Out of the Closet

Musing (perhaps inadvertently) on the failings of organized humanism to promote a distinct identity for that worldview, Carlton Coon, writing at The Eloquent Atheist, notes that too many holding sympathetic views have hidden themselves in the closet.

When asked to state a religious affiliation, they’ll mumble that they’re Catholics or Lutherans or whatever, but they are humanists at heart, whether they know it or not, because their positions on all issues that matter are thoroughly secular, and not in the least based on the advice of whatever clergy they nominally follow. They don’t give a hoot about their church’s position on, say, birth control, and when they vote in elections, they vote on grounds that have nothing to do with religion. They are modern grown-ups except that they don’t publicly acknowledge the fact.

This stunted development is, to Coon, an apparent consequence of the lack of respect accorded admitted humanists. Therefore, it follows that continued efforts to ensure the separation of religion and government and to protect the rights on nonbelievers will eventually overcome the pervasive bigotry against nontheists and ready society for a wave of outted humanists, walking out of their walk-ins, emerging in the splendor of the humanist garments once kept in a dim corner, behind an old scouting uniform and a pair of unworn cycling shorts purchased with the best of intentions.

Buttressing the wall separating religion and government is important, as is ending discrimination against atheists, which is too easily accepted by otherwise thoughtful and tolerant members of our society. But, is the failure of humanism to gain traction attributable to its negative associations, or to the failure of the humanist movement to define and promote it as a worldview distinct from a generic secularism or atheism? I suspect it is the latter. And, further, I suspect that continued focus on such issues as the rights of nontheists and the separation of religion and government tend to blur the distinction between humanist organizations and others with a similar focus.

More distressing than the notion that promoting tolerance for the non-religious is the magic elixir that will bring humanism to the fore is the last paragraph in Coon’s essay, in which he expresses the need for solid humanist role models.

Jimmy Carter’s speech in Cuba could have been written by a humanist, and if he weren’t a committed Christian maybe someone could get to him. I really don’t know where to look at this point, but somewhere, there must be quite a few individuals who are both humanists at heart and recognized role models for important sectors of our nation; we ought to seek them out and encourage them to go public.

So, the best example of a humanist is a man as well known for his devout Christian faith as for his many good deeds. This is absurd. In framing the issue this way, “humanist” is relegated to service as an adjective as easily applied to liberal people of faith as to progressive atheists. It is a big tent, indeed, that such thoughts erect, but one that renders the idea of organized humanism or a distinctly humanist worldview irrelevant.

As has been routinely noted here and elsewhere, secular humanists share many (perhaps most) of their values with liberal adherents of various religious faiths, and with those who hold an essentially deistic view of the universe. Focusing on our commonalities is healthy and productive (the overlap of our magisteria, as it were, is substantial). But, unless humanist identity has a more precise meaning - as in “progressive atheism” or “ethical atheism” - its utility is lost.

Either we need some new thinking, or a new label. Not long ago, humanists bemoaned the frequency with which adjectival modifiers were attached to the label, as in “secular humanist” or “religious humanist” or “Jewish humanist.” Perhaps the march of modernity has relegated the word “humanist” itself to the status of modifier.

More on humanist / atheist identity in an upcoming post.