Dear Bob:

The March, April, and May issues of the Utah Humanist have featured a series of articles on Humanism as a religion, and on community building. Here are some other thoughts on these subjects.

THE POWER OF WORDS AND THE POVERTY OF LANGUAGE

First, to set the record straight, the word "religion" has its origin in Latin, and comes from the same root that gave us words like "ligament." The original meaning may have been something like "to bind together again,'although the classicists are not sure about that.

But what a word means does not depend on what the linquists or the priests decree. A word means what most people understand it to mean, and Webster's dictionary is a good a reporter on common understanding as any. It defines religion as the "concern over what exists beyond the visible world, differentiated from philosophy in that it operates through faith or intuition rather than reason, and generally including the idea of the existence of a single being, a group of beings, an eternal principle, or a trasdecent spiritual entity that has created the world, that governs it, that controls its destinies, or that intervenes occasionally in the natural course of its history, as well as the idea that ritual, prayer, spiritual exercises, certain principles of everyday conduct, etc., are spiritually rewarding, or arise naturally out of inner need as a human response to that belief in such a being, principle, etc." [Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, 1989]

That's quite a mouthful. Notice, thought, that his description does not mention the word, "god" once. Not all religions require the belief in a god. But all assume that there is a reality out there that we cannot physically perceive, and that knowledge about how that reality behaves and how it can be manipulated has been revealed to certain individuals.

Humanism, by that description, is not a religion. So then what is it? A philosophy, a "rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct?" (That's Webster's again.) To some people that does not suffice. Humanism to them is an active, sweaty, practical movement, not an ivory-tower, passive and self-sufficient navel-staring mind game. But speakers of the English language have not yet accepted a new word to fit the concept. "Euphraxophy" ("the knowledge on how to do things well") has been proposed. So has "life-stance", but neither is in wide use. Perhaps humanists should make up their own minds about what to call this thing they have, and then consistently stick with it until the majority follows suit.

"Religion" is not the right word to describe Humanism, not only because it would confuse the listeners, but also for very practical reasons. Some time ago, the American Humanist Association aspired to the privileges that states normally bestow on religions. In other countries humanist counselors are accepted in the armies, hospitals and prisons as much sa priests are, so why not here?

When religious fundamentalists heard of that idea, they turned it on its head. Humanism is a self-proclaimed religion, they said, and its tenets (such as evolution) are taught in the public schools. If the Humanists can teach their doctrine there, then we want to have the school curriculum opened up to Creation Science and Bible Study! The AHA quickly put the lid back on that can of worms, and is now officially an educational organization, as is the Utah chapter.

PRACTICES AND PRINCIPLES

Quite apart from semantics, should humanists follow the example set by organized religions? Art Jackson (in the April, 1992 issue) thinks so: religions, he says, are glue that hold society together.

Religions will gladly accept that assertion, I'm sure, but history does not bear it out. Babylon, Rome and Tenochtitlan did not fall because people did not believe in the established religion anymore. And religiously inspired schisms are still tearing many societies to warring pieces.

I'd rather think that society's glue is not made by religion, but by economics. Even if they had nothing else in common, people would still prefer to interact because of the benefits of specialization of labor and technology. (That's not me who came up with that, that's Adam Smith.)

Sociologically, religions don't glue people together, they split them up, in a tribal in-group of people who are right, and an out-group that is wrong. If a large part of humanity can be excluded from consideration, the efforts can be concentrated on effectively promoting the welfare of your tribe.

Historically, organized religions have been very easy tools for those in power, used to keep them in power. The Crusades, the Mogul empire, the Inquisition, the Victorian white man's burden, and many other bloody enterprises used religion to mobilize and silence people who would ordinarily just mind their own business. I don't want to throw doubt on the integrity of individual believers here. I do want to show that masses of believers have been easy prey for cynical manipulators. I have heard many people express a grudging respect for the public relations means of many religions, even if they don't agree with the ends. (Bob Green's article in the March issue provides an example.)

But should we follow an organizational example that has been so easily abused? Communist parties all over the world have done so, using the in-group/out-group principle (complete with the purges of heretics), and it has made them terribly ineffective. It would be an instance of old brain thinking" to try and repeat the practices of organized religion, and still exclude its principles. You might object that the Unitarian Universalist Church is an established religious organization that does not practice intolerance and exclusiveness. I do not know enough about that denomination to be able to say whether it fits Webster's definition or my stereotype... But I doubt if its example can be reproduced: it evolved from a traditional church into a progressive one, not (as Art Jackson would have us do) from an association into a religious community.

Humanists are global rather than exclusive; they invite doubt and discussion; they are not willing to accept and preserve the status quo while waiting for a hereafter; and they are fiercely independent. Those are not characteristics that make for a successful docile and restricted religious order.

I think we should be able to come up with something new and better, and steer clear of old-time religions. That even extends to words and symbols. For instance, I don't want to have a "belief system," because a belief is something that cannot be disproved. I'd rather call it by "set of working hypotheses," the few things I take for granted until new information becomes available.

So what does a new and better humanist organization look like? Since humanists are inclusive and open to different ideas, I think it is bound to be a diffuse entity of human catalysts, a loose network of people who make things happen through the single-issue groups that they support. The principles they share will be general to the point of sounding trite. Democracy, equality, tolerance, reason, these are not new ideas; but their practice is.

A humanist organization's effectiveness should not be measured by how strong the organization is as a body separate from its members, or by how many buildings it owns and how many people it employs. It should be measured by how well it enables its individual members to give to one another the power and inspiration to change the world.

RESPONSE
by Bob Green

No, Anne, dictionaries do not adequately define words such as religion which have so many emotional overtones. In this case, the word "religion" needs modifiers properly to define the meaning. For instance, the kind of religion you describe is the "traditional established religion." The kind of religion Art Jackson of the San Jose chapter, Professor Appleby in his lecture, and others describe is a "personal" religion or perhaps a "generic" religion. My dictionary has one definition of religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith," and this will do to define "generic" religion. Unless otherwise defined, this generic religion is what we are all talking about. Humanism can easily be considered as that kind of religion.

The other, a "personal" religion, goes to define that unique set of beliefs, or ideas or whatever, which we all individually formulate to help us make sense of the world and our place in it. I do agree that we need to adopt a single term to define what it is that humanism means to each of us. I suggest the words "idea-system." This term comes from Julian Huxley, a founder of modern humanism. In his book, The Humanist Frame (1961), he acknowledges the need to have a term for Humanism and suggested the non-technical term idea-system, "with the proviso that it includes beliefs, attitudes and symbols as well as intellectual concepts and ideas.' (p. 13) We can do no better than this, and I am going to adopt it in place of all the other terms.

The possibility that the Community of Humanists that Art Jackson describes could become a traditional established religion is beyond the realm of possibility. No humanist I know even considers doing anything like that. However, we need to avoid the possibility that the public gain the perception that it is , or could be. Flo and I thought it resembled a church or a generic religion. The question is: How to build an effective organization which facilitates the learning and living of humanism without appearing to be a church or a religion? Well, that is the job at hand, and your last sentence answers the question very effectively: "It should be measured by how well it enables its individual members to give one another the power and inspiration to change the world." If we do that, what does it matter what we are called? "If we build it, they will come." (Field of Dreams)