Wishtank
The Evolution of the Humanist Manifesto
by: Garrett Heaney
In writing the intro to, Five Pages from Fromm: The Revolution of Hope, I revealed a small but definitive fact about the origins of Wishtank. The sentence I’m referring to reads: “This was the book I was reading when we were building Wishtank last year at this time, and it helped me construct our humanist perspective.”
Re-reading this, it dawned on me that, although much of our literature is humanist in nature, we have never made the assertion that we accept the lifestance of humanism. As Editor of this project, it is important to me that the Wishtank community maintains an openness in regards to our motivations and principles. Transparency, as we are learning, is a virtue of truly functional and sustainable communities. With this in mind, this essay will serve as both an educational article on the evolution of humanism, as well as a notice to our readers that Wishtank is, and has always been, a humanist journal.
As many do, I developed an understanding of humanism through literature, written by or about thinkers who promote humanist thought. I came to my personal understanding of humanism through the words of Kurt Vonnegut, R. Buckminster Fuller, Albert Einstein, Julian Huxley, Erich Fromm and members of the NEK tribe, including Spencer Ford, Dan Briggs and Justin Boland.
In more directed research, I read three versions of the Humanist Manifesto that were proposed by the American Humanist Association in 1933, 1973 and 2003 respectively. The document’s evolution over the course of 70 years is inspiring and prompted me to draw up this analysis. Before we get too far along, though, we should assert a working definition of humanism so that we can share a common understanding.
What is humanism?
Kurt Vonnegut, Honorary President of AHA from 1992 to his death on April 11, 2007
Vonnegut summed it up concisely when he said, “I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I’m dead.”
The most complete and agreeable definition that we have found, though, comes from The Humanist Magazine (a publication of the American Humanist Association):
“Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values — be they religious, ethical, social, or political — have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.”
One of the most definitive attributes of humanism is that it does not rely on the supernatural, or any perceived deity or divine force. In 1933, when the original Humanist Manifesto was published, the language was mostly about summoning religions to accept the core ideas behind humanism — the idea being that science had basically nullified the supernatural and theist ideas of the world’s religions. The Manifesto includes 15 affirmations.
The fifth affirmation reads:
“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.”
And the sixth reads:
“We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought.”
R. Buckminster Fuller
If we analyze this language, we can start to recognize a certain divisiveness it presents to the reader and to the world. While the majority of the manifesto conveys amazing ideas on the empowerment of humanity, intelligence and freedom, there is this one point of contention — the denial of the supernatural or God — that is capable of alienating a huge mass of people.
The second Manifesto, written 40 years later in 1973, makes even bolder claims — flat out rejecting supernatural, faith-based religion. The authors (Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson) express this immediately in the forward to Manifesto II:
“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.”
Manifesto II is also organized a bit differently, and groups its affirmations into various subheadings — starting with Religion — and goes on to make important insights on: Ethics, The Individual, Democratic Society, World Community and Humanity as a Whole. It also triples in word count from 1933, containing over 3,000 words. Out of those 3,000 words, I would guess that most of the compassionate population of Earth, regardless of religious affiliation, would be able to accept about 2,000 of them. But, in this manifesto too, there are points of contention regarding religion that are capable of alienating people who believe in God or any type of faith-based religion.
The tone of this statement, demonstrates the “fatal flaw” of an otherwise heroic manifesto:
“Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so… We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.”
Bucky Fuller
I should reiterate here, that it isn’t the subject matter of this statement that I, as a reader, am in disagreement with. It is the tone of the language — the insistence that a lack of scientific evidence somehow makes traditional religion meaningless or irrelevant. This strategy of language weakens the overall effectiveness of the Manifesto. It seems that the author is setting out to build a fence, draw a border, or otherwise limit the acceptability of the manifesto by using language that purposely excludes an entire population of humans who have sincere beliefs in God or unverifiable forces within the universe. This type of divisive language seems displaced in a document that otherwise sets out to unify humanity. Notice the stark contrast in language between this segment and the previous segments we’ve quoted from the same document:
“A humanist outlook will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together. This outlook emphasizes the role human beings can play in their own spheres of action. The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear-minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life.”
It is important to identify the purpose of the Humanist Manifesto, and the movement in general. Wishtank contends that it should be a movement of unity: to build a community centered around the universal goodness within humanity, with the common goal of improving life on Earth for all mankind. For this type of movement to be successful, there needs to be a universal appeal to the human race. It needs to be a movement of inclusion, not exclusion — of acceptance, not rejection — of diversity, not conformity. To properly express this sort of movement, the language within the Manifesto needed to evolve… and it did.
Manifesto III
The version that was drawn up in 2003, the latest version of the Manifesto, is one of the most optimistic pieces of literature we have as human beings today. Whereas Manifesto I and II seem to be occupied with setting boundaries, and establishing parameters, Manifesto III breaks down these walls. It is written with a sense of openness rather than pretension.
The issue of religion, that was so prominent and problematic in the first two versions, receives almost no attention. In fact, the word religion is never used within the 1,000-word document. The Manifesto declares its non-theist view respectfully in the opening sentence: “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
It is important to note that the foundation of the humanist lifestance never changed. The non-theist approach to improving human life on Earth did not, and has not changed. This was not the crux of the problem. The flaw in the early versions of the Manifesto lies specifically in the use of language — the communication technique.
Albert Einstein, HumanistManifesto III does, however, acknowledge that humanism as a movement, is evolving:
“The lifestance of Humanism — guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience — encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.”
Reading this, I came to the realization that we could gain a meaningful understanding of the movement’s evolution simply by focusing on language itself, and how it has evolved over the past 70 years, with each version of the Manifesto. The problematic language patterns within the first two versions of the Manifesto — i.e. that which are divisive and alienating — are indicative of weaknesses in the early humanist movement, and the human condition itself. As the lessons of evolution teach us, as a species evolves, weaknesses are shed and strengths are accentuated. Examining the language of Manifesto III, I find comfort in the fact that it has moved in the direction of openness, acceptance and diversity. It is language that I can accept personally, and composes a document that Wishtank, as a publication and community, can stand by. A conclusion as beautiful as this is hard not to embrace:
“Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.” •
To read these documents for yourself, follow these links:
• Garrett Heaney is the Founding Editor of Wishtank magazine. We would like to give a special thanks to Jennifer Bardi, Editor of The Humanist, for providing feedback on this essay, which was useful in its revision.
All materials published on wishtank.org are under the shared copyright protection of Wishtank magazine and the original authors, photographers and artists who created them. For contractual reprint or copy permission, contact Garrett Heaney at editor@wishtank.org. Wishtank likes to share, but looks out for our contributors. ©2007 and beyond