Discussion Group Report

Yes, says humanist leader, Paul Kurtz to the question posed in the title of the present article.

This question was deliberated upon by the Discussion Group in this month's meeting. There was a feeling that perhaps the title word Manifesto should be replaced by a less authoritarian-sounding word. Perhaps also the document should be shortened to make it more succinct.

The reading material for the discussion was "Symposium on Humanist Manifesto II," in the September-October issue of The Humanist, which contained statements by several leading humanists. In this article I am concentrating on comments made by Kurtz because I was very excited by his insight and perspective on the present state of the world and how a humanistic approach can help it to deal with its problems.

He is deeply concerned by the reappearance of fundamentalism worldwide: a forceful Hinduism in India, a resurgence of militant Islamic fundamentalism, the growth of the Orthodox faction in Israel, the retreat by the Roman Catholic church from Vatican II into a more conservative and doctrinaire posture on social and moral issues, and the emergence of literal biblical fundamentalists as a potent political force in the United States. The Moral Majority, followed by the Christian Coalition, has attacked secular humanism as the "most dangerous influence in America." Religious fundamentalism has questioned the premises of the liberal welfare state, humanist moral values, and the moral revolution. Its attacks on naturalism has convinced many conservatives to the point where criticisms of Darwinism and the defense of creationism are no longer considered fringe phenomena. There have been widespread assaults on sexual freedom, the gay revolution, feminists, and minorities.

Paranormal-spiritual claims have been exploited by the media. "The public is infatuated with a polyglot cacophony of bizarre beliefs--from angels and demonic possession to sundry miracles, such as weeping icons, healing at a distance, past-life regressions, psychic prophecies, and extraterrestrial abductions," Kurtz pints out. He laments that religious dissent is rarely heard and the agnostic-atheist viewpoint has few defenders. Also disturbing is the influential movement among intellectuals called postmodernism, led by Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Michel Fouccalt, and others.

Postmodernists reject many principles that humanists hold dear--the idea of a free and autonomous person, the Enlightenment and its reliance on reason to solve human problems, any thought of human progress or any hope that we can improve the human condition. To the postmodernists, science is one "mythic narrative" among others. They reject the idea that there are objective methods for warranting claims to knowledge. Multi-culturalist and feminist critics have challenged the idea that there are universal human rights or moral values. A new form of ethical subjectivity has resulted, followed by the renunciation of positive images of the future and the advancement of various forms of nihilism.

Encouraging signs are the fall of the Soviet Union, the fact that democratic revolutions continue to sweep virtually all parts of the globe, and the pace of scientific and technological discoveries in field after field. The Information Revolution "now makes us truly one world" and gives us "an unparalleled opportunity to leapfrog national, religious, and ideological divisions and open a fruitful dialogue with people from all portions of the globe..."Kurtz goes on to propose suggestions about what should be included in a third manifesto, centering on a commitment to naturalism, the utilization of the positive reach of technology, emphasis on the centrality of humanist ethics, recognition of the need for global institutions, and a posture of optimism about the human prospect.