I am a secular

With relatively little formal organization and a strong tendency toward independent thought, the nonreligious use many different labels to describe themselves. Many of us have adopted more than one label, vary our usage according to the situation, and consciously change our preferences over time. I’m certainly no exception to this pattern. Today, I would like to state that I have decided to adopt secular as my preferred personal label and to explain my reasons by comparing it to terms which I have used previously and which still accurately describe me.

atheist
+ general meaning is always understood
– precise meaning is often misunderstood (≠ certainty that gods don’t exist)
– does not communicate whether belief in absence or absence of belief
– says nothing about belief in supernatural in general
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

naturalist
+ communicates disbelief in all supernatural without emphasis on gods
– meaning is often misunderstood (≠ nudist, ≠ nature lover, ≠ scientist)
– does not communicate whether belief in absence or absence of belief
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

humanist
+ positive principles are more than rejection of supernaturalism
– positive principles are unremarkable in modern western society
– meaning is often misunderstood (≠ worship humanity, ≠ speciesist)
– often seems like an ideology rather than a simple description
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

freethinker
+ communicates an approach to claims rather than a particular belief
– used almost exclusively by atheists, so above distinction is lost
– meaning is generally not understood, requiring explanation
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

secular
+ meaning is usually understood
+ says nothing about belief or disbelief in anything
+ says that one is neither religious nor spiritual
+ greatest potential as umbrella term
– noun form is currently somewhat awkward

First, I acknowledge that whether a particular feature of a label is considered positive or negative is largely subjective, and thus I only claim to present my own opinion.

Second, I acknowledge that extending the meaning of secular from “not religious” to “neither religious nor spiritual” and using it as a noun rather than merely as an adjective are both somewhat novel, but I contend that these are reasonable extensions without obvious substitutes and that neither is unprecedented. In addition, the noun form can be avoided in most circumstances by using the adjective form instead, for example, by saying, “I’m secular,” just like someone might say, “I’m Hindu” or “I’m Buddhist.”

Third, I strongly prefer not to capitalize the term secular since it indicates the absence of an ideology and capitalizing it would suggest otherwise. Typographical conventions dictate that I nevertheless capitalize it the title, but I have chosen to ignore this rule in this instance—precisely because the title is so prominent—in order to avoid any potential confusion regarding my opinion on this matter.

Fourth, I want to distinguish a secular from a secularist: a secular is one who is neither religious nor spiritual whereas a secularist is one who believes the government should be neutral toward religion. This distinction mirrors the Christian/Christianist and Muslim/Islamist distinctions which have become increasingly familiar. In my estimation, almost all seculars are secularists, but most secularists are not seculars. In contrast, it’s almost impossible to imagine a Christianist who isn’t a Christian or a Islamist who isn’t a Muslim. This clearly speaks to the inherent fairness of secularism.

Fifth, I want to emphasize that I’m not rejecting any of the other labels on my list; I simply think calling myself a secular conveys just the right amount of relevant information when the topic of religion arises and provides me with a clear self-identity without committing me to any particular belief, principle, or ideology.

So until further notice, I am a secular first and foremost. It seems quite appropriate that I have finally landed on the same term that I chose when naming this blog over five years ago and largely for the same reasons!

Farthest from Traditional Religion

Yesterday I read an article that suggested that Unitarian Universalism is farther from traditional religion than even atheism despite the use of religious language, symbolism and ritual because UUism isn't focused on whether gods really exist whereas atheism is defined solely by its stance (or lack thereof) toward this question. Of course, many, if not most, UUs have an opinion whether any gods exist, and some may even think the answer important, but UUism as an ideology simply doesn't address the issue. I can appreciate the author's point, but I don't think this difference necessarily makes UUism farther from traditional religion; it may just make it equally far in a different dimension. Atheism retains the definition of “god” — even if only to argue that definition is incoherent — but denies that it corresponds to anything in reality whereas UUism, to the extent that UUs indeed use divine terminology, retains the word “god” but frequently changes its meaning to something other than a supernatural entity such as the universe itself or an abstract concept such as altruism. I argue that Humanism is farther from traditional religion than either atheism or UUism because it doesn't use the word “god” at all, and it also encompasses much more than an view on one particular topic.

But it's not a competition, and we have to remember there's significant overlap between the various groups. Over half of UUs consider themselves at least small-H humanists, a third agnostic, and almost a fifth atheist. (The choices weren't exclusive on the survey in question.) All big-H Humanists are by definition atheists, though I have no idea what percentage of explicit atheists consider themselves Humanists.

I know that some people dislike, or at least claim to dislike, personal labels, but I myself find them useful. (I refer to those other people as anti-labelists!) My blog certainly attests to my tendency to change and think about changing labels relatively often. I find that it helps me think more clearly about myself and my relationship to the world.

A Misanthropic, Pessimistic Humanist?

I've sometimes wondered whether it's truly possible for a misanthrope and a pessimist such as myself to be considered a Humanist, but after some reflection, I've concluded that these mental and emotional tendencies are irrelevant to the question and that it's only my principles, words and actions that are relevant. Here is the International Humanist and Ethical Union's Minimum Statement on Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

There is nothing in this statement suggesting I must have any positive feelings toward or confidence in humanity in order to call myself a Humanist.

It doesn't matter that almost everyone angers me from time to time with their irrationality, ignorance, selfishness and outright malice, that many people constantly disappoint me, or that I have a very low opinion of “the average person.” It only matters that I recognize that I, too, have numerous personal flaws, that I believe I'll be happier if I treat them sympathetically rather than disdainfully, and that I at least try to do so.

I don't know whether morality can be said to objectively exist, but I think a secular morality based on human needs and desires rather than a religious morality based on divine revelation is the most conducive to human happiness and can be universally applied.

I don't think humans are free in the sense that we instinctively imagine, but that doesn't mean that our lives have no meaning and that the illusion of free will isn't useful. An appreciation of determinism has greater potential to increase our power than it does to decrease it.

I don't think science can answer every question, but I know it can answer many and that religions can answer none.

I don't think democratic institutions regularly make decisions in the best interest of the governed, but I do think they make them much more often than any alternative, and I don't expect anything better to ever be developed.

I'm not at all confident humanity can solve most of its own problems, but I'm very confident that if any problems are solved, it will be our reason and compassion that save us rather than supernatural beings.

I'm not necessarily optimistic that civilization will avoid destroying itself, whether by global environmental degradation, nuclear holocaust, technological disaster or any other means, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to build sustainable societies and even eventually try to branch out into different worlds.

In my last entry I settled on “atheist” as my preferred label (without at all disclaiming the other candidates), but perhaps I should change once more to “Humanist,” having now determined that it suits me well despite the necessity of making the above qualifications to clarify my exact opinion. I have a tendency to be react belligerently, at least mentally, toward any mention of religion, and this does nothing but make me tense and angry, so a stronger identification with Humanism rather than atheism may serve me well. We'll see how it goes.

Reason & Compassion

The two keystone virtues of Humanism are reason and compassion. I've recently come to appreciate that on this blog, while I've emphasized the former thoroughly, I've somewhat neglected the latter. Since I believe this life is the only one we have, that we should make the most of it, and that we're happiest when we work with others to improve the world, my goal in writing should be to truly help others rather than simply entertain my readers by discussing the absurdity of religion.

It's easy enough to point out why a belief is false; it's more difficult, and more productive, to identify why it's believed and address a believer's deeper concerns. Let's look at an example. Modern science quickly and easily dismantles the creationist worldview as a matter of fact, but we need to realize the centrality of a creationist's belief that God is in total control of the universe and thus of their lives. We can, and we should, explain why their beliefs don't match reality, and we need not always be gentle in doing so, but we can't forget that creationists are humans just like ourselves who happen to have a mistaken viewpoint. If one is to make any progress in promoting any idea, it does no good to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees as stupid. We need to appreciate that creationists don't cling to a non-scientific view of the universe because they're truly convinced by the evidence that it's correct; they cling to it because they're afraid of what it means if it's wrong. It's important to explain, therefore, how evolution has provided us with an instinctive morality and the ability to reason, and that the sciences have given us a greater understanding and control of our lives than religion ever did. It's important to make them understand that accepting evolution doesn't equate with descent into moral anarchy. Laughing at believers can be fun, but it has only entertainment value and should never be the majority of my religious commentary because it serves only ourselves. Showing believers they don't need to believe in the supernatural in order to be happy, on the other hand, is a work of both reason and compassion.

The non-religious generally understand the practical impossibility of truly hating the sin while also truly loving the sinner, but I have failed to realize that in hating religious belief, I end up hating the religious believer. It's unacceptable, however, to have greater concern for an idea, whether that idea be religious or secular, true or false, than for humankind. Since my innate tendency is to do otherwise, I must focus more on loving the irrational person than hating their irrationality. None of this should at all imply that I should ever back down from communicating or defending my disbelief, simply that I shouldn't let winning every argument and pointing out every logical error forever trump all other concerns. Perhaps the most frustrating experience in life is attempting to have a conversation on a particular topic with a person who has adopted an irrational stance toward it, but that doesn't excuse me for becoming upset when I should anticipate the probable reaction from the beginning. It is irrational, and thus hypocritical, of me to expect others to be rational. I shouldn't even respond in kind to those who antagonize me. There is little virtue in treating people well who return the favor; there is, however, much in rising above pettiness and treating others with the compassion they have not earned.

Being Positive

Yesterday I finished taking my first set of finals in law school. I studied more for those four exams than I did combined over the course of six years pursuing two undergraduate degrees, when I found studying for tests mostly superfluous. I've also moved into a new apartment with my wife in a different part of the city. I mention all of this to explain my lack of activity on this blog in the past few months. Not only have I had very little time to actually write, but I've been so busy with my education, my marriage and our new dwelling that I haven't given religion much thought except where it happens to intersect with my daily life.

At some point, however, it seems there's really nothing more for me to say about humanity's innate tendency to think and act irrationally. I really tire of being so critical and negative, even when I think the target in question is fully worthy of all the disdain I could ever muster. I don't even know whether there's really something positive to promote in Humanism. Its ideals are so high-level as to be practically useless for daily living, and the non-religious tend to be so individualistic that we have difficulty organizing and building real communities. I intend to concentrate on developing my own personal virtue without reference to any ideology or philosophy.

Humanist Communities

There has been some recent discussion in the media and in the blogosphere about building Humanist communities, and I'd like to indicate my support for the idea and explain some of my thoughts.

The first question commonly asked is why Humanists don't just join a group of Unitarian Universalists. Some certainly do. As for me, though I have a positive opinion of UUs, I really prefer a group of people who generally share my beliefs, not simply a group of people who welcome me regardless of my beliefs. UUs emphasize love, peace and acceptance of all people, but not necessarily the critical thinking and intellectual rigor that I personally value so strongly. They use religious language and rituals in a non-dogmatic manner and they fully welcome atheists, but I much prefer to jettison anything from religion that suggests superstition and retain only the most humanistic elements of religious practice relating to the promotion of virtue and building of communities. These include such things as a recognizable name and symbol, meetings at least once per week, discussions of various topics, social activities, and small group interaction.

Here in Jacksonville, we have the First Coast Freethought Society, but I've only attended a couple of meetings. They only meet once a month on Monday nights, and the group consists almost entirely of senior citizens. I'm less than halfway to being a senior citizen and my wife is less than a third of the way there, so I have a more difficult time making social connections in such a group. There is also an atheist Meet-Up group with plenty of young members, and I've attended a number of their meetings, but the focus is almost exclusively on views of religion. Now I enjoy the criticism of religion more than almost anyone except perhaps some other bloggers, but sometimes I want to move beyond the inherent negativity in criticism and on to something more positive.

Since I've gotten married, my desire for such a community has noticeably weakened. An important part of that desire was to meet a young woman who shares my worldview, and now I have exactly that. I'm also much busier than previously with a wife and law school, so my life is rather full and I'd encounter difficulty in finding time to attend any meetings. I've already had to go on hiatus from improv comedy for several months, and if I find any extra time, it will be spent pursuing that first. If something new arises in the area, however, I hope to lend it whatever support I can manage.

Happy World Humanist Day!

Today is World Humanist Day, a day to celebrate and raise awareness of Humanism as a life stance. Unfortunately, this holiday holds even less significance for me than Humanlight since I know of no local events in which I can participate and it has no popular holiday to create a festive atmosphere from which it can indirectly benefit. Nevertheless, I would like to wish all of my visitors a Happy World Humanist Day! Perhaps next year I will have someone with whom to celebrate this special day.

Atheists Have Values, Too

It troubles me that people tend to interpret atheism as the repudiation of everything that religion happens to represent in their minds rather than simply the principled rejection of the core of religion, belief in the supernatural. While it's true that someone could be diametrically opposed to absolutely anything even remotely associated with religion, it's wrong to assume that atheists necessarily are; I certainly have never encountered one who was. As for me, I embrace a number of values which religions commonly profess to promote such as peace, justice, empathy, compassion, honesty, loyalty, responsibility, temperance, introspection and reflection.

I also, however, strongly embrace skepticism, which has led me to disbelieve the supernatural claims of upon which believers (wrongly) claim to derive their moral values, and freethought, which allows me to evaluate the worth of moral values with my own individual judgement rather than deferring to an unquestionable authority such as scripture or a religious leader. These twin values foster others which most religions don't inherently support and which some even explicitly oppose such as liberty, equality and secularism. They have also led me to reject irrationality, superstition, fear, hatred and ignorance, which most religions support or have supported to varying degrees throughout their histories. It is my skepticism and freethinking which distinguish me from believers, not a lack of virtue.

In truth, I yearn for a community in which I can foster my personal growth through contemplation of, discussion about and action based on my values without any compromise to supernaturalism. My several visits to a Unitarian Universalist congregation and my casual online investigation of Buddhism were part of an as-of-yet unsuccessful quest for such a community and identity. Humanism presents the greatest promise for fidelity to my beliefs, but it lacks the type of formal structure that I desire, perhaps for fear of being too similar to religion, and it's not distinct enough from increasingly humanistic western culture to provide a unique focus and identity. All I can say is that I'm a naturalist in search of a place to call home.

’Tis the Season

Regular visitors, if indeed I have any, will notice that I've added a logo to the site indicating that I celebrate Humanlight, a Humanist winter holiday about reason, compassion and hope. In order to avoid any possible copyright violations, I've created my own image without the logo from the official website and I'm rather pleased with the result. In my opinion, a burning candle symbolizes the idea of Humanlight much better than a shining sun. The festival occurs at the time of year when the sun provides the least amount of light and heat in the northern hemisphere, where the majority of humanity resides. Furthermore, the sun is a natural object whereas a candle is a human artifact, one which represents our ability to illuminate a dark world using the power of our reason and creativity. If anyone wishes to use the image I created on their own websites, then please do so.

This is my third year observing this festival and I intend to make this year the most meaningful yet. I've enjoyed starting my own traditions and personalizing my observance of this new holiday. Last year I purchased a simple metal candlestick and a white candle which each evening several weeks prior to December 23rd I lit while saying, “May the light of human reason illuminate a dark world.” This year I plan to repeat this ritual, to decorate my balcony with colored lights and to devise other ways to mark the holiday. I still observe Christmas by exchanging gifts, dining and visiting with my Christian family on December 25th as well as with my co-workers earlier in the season, but I would like to focus on Humanlight rather than a formerly religious and now essentially consumerist holiday.

Labels Galore

We nonreligious have a remarkable number of labels with which we identify ourselves. I acknowledge that each has a unique denotation and connotation, that we disagree amongst ourselves what each one means, that we debate the merits of the options and that we often change labels, but the terms greatly overlap and tend to describe essentially the same group of people. Here is an incomplete list:

• agnostic
• antitheist
• apatheist
• atheist
• bright
• doubter
• freethinker
• godfree
• godless
• heathen
• heretic
• humanist
• ignostic
• infidel
• irreligious
• materialist
  
• naturalist
• nonbeliever
• nontheist
• nonreligious
• rationalist
• realist
  
• secularist
• skeptic
• unbeliever

We often subdivide atheism into at least two types:

• weak / strong
• negative / positive
• implicit / explicit

And we have at least two words to label those who used to be religious:

• apostate
• deconvert

If you have another fairly common label which I have forgotten, please post it in a comment and I will consider adding it to this catalogue of nonreligious labels. I have almost certainly forgotten one of the numerous names we call ourselves.

Naturalist as a Label

Although I've never actually disliked the term atheist as a personal label, I've come to appreciate a reason to prefer an alternate label: it's just too specific. Referring to someone as an atheist says that they don't believe in any deities, but it doesn't say anything about their beliefs regarding other supernatural concepts. Although they generally don't, an atheist could believe in life after death, ghosts, spirits, auras, astrology, numerology, karma, fate or any other number of supernatural entities or forces. In light of this, I have a theoretical preference for the term naturalist, but I have concerns regarding its practical usage. If I tell someone I'm a naturalist and they then ask what that means, I can explain that I don't believe in anything supernatural. If they don't ask, however, I'm afraid they will either think that I'm just interested in the outdoors, think that I'm a nudist, or simply not understand. I've identified as a Humanist in certain circumstances, but I feel this term simultaneously says too much and too little about what I think. I would really rather err on the side of saying too little and avoid mischaracterizing my beliefs, which are constantly being refined and reanalyzed in the light of new experience. I suppose that I'll adopt naturalist as my preferred label for now and see how it goes.

Perceptions about Atheists

I have come to the conclusion that the negative perception of atheists by theists seems to result primarily from interaction with two distinct groups. The first group is what I here term militant atheists. I fully realize that this term has been greatly abused by theists, but sometimes it's a completely appropriate description of certain individuals who are aggressively antagonistic toward believers without provocation. This group is rather small, but I can attest from personal experience that they in fact do exist and that they create quite an impression on the believers whom they encounter. The second group is what I here term delinquents. It includes criminals, thugs, hoodlums, hooligans, vandals and every other variety of habitually selfish jerk. Delinquents can be theists or atheists, but they are not representative of either group because of their marked lack of empathy. Theists often wrongly interpret, however, the lack of religious piety among this group as atheism even though it indicates only that they don't really follow a moral code, religious or otherwise. I believe the reason for this problem is that moral behavior is an inherent part of the concept of religious piety in the minds of most people. A delinquent theist is often dismissed as “not really a Christian,” but no one says that a delinquent atheist is “not really an atheist” because of his immorality. In fact, I have heard the exact opposite, that someone cannot possibly be an atheist precisely because he's moral!

I think there are ways to address these two sources of misunderstanding about atheists. First, although we can't really do much to convince truly militant atheists to calm down and relax, regular atheists can make themselves known as atheists. A theist who only meets militant atheists and a theist who meets a dozen regular atheists for every militant atheist will have very different perceptions of atheists in general. Second, we need to cultivate an image of a thoughtful, considerate atheist to correspond to the thoughtful, considerate theist that people already call pious. In order to do this, I don't think we can content ourselves with just simple atheism. An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in gods. The word atheist says absolutely nothing about their other beliefs or actions and is no more useful than the word theist when referring to individuals. We need to move beyond our lack of religion and formulate what we do believe and value. I personally prefer the philosophy of Humanism, as I have explained previously, and I identify as a Humanist rather than as just an atheist whenever I can. It distinguishes me from nihilists, from postmodernists, and most especially from delinquent atheists. It says something about my principles and it identifies me as someone who cares about reason and compassion rather than just saying that I don't believe in gods. I'm not suggesting that everyone necessarily adopt this particular label, but I think it's a good idea to indicate what you think beyond your opinion on the single issue of the existence of deities.

Perhaps some readers will disagree with my desire to see atheists and theists in the same category, but I encourage them to remember that it's only with respect to their thoughtfulness and consideration. There is still a world of difference to distinguish the two groups.

Humanist On Board

Last week I became a slightly more visible Humanist when I attached a Happy Human emblem to the back of my car which I had ordered from EvolveFISH.com. I generally prefer that symbol over other secular symbols because it's positive: it doesn't attack religion, it represents what I do believe, and it's actually rather cheerful. With respect to this purchase, I also prefer it because religious bigots are unlikely to recognize it and are therefore less likely to vandalize my personal property. I have heard about someone whose Happy Human had its arms and legs broken off, but I'm sure it's far less common than vandalism to Darwin fish. I haven't received any reaction from it so far and I really don't expect any.

A Visit to a Unitarian Universalist Service

This morning I visited the Buckman Bridge Unitarian Universalist Society, one of the two Unitarian Universalist congregations here in Jacksonville, for the first time. Although I have been aware of UUism for a couple years and have read about it online more than once, yesterday I decided almost on a whim to check out a service and see what it was like. BBUUS is closer to my home than the other congregation and I was also attracted to their lay leadership, which I presume results in a greater variety of speakers and thus viewpoints.

The Sunday service begins at 10:30am, but not knowing how long it would take to drive there, I arrived not long after 10:00am. Although I should have gone inside immediately, I felt somewhat nervous and sat in my car in the parking lot until almost 10:20am. The congregation doesn't own their own building at present, so they rent a small community center which resembles a church from the outside and a theater from the inside. I later learned that they own a property on the opposite side of the river upon which they have long-term plans to construct their own building. Immediately upon entering I was greeted by a woman designated to greet members as they arrived. I was encouraged to make a name tag for myself and sign their guest book, which I did gladly. All of the regular members of the congregation have computer-printed name tags which they put on inside the building and which are kept on a large board on a table. Not all of those in attendance wore their name tags for whatever reason, and it initially seemed slightly corny, but it was helpful for me as newcomer. The original greeter introduced me to several other members and I picked up some materials before sitting down in my chair near the back of the seating area, where I glanced through the program for the day and the hymnal. The main area consists of perhaps one hundred chairs arranged in rows facing the front with an aisle down the center where at the far end is a podium with table upon which is a candle and metal ring resembling the UU logo. While I was sitting there I encountered a young woman I had met online over a year ago whom I knew was a member of this congregation and then a former coworker whom I did not. Two other women sitting nearby also introduced themselves to me. There were about eighty people in attendance when the time arrived to begin.

The service was lead by a lay woman who said a few opening words before asking visitors to stand and introduce themselves. I introduced myself with a few words after two other visitors on the opposite side of the room had done the same. Then the lay leader “lit” the candle in front of the podium, which consisted in turning on what I then saw was an electric candle. It seemed somewhat odd to use an artificial candle, but perhaps there is a good reason for this. Next there was something called the “call to worship” which consisted of a four-line poem recited by the congregation. Afterward there was a “story for all ages”, which was a short children's book read by the lay leader, presumably for the children right before they left for their separate religious instruction in another room or maybe even building. Then it was time for a few quick announcements. Next was something called “sharing of personal joys and concerns” during which members of the congregation came forward to present personal news. As they did this, they symbolically took a small polished stone from a container and placed it in a big bowl in front of the candle. There were about five or six people who came forward and afterward the lay leader placed “silent stones” for other people who raised their hands before placing one additional stone for everything else. Next came the offering plate to which I contributed a small amount. Then everyone sang a hymn from the hymnal which I didn't know and which I tried my best to sight-read. After that it was time for the speaker, an Iranian member of the Baha’i religion who discussed the common foundations of all religions. As an atheist, I don't believe the common foundations of religion are divine but rather purely human, but I enjoyed his sermon and it served the purpose of getting me to think about this topic. Afterward there was a comment and question session during which I asked why, if they all come from the same “source”, were claims to exclusivity so common among world religions. His answer was in agreement with everything else he said and plausible within that context. I don't accept the premise that a deity exists, an idea which he asked the non-theists in attendance to entertain for the sake of argument, but his discussion was interesting and worth listening to. It was refreshing to be able present one's comments and questions during the official service in a democratic manner. The service ended with another unfamiliar hymn and a few closing words by the lay leader.

After the service I spoke with several more members of the congregation who asked me about my background and what brought me to their service today. I also got some apple juice and a chocolate-frosted doughnut decorated to resemble a football. After about fifteen minutes talking to several different people, I said that I would return the following week and then drove home.

The experience was quite positive. The organization and many individual members went out of their way to welcome me and make me feel comfortable. Unitarian Universalists hold a wide variety of beliefs regarding religion. A fair number of them are atheists and agnostics, a majority even identify themselves as humanists, and this particular congregation even had the Happy Human on the program with assorted religious symbols, so I felt fully comfortable saying that I was a Humanist. From what I had read online about other locations, I was afraid that the congregation would be made up mostly of older people with whom I would have less in common, but there were people of all ages including some young adults around my age and perhaps ten or fifteen young children with their parents. The service was positive with only the most innocuous references to the divine, no prayers, no mention of sin or anything else that would have made me feel uncomfortable. I enjoyed it and intend to attend again next week.

I am quite firm in my atheism and I am not seeking a god whom I don't believe exists. Rather I am seeking a sense of community among a group of people with similar values and, if not similar beliefs, at least similar outlooks on the formation of beliefs. I am seeking to expand my social circle and meet new people. I am seeking to hear new ideas and to share my own ideas with others in a friendly, welcoming environment. This Unitarian Universalist congregation seems like an excellent place to do this seeking.

Secular Ethics

In addition to the editorial on the benefits of worship, today we find yet another letter about atheism and Humanism. This letter by Carrie Renwick, president of the First Coast Freethought Society, was published today under the heading, “Secular Humanism: Ethics derived from within.”

Thumbs up to the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism for his defense of secular humanism! As the voice of secular humanism on the First Coast, the First Coast Freethought Society applauds his contention that secular humanists are just as moral, brave and patriotic as religious people.

Churches demonize secular humanists in the pulpit, but look around. I am your neighbor. I am your co-worker in the cubicle next to yours. I am your doctor. I am a member of your family. Unless I tell you that I am a secular humanist, you will think that I am good, joyful, moral and happy because of God or religion.

Humanists affirm that ethics are derived from the application of reason and from within, not from religious scripture like the Bible. We reject the supernatural. We affirm science as the best way to understand the natural world and our place within it. We believe that this Earth is the only home we have. Therefore, we must treat it with care for the benefit of future generations. We affirm that life in this world is the only life we have, so we should live it to the fullest and be as kind to each other as possible.

If you agree with these affirmations, you could find a home in our group. You can find out more about us at firstcoastfreethoughtsociety.org.

There is not much to comment upon with the text itself, but I am pleased to see more positive exposure for Humanism within the local press, especially from a local resident!

Due to conflicts with my work schedule, I have only been able to attend one monthly meeting of the First Coast Freethought Society in the past two years, but it was a positive experience and I wish that I could attend more often. Almost every member was at least twice and in some cases three times my age, and it would be better if organization had more members from every age group, so I regret that I cannot currently help diversify the membership by my own attendance. If you are a local reader, please consider visiting their website.

Atheists in Foxholes

After the conflicting claims made by two letter writers regarding atheism which appeared during the first week of the year, it was not surprising to find yet another letter on the topic this week. This letter by Norm Allen, assistant director of the Council for Secular Humanism, was published today under the heading, “Atheists: Studies are ambiguous.”

A recent letter writer challenged the notion that atheists are better behaved than theists, and that there are thousands of atheists in foxholes.

The truth is that there are studies that both support and refute the first claim. (Still, it is a curious fact that one rarely finds atheists in jails and prisons.)

However, there is no doubt regarding the second claim. In fact, there is an organization called the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers that works hard to put this vicious lie to death. As a member for the past 17 years of a leading secular humanist organization, I have personally met hundreds of former atheist military members all over the world who have served courageously in battle. Indeed, Paul Kurtz, the leading secular humanist in the world, served valiantly during World War II. The letter writer seems to think because he commanded a battalion in Vietnam that he knows for certain that there were no atheists on the battlefield. However, he would have to be God himself to know this for certain. In any case, even if there were no atheists in Vietnam, that would hardly prove that God exists. After all, during times of war, people are most likely to revert to all kinds of superstition out of fear and desperation.

What would really be shocking is if there were no atheists in science labs and philosophy classes, where reason, rather than fear and irrationality, is more likely to prevail.

I am familiar with Mr. Allen from his appearances on multiple radio shows and podcasts and am pleased that he mentioned the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers to counter the simply anecdotal claim by the writer of the anti-atheist letter to which he is responding. My only disappointment is that this letter was written by someone outside of the area instead of by a local resident like the original pro-atheist letter. The people of Jacksonville need to understand that there are more atheists, agnostics and other non-believers in the area than they probably think. The first step toward being respected for any group is standing up and being heard.

Atheism is Not a Religion

Critics of atheism often claim that atheism itself is a religion, but I have never encountered any atheist who agrees with this view. Atheists insist rather that atheism is the lack of religious belief. I would like to examine the idea that not believing in any gods is a religion by analyzing two associated claims.

“Atheism requires faith.”

This often seems to mean only that the speaker believes atheism to be incorrect, so therefore it requires faith to believe that it is correct. If this were so, then one could claim every view with with one disagrees is a religion, whether the question is religion, politics, economics, science, history or even sports. This is obviously absurd.

A more charitable interpretation of this statement is that the speaker believes that there is no proof for atheism, thefore it requires faith to believe it is true. There are at least two problems with this. First, weak atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. A weak atheist doesn't make a claim about gods to consider true, so there can be no faith. Second, strong atheism indeed does make a claim that no gods exist, but this is based on the lack of evidence for gods and certain arguments like the problem of evil. It is true that this does not constitute absolute proof, but that doesn't mean it is believed on faith. We don't have absolute proof that the atomic theory of matter is correct, but the evidence points in that direction and it's reasonable to believe it. We also don't have absolute proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but again the evidence points in that direction and no one claims that disbelieving in Santa is a matter of faith. If one wants to argue that atheists just don't have good evidence, that is reasonable, but as discussed above that doesn't entail that atheism is a religion unless one wants to label as a religion every opinion with which one disagrees based on the evidence.

“Atheism worships mankind.”

The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods. Outside of this one opinion, there is infinite variety of other opinions. Some atheists are liberals while some are conservatives, while others are libertarians or socialists or fascists or communists or even monarchists. Some atheists believe in nothing supernatural while others believe in ghosts and the afterlife. Some atheists attend religious services while others don't. Some atheists are open about their disbelief while others hide it. Some denounce religion while some want to preserve it, while others simply don't care. There are general tendencies one can identify among atheists, such as the tendency to think independently, but even this tendency is a source of more disunity than unity. It has been said, correctly in my estimation, that organizing atheists is like herding cats. The reason is that atheists are a negatively defined group. It makes as much sense to make generalizations about people who don't believe in gods as it does to make generalizations about people who don't like chocolate ice cream.

People who make the claim that atheists worship mankind make two major mistakes. First, they think that all atheists are Humanists and thus they use the terms interchangeably. This is simply not true; nihilists are just one example of atheists who are not Humanists. Incidentally, many of the very same people also claim that atheists don't believe in morality, making the exact opposite error of thinking that all atheists are nihilists. Second, they think Humanists worship mankind, but this is also simply not true. Humanists do consider humans to be the most advanced beings we know about and do think humans should solve their own problems without help from deities, but that certainly doesn't constitute worship in any sense. Yes, there are a small number of Humanist celebrants who perform certain secular ceremonies like marriages and funerals, but none of these gatherings involve anything resembling worship like kneeling before humans and offering prayers. These ceremonies instead fulfill the desires some people have for formal rituals like graduation. No one claims that schools worship education simply because they recognize students who do well in a formal program! It should also be noted that only a tiny fraction of Humanists have ever attended even one of these services and most aren't even interested in special Humanist ceremonies. Humanism is more of a label than anything else.

Why do religious people make the argument that atheism is a religion? At first it seems odd because they themselves are religious and they obviously don't consider religion to be inherently bad. I presume, however, that it's a defense mechanism because they encounter atheists who criticize religion as irrational, so they label atheism as a religion in order to cast atheists as hypocrites. This argument might convince many faithful, but it holds no weight for atheists who understand their own position.

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. — Unknown

Happy Humanlight!

Humanlight is a Humanist holiday celebrated today, December 23rd, as a secular counterpart to Christmas, Hanukkah and other religious winter holidays. According to the official website, it celebrates the Humanist vision of the future. It is my opinion that, given the name and the proximity to the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere, we should celebrate the growing light of human reason against the darkness of ignorance.

The celebration of Christmas is sufficiently secular that I feel completely comfortable celebrating it, but I like the idea of adding a Humanist holiday to the calendar. Happy Humanlight!

Reflections on Humanism

What is Humanism? Humanism is a philosophy of life which affirms that the only solutions to human problems are to be found in humans themselves. In particular, Humanists value:

• naturalism
  
• rationality
• science
  
• democracy
• human rights
  
• secular ethics based on human compassion
• meaning found in human relationships

Naturalism here denotes metaphysical naturalism, which is the disbelief in everything supernatural such as gods, angels, devils, ghosts, spirits, souls, blessings, curses, prayer, magic, sin and grace. Although humanism (small h) does not strictly require naturalism, Humanism (capital h) does.

Humanism shares several important features with religion, but it is not a religion because it has no belief in the supernatural. Additionally, there are no holy books, no temples, no priests, no rituals and no dogma. I tend to think of it as a philosophy of life, but others prefer to call it a life stance, an umbrella term intended to include both religions and philosophies.

It is my opinion that Humanism serves primarily as a label, though a very useful label with an important purpose. One doesn't accept Humanist principles after encountering Humanism; rather one realizes that one already holds these principles and decides to identify as a Humanist. Identifying as a Humanist doesn't affect one's daily life; the principles themselves could affect it, but even then there are no special Humanist practices resembling religious practices to give life meaning. Nevertheless, Humanism provides many atheists and agnostics with a positive label which describes what they do believe instead of what they don't believe, distinguishes atheists who hold these principles from those who do not, and allows them to organize based on these shared principles.

I am proud to say that I am a Humanist.