Discussion Group Report

David Niose is a lawyer in Massachusetts. He is a board member and the treasurer of the American Humanist Association and facilitator of Greater Worcester Humanists.

He believes that the non-theistic character of humanism is one of the biggest barriers keeping humanism from being a more prominent force in the United States. Most Americans just don't feel good about openly rejecting belief in a divinity. A University of Minnesota survey in 2006 found atheists are the most distrusted and disliked minority group in the country. An American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) from 2001 indicates that over 13% of the population identifies as secular/nonreligious, but only 1% identify as atheist, agnostic, or humanist.

For humanist activists trying to advance their world-view in a culture that discourages open non-theism, there have traditionally been two ways of dealing with this issue. Some do so by trying to hide the non-theistic nature of humanism, avoiding discussion of non-theism with the hope that maybe nobody will notice it. This approach rarely works, however, because most discussions of humanism with non-humanists inevitably result in the question: So are humanists atheists? Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public's perception of the atheist identity. This is a worth goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Give time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.

The question of atheism, and specifically how the public's poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: "When people ask me about atheism," she said, "I just tell them I consider myself "post theological". The brilliance of this idea is that by calling oneself "post theological" you aren't making rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in your identity. You are pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality.

The historical facts confirm this as an accurate world view. Before humans reached the level of intelligence necessary for theological inquiry, our ancestors were in what might be called the "pre-theological" stage. Like other animals, our distant ancestors lacked the intelligence necessary to achieve theological thought. But at some point in our historical development humans became intelligent enough to ask deep questions about the world, such as: How did we get here? Who made this place? Why does the sun rise, and why does lightning strike? What happens to us when we die? These are big questions that can only be asked by an animal with remarkable intelligence.

Interestingly, though the human animal became smart enough to ask such deep questions, it wasn't smart enough to answer them accurately; that's where theology came in. Lacking true scientific knowledge to answer these deep questions, humans instead speculated, inventing myths, superstitions, and tribal doctrines to provide answers. In doing so, they left the pre-theological stage and entered the theological stage of their development.

As the human race continues to acquire knowledge and understanding of the universe, we find that we are now answering many of the these deep questions, Questions of life's origins and evolution through science and studying the evidence of natural history all around us. We have discovered and now understand the great forces of the universe, like gravity, electricity, magnetism, nuclear energy etc. We understand what lightning is and why the sun shines. We now know that we are not the center of the universe. We have filled many of the "gaps" in our knowledge and can replace myths and stories with facts. We find more and more that the theological approach to these deep questions no longer has relevance. We are reaching the "post theological stage" of human development.

Open rejection of a divinity is very difficult for most Americans because "God" has personal characteristics that are often etched deeply into the psyche. But an indirect rejection, via the embrace of the post theological way of thinking, is less personal and perhaps allows for the psychological wiggle room that many find necessary.

The post-theological identity should be seen as an umbrella term, one that includes not only those who openly identify as atheist, agnostic, and humanist, but also many of those 13%, and possibly more, who are simply ambivalent and apathetic about religion. With these natural allies joined under the same umbrella, movement-building can only be made easier.