Paul Kurtz

Agenda for humanism in the twenty-first century

Paul Kurtz is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, State University of New York, and a former Co-president of the IHEU and has written many books on humanist themes. We reproduce here an abridged version of an article in which he presents possibilities and directions for an international perspective in the future. After considering the far-reaching consequence of scientific and technological development and the economic globalisation of the world, he considers the democratic revolution.

Of special interest to humanists is the fact that the democratic revolution is now truly global, with no region immune to the appeal of democracy. The defeat of fascist regimes in the second World War and its aftermath, and of most (but not all) totalitarian communist regimes since, has led to an of the Cold War. Of great significance is the steady growth of multiparty pluralistic democratic ideals. Democratic systems are being restored everywhere from Spain and Portugal in Western Europe, to the new democratic governments of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Even where authoritarian regimes remain strong, the moral and practical appeal of democracy is recognised. By this is meant first and foremost, ‘political democracy’ ie, majority rule and the use of the electoral mandate to select the political leaders and to determine the main policies of government; the legal right of opposition; the right of dissent; the rule of law; and civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press and voluntary association. Increasingly it is recognised however, that a political democracy is merely formal unless the methods of democratic participation are extended to other institutions of society.

This is part of a moral revolution that is making some headway throughout the world, though not without strong opposition. In a real sense, what is distinctive to humanism it its commitment to a set of ethical values. For the humanist the central value is the achievement of the good life here, now and for each and every person. This means self-realisation, creative fulfilment, and joyful exuberance. In a just society every person is equal in dignity and value. This means each individual (whether the ruler or the ordinary citizen) is equal before the law and should not be deprived of the opportunity to participate in society and achieve the good life. It also means that no person should be denied equal access because of race, creed, ethnic or national origin, gender or sexual orientation. The right to self-determination is thus basic. Individuals ought to be given the freedom to select their own values, careers, partners, or lifestyles so long as they do not deny the same right to others. This entails the right to privacy, but concomitant with this is the need to develop moral education and moral growth. This is essential in educating young children to develop self-respect, to respect the rights of others and to develop the capacity for critical thinking and reflective choice. An open, democratic society will permit freedom of choice, but also encourage personal responsibility. Society may, of course restrict an individual’s liberty by democratic law, but such limits should be in accordance with demonstrated social need. The humanist defends tolerance as a basic moral principle, but this does not mean that ‘anything goes’; for the humanist affirms the existence of objective standards of morality based on rational inquiry.

What is emerging today is a new humanistic morality, and a new planetary society with concomitant duties and obligations. This concerns not only the self-determination of individuals and some multicultural freedom for different cultural groups, but an appreciation for humanity as a whole; that is, the recognition that we all have a humanitarian concern for all parts of the human family. Thus over and beyond the right to self-determination for individuals and cultural traditions is the recognition that there are universal ethical values and rights, which transcend the limits of ethnicity, nationality or cultural identity. Thus humanism provide a set of ethical standards for the global community, and it is this that needs to be emphasised over and over again, especially in view of ethnic conflicts that we now encounter on a planetary scale. What we are confronted with today, however, in large sectors of the globe are dogmatic moral systems, handed down by tradition and custom. Many of these are rooted in ancient religious belief systems which were spawned in agricultural nomadic societies, or rigid bureaucratic patriarchal systems. This engenders ethnic chauvinism, tribal loyalty and hatred.

What is especially surprising today, given the rapidity of scientific, technological, economic, political and moral change on a global scale, is the persistence of ancient religious systems: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. These systems provide belief in the supernatural deity or deities, and also in the idea of human salvation and obedience to divine commandments. Humanism is non-theistic and it rejects these supernatural doctrines and provides a naturalistic humanist alternative. The central issue concerns the meaning of life and the role of the human person on this planet. The humanist outlook is based upon the sciences; that is, upon the best theories that have been developed and have been experimentally verified. Humanism draws upon the physical, biological, social and behavioural sciences in order to explain how nature operates and why human beings behave the way they do. And we wish to use reason to resolve our problems, not placate a non-existent God for succour. What we are confronted with are ancient metaphysical and supernatural systems, which seek to explain the universe and attempt to derive moral and in many cases even political ctions from their religious faith. Basically, religious belief systems go unchallenged; in many or even most societies individuals never hear the rational critique of revelation of the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas or other sacred books. In many societies, there has been an outburst of new irrational cults, occult superstitions, psychic and paranormal in character.

Side by side with these systems of belief the non-theistic, rationalistic ad scientific outlook continues to make gains, but is constantly threatened by dogmatic otherworldly and spiritualistic outlooks. In Muslim countries fundamentalists seek to suppress any dissent, modernism or secularism. In Europe the Vatican attempts to re-Christianise the world. In North ad South America evangelic Protestant fundamentalists have considerable influence, economic and political power. And in India, Hinduism has had a resurgence. The world is today split by warring religious factions. These groups resist strenuously the growth of secular and humanist ideas, which they believe threaten their hegemony. The battle for the minds and souls of humans beings is ongoing: and no one can predict with certainty which ideological-theological forces will emerge victorious in this contest.

Paul Kurtz then considered some theoretical recommendations, which emphasised that ‘humanism is a method of inquiry.’ That humanists have often been on the cutting edge of social reform. Humanists defend reason and ‘do not believe in a divine reality, nor in the view that human salvation depends on God; we wish to use our won resources, reason and courage to solve our problems. The central concern is the meaning of life …. We need to espouse clearly that humanist ethics is viable and wholesome and it can provide a basis for the good life. It is this ethical stance that we need to dramatise as essential to the humanist alternative.’

Concrete recommendations

The IHEU was founded in 1952 as a coalition of humanist and ethical organisations in a number of countries. It was incorporated in New York State where the United Nations is located; but its international headquarters was established in Utrecht, Holland, largely because of the interest of Jaap van Praag of the Dutch Humanists League. After the resignation of van Praag as president of the IHEU the board decided to initiate a troika of three co-presidents, a system that has now prevailed for over 20 years. The IHEU has been predominantly a Northern and Western European/North American organisation. For the first thirty years of existence, there were very few non-European or non-American organisations as members. It has only been in the past decade that organisations of Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America have increased their numbers dramatically. It has grown in the past decade from 35 organisations in 21 countries to more than 90 in 30 countries.

The IHEU has had some success in its brief history. It has formed in international community of like-minded humanists, secularists, atheists, rationalists and freethinkers. It has provided a basis for co-operative projects, a forum where we can learn from each other.

The IHEU has had three broad purposes: to stimulate and co-ordinate the activities and policies of existing members organisations, to stimulate and support the growth of new organisations in countries and regions of the world where they do not exist, and to participate in international bodies in order to defend and advance humanist concerns. It does so by intercommunication, participation in international conferences and congresses, and by publishing a newsletter.

The IHEU has enormous potential in the present context to make the humanist position better known and to develop a global ethical outreach, to defend freedom of conscience and to show that there is a genuine alternative to theistic religions.

I think that we should consider shortening the name of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. When the IHEU was founded, the Ethical Union was more prominent in many countries than it is now. Its name was due to historical reasons, which no longer exist today. There are many secular/freethought/atheist groups in the IHEU, yet their names are not in the title. Therefore there is some rationale to shorten the title to simply the International Humanist Union, IHU.

The strategy of development of humanism in various countries and regions of the world will depend on the specific contextual situation. The programmes and activities most relevant thus need to be adapted to local or regional needs.

I would recommend, however, that each national organisation develop a humanist publication (virtually all now do so) and that wherever possible funds be made available to stimulate the creation of such magazines in new organisations and countries.

Many organisations in the IHEU are democratic voluntary associations run by elected boards. This is well and good. Often such organisations, however, have foundered because they lack professional staff. There is thus an urgent need to develop a professional cadre of humanist leaders, educators, or mentors. In order to do so we need training programmes, schools, institutions, colleges and universities. These are already being formed in several countries and other countries should follow the lead and do so for their own areas.

As far as practical, national organisations need to buy or build permanent headquarters buildings. This is happening in many countries where building programmes are now underway, such as Norway, India, the UK, Germany, the US, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Every effort must be made to be heard in the mass media and to transmit humanist ideas on radio, television and the print-media. This should be primarily on the national level, but also on the international level. Basically, the IHEU is woefully lacking in this regard.

We need to use the arts, drama, music more than we have to appeal to the whole person. Until now, our primary emphasis has been upon intellectual issues, but we need also to appeal to the heart and the emotion, and every effort should be made in our programmes and conferences to include such appeals.

We critically need programmes in moral education for children, education in science and critical thinking in which the humanist point of view and the humanist critique of religion is presented. We also need adult programmes of education explaining the humanist point of view.

We have been critics of traditional religion, yet in many countries humanists, out of fear of timidity, wish to mute this. This is of course, their choice. Humanism is under attack everywhere. I see no reason why we should be hesitant or deny our position. Actually, there are very few atheist, agnostic or sceptical voices critical of religion. This is especially so today with the virtual collapse of the freethought movement allied to Marxism. Therefore, I submit that humanist organisations and individuals should encourage the publication of ideas critical of religious claims that we consider to be insufficient. But we should not be simply negative; we must always present the positive humanist alternative.

In the past decade there have been strenuous efforts by relatively few in our midst to contribute to the growth of humanist organisations. We have made strides, but we have a long way to go. Since there are now nearly 200 countries on the planet, we need to extend our efforts. We need to help spread humanism further.

In conclusion, there is a vast potential for the growth of humanism worldwide. There is a large reservoir of talent in humanist ranks. We need to tap these energies. We need a more militant outreach. We need to overcome lethargy and inaction. I strongly urge my colleagues to take these recommendations seriously.