Sculptures at Vigelands park in Oslo. Photo: Mads Boedker/flickr CC
Reclaiming humanism
Janet Toye gives an insight into the history of a movement
The term ‘humanism’ has several meanings, including both a historical movement associated with the Renaissance, and a secular movement based on reason and ethics that rejects religious beliefs.
Ideas now recognised as being humanist in nature can be traced back to ancient China – for instance in the writings of Lao Tse and Confucius – and to the ancient Greeks. Such philosophies were independent of religious belief. However, from the fourteenth century onwards, during the Renaissance, what has come to be referred to as the western humanist tradition developed in a Christian context. It focused on man (humanity we would now say) and on human experience as the starting point for people’s knowledge of themselves, of God and of nature.
Scholars looked back in a spirit of admiration to the Greeks and Romans, their literature, art, history, philosophy and social thought. While Renaissance writings influenced by these ideas contradicted aspects of Christian doctrine in significant respects, especially the idea of the sinfulness of the human condition, the majority of Italian humanists with whom the movement began continued to take their Christian faith for granted.
The leading northern humanist, Erasmus, however, devoted himself to following the example of Christ’s life in the world, and used his classical scholarship to help spread the original teaching through editing and translating the Greek New Testament.
Today’s British Humanist Association (BHA) is in the modern secular tradition that first evolved during the eighteenth century as one strand of the Enlightenment. The fact that the BHA makes atheism an identifying characteristic of humanism no doubt explains why many people of faith do not want anything to do with it. Thus, contributors to the Friend sometimes write in alarm over the idea that the Religious Society of Friends includes people who regard themselves as humanists.
If we look at the full history of this very complex movement, humanism, during a crucial period of its development, was at one with religious faith. The fundamental question, then, is whether humanist ideas are valuable and, if they are, whether a humanistic philosophy is compatible with a theistic or spiritual approach. In my view it is more than compatible; a humanistic philosophy is fundamental to central Quaker testimonies on peace, social justice, equality and simplicity.
A way of testing this out is to look at how the BHA describe themselves: ‘atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values.’ (www.humanism.org.uk) While many Quakers would not describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, I suggest that the rest of this sentence is consistent with what many Friends believe. But our understanding of experience is wider; we include religious and spiritual experience. We also see human values as being influenced by such experience, by the teaching of Jesus and by other great religious teachers including George Fox, who urged his followers to turn towards the Light, which would show us the truth.
There is perhaps an irony in the fact that the BHA, an organisation concerned with the welfare of human beings, neglects a vital aspect of human experience: religious experience. The BHA goes on to say: ‘We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfilment’.
Here again Quakers may want to expand upon the statement by referring to how spiritual experience helps them take responsibility for their behaviour. But while they may sometimes find the best way to deal with a situation is to give it over to God, I doubt whether many Friends hold God rather than themselves responsible for their actions.
For these reasons I think that Quakers should challenge the idea that a belief in atheism is central to humanism, and take pride in being humanists. After all, why are we concerned about peace, about social justice, and about the future of a world threatened by climate change, if not because we want the best for humanity in terms of welfare, happiness and fulfilment?
