Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Why secular humanism can do what atheism can't
Atheism doesn't offer much beyond non-belief, can secular humanism fill the gaps?
- Atheism is increasingly popular, but the lack of an organized community around it can be problematic.
- The decline in social capital once offered by religion can cause severe problems.
- Secular humanism can offer both community and meaning, but it has also attracted controversy.
People aren't as religious as they used to be.
The decline of these traditional belief systems is a tragedy for some and a cause for celebration for others. There is an element of it that causes a problem for everybody, though. As the old religious ties that bind decline, the communities associated with them start to go too. This isn't to say that a neighborhood without a church will immediately start to decay into poverty, violence, and misery but that the social element of these organizations was essential to people and without it, we've got problems.
Twenty years ago, Robert Putnam argued that Americans were starting to suffer from too much alone time and too little community connection in his book Bowling Alone. He wouldn't be shocked by what we see today.
Twenty-two percent of millennials say they have no friends, and the elderly are cripplingly lonely too. People aren't as involved in community organizations as they used to be. These things are terrible for both our health and communities. While the reasons for this aren't well known, the decline in social capital Putnam described probably has something to do with it.
While the decline of religious belief and attendance at mainstream churches in general isn't the only reason for this decline, the traditional place of religion in American life means that lower church attendance can be a destabilizing factor. Say what you will about churches, they were great generators of social capital.But nothing in that theory of social capital demands that we go back to the previous model of generating said capital. New systems that create community can do the trick too. As old ideas and ways of connecting with others fall apart, new ones rise to replace them; among them is the famous and infamous philosophy of secular humanism.
What is secular humanism?
The people over at the Center for Inquiry define secular humanism as "A comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance." They further explain this by saying:
"Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life."
The American Humanist Association has a similar definition, calling the life stance:
"A progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
How is this different from atheism?
Atheism means one thing and one thing only, the non-belief in any deity. It doesn't mean anything further than that. This is how you can get people as different as Joseph Stalin, Ayn Rand, and Carl Sagan to all fit into the Atheist category.
While people of all persuasions try to argue that this non-belief necessarily leads a non-believer to support other positions, these arguments fall short. If atheism did inevitably lead to other specific believes and values, the diversity of ideologies seen in the above three examples should be impossible.
There isn't even just one kind of atheism; there are several based on precisely what a person doesn't believe in and how they came to that stance.
Secular humanism, on the other hand, makes several claims. It advances a consequentialist ethics system; it affirms the values of self-realization, cosmopolitanism, individualism, and critical thinking; it places a value on social justice; and it praises a dedication to the use of reason and the search for truth.
These stances are ones that many atheists will support, but not ones that they must support. Many will reject them outright. In this way, while secular humanists are typically atheistic, non-theistic, or agnostic, not all atheists, agnostics, or non-theists are going to be secular humanists.
So, is Secular humanism a religion or what?
No, but this is a matter of some controversy in the United States.
The Center for Inquiry's editor Tom Flynn explains why secular humanism isn't a religion in an essay defining the life stance. He first defines religion as a "life stance that includes at minimum a belief in the existence and fundamental importance of a realm transcending that of ordinary experience."
He then points out that, "because it lacks any reliance on (or acceptance of) the transcendent, secular humanism is not — and cannot be — a religion."
While this might not be the end-all definition of "religion" for some people, it is a convincing one. If applied properly, it would rule secular humanism out on any list of religions. This hasn't stopped people from saying it is a religion though. Many people and organizations have argued and still argue that it is a religion out to convert all the youth in America and destroy western civilization as we know it.
Several court cases have considered the question of whether it counts as a "religion" for legal purposes. One judge in Alabama even ruled that secular humanism was a religion and subject to the same restrictions as other religions before ordering that schoolbooks promoting "secular humanist values" were to be removed from classrooms.
A higher court quickly reversed this decision. They didn't address the issue of whether secular humanism was a religion or not, but did point out how that was irrelevant to the case anyway. Other cases before that one had generally agreed that while some humanist organizations do things which are analogous to religious groups, like Sunday meetings, and might be entitled to similar treatment, secular humanism itself is not a "religion."
Does anybody famous like this idea?
Lots of them do, but there is a sticking point regarding the words used.
While some people like Isaac Asimov were self-declared secular humanists who were involved with organizations dedicated to the concept, others, like Bertrand Russell, really didn't want to be called "humanists" and either remained unaffiliated or were heavily involved in humanist organizations without claiming the title.
Kurt Vonnegut took up the role of Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, formerly held by fellow sci-fi legend Isaac Asimov. Charles Shultz, the creator of the Peanuts comic, declared himself to be a secular humanist towards the end of his life. Philosopher Peter Singer is both an atheist and a humanist and would fit the definitions we listed above, though he seems not to use the term "secular humanist" himself.
The American Humanist Association lists several others on their website, including Gloria Steinem, Jonas Salk, and Katharine Hepburn.
How do secular humanists, well, do things? Is there a community?
As it turns out, even people who don't think a god is telling them there is one way to do things like marriage, burial rites, coming of age parties, how to spend their Sunday mornings, or the like still think there is merit to doing something for these occasions. Organizations designed to do that are easier to start when you move beyond simple atheism and get people to agree on a few more stances.
Secular humanist organizations allow similarly minded people to have community, to celebrate life events, to discuss ethics and morality, and to enjoy many of the things that the religious do without having to compromise their beliefs.
You might also recall that I interviewed a humanist celebrant some time back. She explained a lot about what she does and why. There are tons of humanist centers similar to the one she works at around the country. This tool lets you see which one is closest to you. A quick check of their websites will show you what is going on in your area.
In a time when traditional belief systems and communities continue to degrade, and people search for new answers and places to belong, secular humanism offers itself as a modern philosophy that combines a comprehensive worldview with secularism and community. While its merits will be debated for some time to come, it will continue to offer the benefits once provided by the religious community to non-believers, secularists, and humanists for the foreseeable future.
- Humanism in Mesopotamia - Big Think ›
- Why do secular groups often act like religious ones? - Big Think ›
- Can an Atheist Be a Unitarian Universalist? (Part 1) - Big Think ›
A new study finds that dogs fed fresh human-grade food don't need to eat—or do their business—as much.
- Most dogs eat a diet that's primarily kibble.
- When fed a fresh-food diet, however, they don't need to consume as much.
- Dogs on fresh-food diets have healthier gut biomes.
Four diets were tested<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU5ODI1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NjY0NjIxMn0._w0k-qFOC86AqmtPHJBK_i-9F5oVyVYsYtUrdvfUxWQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="1b1e4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="87937436a81c700a8ab3b1d763354843" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="960" />
Credit: AntonioDiaz/Adobe Stock<p>The researchers tested refrigerated and fresh human-grade foods against kibble, the food most dogs live on. The <a href="https://frontierpets.com.au/blogs/news/how-kibble-or-dry-dog-food-is-made" target="_blank">ingredients</a> of kibble are mashed into a dough and then extruded, forced through a die of some kind into the desired shape — think a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_extrusion" target="_blank">pasta maker</a>. The resulting pellets are sprayed with additional flavor and color.</p><p>For four weeks, researchers fed 12 beagles one of four diets:</p><ol><li>a extruded diet — Blue Buffalo Chicken and Brown Rice Recipe</li><li>a fresh refrigerated diet — Freshpet Roasted Meals Tender Chicken Recipe</li><li>a fresh diet — JustFoodforDogs Beef & Russet Potato Recipe</li><li>another fresh diet — JustFoodforDogs Chicken & White Rice Recipe.</li></ol><p>The two fresh diets contained minimally processed beef, chicken, broccoli, rice, carrots, and various food chunks in a canine casserole of sorts. </p><p>(One can't help but think how hard it would be to get finicky cats to test new diets. As if.)</p><p>Senior author <a href="https://ansc.illinois.edu/directory/ksswanso" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kelly S. Swanson</a> of U of I's Department of Animal Sciences and the Division of Nutritional Sciences, was a bit surprised at how much better dogs did on people food than even refrigerated dog chow. "Based on past research we've conducted I'm not surprised with the results when feeding human-grade compared to an extruded dry diet," he <a href="https://aces.illinois.edu/news/feed-fido-fresh-human-grade-dog-food-scoop-less-poop" target="_blank">says</a>, adding, "However, I did not expect to see how well the human-grade fresh food performed, even compared to a fresh commercial processed brand."</p>
Tracking the effect of each diet<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU5ODI1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3NjY1NTgyOX0.AdyMb8OEcjCD6iWYnXjToDmcnjfTSn-0-dfG96SIpUA/img.jpg?width=980" id="da892" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="880d952420679aeccd1eaf32b5339810" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1440" data-height="960" />
Credit: Patryk Kosmider/Adobe Stock<p>The researchers tracked the dogs' weights and analyzed the microbiota in their fecal matter.</p><p>It turned out that the dogs on kibble had to eat more to maintain their body weight. This resulted in their producing 1.5 to 2.9 times the amount of poop produced by dogs on the fresh diets.</p><p>Says Swanson, "This is consistent with a 2019 National Institute of Health study in humans that found people eating a fresh whole food diet consumed on average 500 less calories per day, and reported being more satisfied, than people eating a more processed diet."</p><p>Maybe even more interesting was the effect of fresh food on the gut biome. Though there remains much we don't yet know about microbiota, it was nonetheless the case that the microbial communities found in fresh-food poo was different.</p><p>"Because a healthy gut means a healthy mutt," says Swanson, "fecal microbial and metabolite profiles are important readouts of diet assessment. As we have shown in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/92/9/3781/4702209#110855647" target="_blank">previous studies</a>, the fecal microbial communities of healthy dogs fed fresh diets were different than those fed kibble. These unique microbial profiles were likely due to differences in diet processing, ingredient source, and the concentration and type of dietary fibers, proteins, and fats that are known to influence what is digested by the dog and what reaches the colon for fermentation."</p>
How did kibble take over canine diets?<p>Historically, dogs ate scraps left over by humans. It has only been <a href="https://www.thefarmersdog.com/digest/the-history-of-commercial-pet-food-a-great-american-marketing-story/" target="_blank">since 1870</a>, with the arrival of the luxe Spratt's Meat Fibrine Dog Cakes—made from "the dried unsalted gelatinous parts of Prairie Beef", mmm—that commercial dog food began to take hold. Dog bone-shaped biscuits first appeared in 1907. Ken-L Ration dates from 1922. Kibble was first extruded in 1956. Pet food had become a great way to turn <a href="https://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/animal-by-products/" target="_blank">human-food waste</a> into profit.</p><p>Commercial dog food became the norm for most household canines only after a massive marketing campaign led by a group of dog-food industry lobbyists called the Pet Food Institute in 1964. Over time, for most households, dog food was what dogs ate — what else? Human food? These days more than half of U.S. dogs are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/magazine/who-made-that-dog-biscuit.html" target="_blank">overweight or obese</a>, and certainly their diet is a factor.<span></span></p><p>We're not so special among animals after all. If something's healthy for us to eat—we're <em>not</em> looking at you, chocolate—maybe we should remember to share with our canine compatriots. Not from the table, though.</p>
What makes some people more likely to shiver than others?
Some people just aren't bothered by the cold, no matter how low the temperature dips. And the reason for this may be in a person's genes.
Eating veggies is good for you. Now we can stop debating how much we should eat.
- A massive new study confirms that five servings of fruit and veggies a day can lower the risk of death.
- The maximum benefit is found at two servings of fruit and three of veggies—anything more offers no extra benefit according to the researchers.
- Not all fruits and veggies are equal. Leafy greens are better for you than starchy corn and potatoes.