Discussion Group Report

Can humanism really help one to solve personal problems? Or social problems? Don't the seemingly easy answers provided by authoritarian religion give a more uncomplicated and emotionally comforting approach to life's problems?

Lloyd and Mary Morain in their book Humanism As the Next Step argue persuasively that humanism as the basis for an upbeat, constructive way of life without any ready-made formulas makes it easier to work problems through to solution and prevents us from creating new problems while meeting old ones. First, it is a state of mind of self-reliance and confidence which prompts people to act from perfectly natural causes rather than occult ones. This approach gives hope of understanding and perhaps even controlling the causes. Success and failure depends on whether we can see the chains of cause and effect leading up to the present situation and whether we act on the basis of this knowledge. We are allowed no transcendental alibis and are freed from insoluble riddles. We are encouraged to feel that there is usually some kind of answer to a problem if we could but find it. Second, humanism involves reliance on a common-sense realistic method, basically the thoughtful scientific method, which consists of observing keenly, gathering facts, questioning traditional authority, and carefully checking assumptions. It encourages keeping the mind open for new knowledge and being always reluctant to jump to conclusions.

A humanist looks at problems in social relations as problems in human happiness, in working out what will be best for the people concerned. One doesn't ask who is right or wrong or recognize hard and fast categories of good and evil, but, rather, is interested in workable solutions and happy relationships. The point-of-view of others is respected; they have an equal right to their respective slants. The aim is to be nondogmatic and democratic, to keep the mind open for new insights. Only by accepting people as they are and trying to understand them can we live with them successfully. We do not make hard and fast judgments about people on the basis of past actions alone. We recognize that people change, and we have faith in them.

The Morains present too sugar-coated a picture of human relations. While in many situations their approach works, what about those where it doesn't, where other people refuse to work with us in good faith. Should we have respected the point-of-view of Hitler and Stalin? I suggest that we humanists should work to get people to resist prejudice, hatred, murder, and other evils that bring unnecessary suffering and death to human beings.

The authors counsel correctly that we can free ourselves of fears, tensions, frustrations, and hostilities--the inner demons urging us to self-destruction--through the humanist orientation, which gives self-respect, security, inspiration, and independence. This point of view is also valid in dealing with the social and economic situations of our time. "We ourselves must take responsibility for making the world a better place in which to live, as there is no being or power, called by whatever name, to whom we can shift this task."