Review of our February meeting, held online, exploring definitions of Humanism.
Thank you to Helen Warner for the review.
Hester Brown, SELHuG Secretary, led us through an exploration of the definitions of Humanism. Starting with the 1952 Amsterdam Declaration, she reflected on the context in which this definition was written. The early 50s being post war, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the forefront of minds, the Cold War, the rise of totalitarian governments such as in China, a more mechanistic world with science providing new (terrifying) powers, and a demand for an alternative to religions. Humanism offered such an alternative, as a third way out of the ‘crisis of civilisation’. It was of course not a new sect, but the outcome of a long tradition that had inspired many of the world’s thinkers and creative artists and given rise to science itself. Ethical humanism was described as having 5 fundamentals: democratic | seeks to use science creatively, not destructively | is ethical | insists that personal liberty is an end that must be combined with social responsibility | is a way of life.
Link: The 1952 Amsterdam Declaration.
The Declaration was updated in 2002 with a shift in thinking away from the more fearful 1952 worldview, with the emphasis on Humanism as a distinct philosophy. There are now 7 fundamentals of Humanism as: ethical | rational | supports democracy and human rights | insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. | a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion | values artistic creativity and imagination | a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment.
Link: The current Amsterdam Declaration
Hester summarised this change diagrammatically:
There was much discussion around the two versions. We were asked to consider what it means to a personal perspective rather than a worldview?
We considered the changes in society over the last 20 years, such as the climate emergency and the need to reduce the stress on the earth’s resources. There is for example a tension where part of an answer to energy problems is deemed to be nuclear power. Other social changes include: the impacts of social media and technologies that distort information and blur ‘truths’; changes in warfare; greater emphasis on diversity and inclusion. There was a question on whether there is a place / need for Humanists to influence policy? We were asked to consider what is missing or needs changing in the current 2002 definition because Humanist International are going to canvas on whether the definition needs updating. The group felt that changes were needed but if the principles were strong enough, then one ought to be able to infer all other things from it as society changes. Finally, Hester gave a personal view of what might be changed and suggested that the SELHuG list of ‘humanist values‘ on our website could be revisited and then shared with Humanists International. She did leave us with these questions: Why can’t we talk about love and the power of hope? and How do we motivate people towards peace?
