the heart. [1]"
Ineffective[edit]
- "Humanism is an academic religion. It emerges from no vital social experience, no vital social movement. It is, therefore, not the answer to modern man's spiritual needs. It may please a few anemic professors, and it is well suited to the more thoughtful and honest adherents of liberal religion, but it has not yet succeeded in finding the new pattern of spiritual life which the present world is instinctively crying out for. I regard Humanism as Mr. Hoover did Prohibition, as "a noble experiment."[16]"
Theist religion is not far behind[edit]
- "[...]it ignores the fact that some of its affirmations, for example those I have mentioned, have been and are being enthusiastically made by theistic and modernistic churches for which the Manifesto declares there is no longer any place."
However, the manifesto does not attempt to contrast itself with other belief systems. Roy Wood Sellars wrote:
- "We were concerned primarily with the development of the assumptions, objectives, and motivations of a naturalistic humanism. It did not occur to us to deny that there had lived all sorts of noble men in the past or that humanitarianism was widespread among liberal people.[8]"
That is not my God[edit]
- "But it should be said emphatically that the idea of God thus opposed is not the only idea of God. There are other ideas of God which may be reasonable, even if the supernatural idea is not. Another idea which has been held in the past and is held today is that of God as the eternal principle of order in the universe.[8]"
Makes statements about unknowable things[edit]
The manifesto states that the universe is "self existing". This matter is almost impossible to determine, given our current technology and situation. Since that is the case, it is difficult for anyone to be in agreement with this statement.
- "While there is a becoming unwillingness to make dogmatic assertions about certain things which we do not know[...]"
- "The first point, "Religious Humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created," states a dogmatic position. I know of no conclusive evidence, pro or con.[3]"
It might have been better to state that the existence of the universe is currently not understood, but there is no reason to believe it was created. However, this would not sound particularly definitive in the context of a manifesto.
Style[edit]
- "The Manifesto today looks antique and sententious. It is verbose and dogmatic: even shrill at times. It is dated and it squeaks. My! Didn't we think we were wonderful crusaders![...] A little humility and modesty of statement wouldn't hurt our cause.[3]"
- "Most of the ideas are still valid, but the language in which they are couched is deadly prosaic and unnecessarily uninspiring. It is like a scientifically built aeroplane, but without wings-it doesn't get off the ground.[3]"
- "I think the Manifesto is generally accurate to the spirit of Humanism. But it also strikes me as being somewhat repetitious, pedestrian, and professional. There is a tendency for the basic issues to be lost in the enumeration of many points.[3]"
- "Its major defect is that it employs the language of professional philosophers, including many technical terms which are not understood outside the profession, and is therefore meaningful only within the profession.[3]"
Other species[edit]
- "Throughout the Manifesto human life is regarded as the sole end and aim of human concern. The assumption, by inference, that ours is the only organic species that can have significance, may, I think, have practical results that are far-reaching and harmful, in the thoughtless elimination of other species.[3]"
