Nearly all religions have their origins in Secular Humanism. They may not know it, and they probably wouldn't much like the idea either.

When I first read The Humanist Manifesto II, I thought it was all quite laudable.[1] However, like many others, I couldn't help thinking that all of the Christians I know would also agree with the bulk of the Manifesto were they to read it. All the major religions have various values in common with each other and also with Humanism. Many of the ideals of Humanism can be found somewhere in most religions. [2]

Upon reading the Manifesto, it is easy to see that not only would most theists agree with the major part of such Humanist documents (apart from the items dealing with the supernatural), they would probably go so far as to say that their religion teaches similar values.

Could this be mere co-incidence?

Possibly not. When the first human societies formed, from small tribes to large communities, the ability to simply get on with each other would obviously be advantageous to survival. Co-operation is essential for a society that relies on hunting, farming or any other activity that is too much for one or two individuals to undertake. A community that learns to work together for the benefit of all will do much better in the face of drought, disaster, predation or attack. Natural selection (in this case, angry mobs would be quite likely) would quickly weed out anti-social individuals whose behaviour was detrimental to the society. The basic humanistic ideals would fall into place quite quickly in any developing society. After co-operative intelligence evolves, Humanism is not very far behind.

So how does this lead to religion? Religions seem to serve several purposes for a society.

• They help to bond the community together in ceremonies, rituals, grief, celebrations and so on.
• They attempt to explain the workings of the natural world (Why does the sun rise? Why does that mountain spew fire and smoke? Where did the world come from?).
• They give a divine stamp of authority to the humanist ideals.
• They keep the population subdued (sometimes through encouraging fear and enforcing ignorance; sometimes more positively by encouraging peace and non-violence), and at the same time lend power to priests and monarchs.

( Warning : Wild Speculation ahead! )

As early societies grew, people would have grown curious about the world around them. In the days long before computers, telescopes and microscopes, there was no good way of learning about bacteria, weather patterns, earthquakes and so on. People who appeared to have supernatural insight into such things (i.e. imaginative guesswork) would quickly have gained a reputation as Wise Ones, and from there it is a short step to religion. Stories get passed down and embellished with each telling; co-incidences are noted and attributed to the supernatural; miracles, visions and revelations seem to occur (or appear as the oral history passes from one generation to the next - the supernatural is great for spicing up dull stories).

In order to keep the society together, it becomes necessary to say that the original humanist notions are handed down from a deity. God doesn't want people to fight, steal, lie or do other disruptive things. It has more authority if a God says it than if a witch-doctor in a feathery hat says it. These are the beginnings of the pollution of humanism. Once you start saying "God doesn't want us to be anti-social", it becomes easy to have God saying other things, many of which serve to reinforce the both belief in that God, and the power that the church holds over the people.

The Biblical Ten Commandments are a good example of this.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself nor serve them...
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work
5. Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land...
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house/wife/manservant/maidservant/ox/ass etc.

The first four commandments are purely to do with maintaining support for the deity and church. The remaining six, or at least the sentiment behind them, would not look terribly out of place in some sort of Humanist Manifesto [3], and many other religions no doubt have comparable guidelines. Is this evidence that some Divine Law-giver handed down these of rules thousands of years ago? Possibly, but it seems much more likely that they evolved out of the basic need of people to get along with each other, and over the years have been reinforced by attributing them to various caring-but-vengeful supernatural entities. As time goes by, the religions fade and their Gods are forgotten - the values of Humanism are taken up by the next generation of religions, each claiming it as Revelation from their God, who naturally thought of it first.

It seems, therefore, that religion can be viewed as a sort of crust of pollution on top of the Humanist values common to us all. The further you get into religion and the more fundamental your belief becomes, the less you can see of the underlying Humanism. In the worst cases, you end up with a religion that cares more about worship of the Deity and the acceptance of the doctrines than the quality of life of the people (the current situation with the Taliban in Afghanistan seems to be a good example of this). Extreme religious fundamentalism is very far removed from Humanism.

This is why religions cause so much division between societies - a religious society may (unwittingly) value the Humanist ideals, but the overlying religion claims priority. The followers feel they should work towards a better world and help the needy, but the belief in their particular deity has overriding importance. If someone believes in a different God, then they are misguided at best, and downright evil at worst, no matter how virtuous a life they may lead. Communities fight amongst themselves until the followers of the different religions or sects break apart to form new nations (i.e. the split between Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India). They still want to work towards a better world for all, but only under the specific conditions laid down by their own religions.

As the years go by, more and more layers of doctrine, dogma and superstition build up, burying the Humanism deeper and deeper. The various religions split and divide, forming new sects that go on to add their own residue to the layers. The occasional sprouts of reason, rationality and independent thought poke up through the crust, but are quickly stamped down by the ever-vigilant religious leaders above. (Oops. My Analogy Strain-Gauge is flashing red...)

We can survive without all the mystical, superstitious and ceremonial trappings of religion, but I don't think we can survive without the simple belief that humans have the potential and the duty to make the world a better place for all. Remove all the magic, miracles, heaven, hell, salvation, punishment, angels and devils from any faith and what has it got to offer the world that Humanism hasn't been saying all along? [4]

Humanism is entirely independent of all religions. It needs no ceremonies, Holy Books or incantations - it only needs a reasoning human mind. Humanism, no matter how old it may be, is a product of living humans and will therefore always be modern, vibrant and up-to-date. Nobody is advocating a return to the humanism of six thousand years ago (even if it were somehow possible to determine what that was). Religions rely on ancient history and are often reluctant to change - Humanism is what happens right now when reasonable people interact with one another, trying to help and not harm. It stands on its own.

Religions inexorably push us further and further away from the service of humanity, towards the service of those fictional entities that were originally (and unnecessarily?) created to lend support to the values that we now call Secular Humanism.

© Adrian Barnett 1998. Last updated July 20th 1998

[1] The Humanist Manifesto II was written in 1973 as an attempt to sum up the main points of Secular Humanism. It does not exist to tell Humanists what to think; rather, it tries to reflect some of the thinking of Humanists in general at the time of writing. It is not any sort of Holy Book or definition of doctrine, and the majority of Humanists have probably never even seen it. It should not be considered representative of the views of any individual Humanist - we don't believe in it, although we may well agree with some bits of it. Humanism is an individual thing, and it may well be a mistake to attempt to write down on paper what it is or is not - no two Humanists are alike. Humanism is not a creed or religion of any sort, but writing some sort of scholarly declaration may give ammunition to those who like to think that it is.

[2] It should be noted that there are several religions which are almost entirely humanist, such as the Quakers (Society Of Friends) and Unitarian Universalists - there is even a Humanist Society Of Friends, partly inspired by the original Humanist Manifesto.

[3] At face value, the commandments are fairly non-humanistic. For a start, "Thou Shalt Not" is hardly a good example of reasoning, and the things thou shouldst not doeth are quite black-and-white (if nobody ever killed anything, we'd all immediately starve to death). Also (as has been pointed out to me), the tenth commandment (Thou shalt not covet) is pretty lame for several reasons. Apart from being misogynistic (what about coveting thy neighbour's husband? The Old Testament is unlikely to ever appear in a Feminist Bestsellers chart), there are bigger problems in the world than envy and covetousness. The commandments say nothing against rape, slavery, child abuse, torture, human rights abuses, racism, sexism, destruction of the environment and a host of others. (In fact, it appears to condone slavery - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ.", Ephesians 6:5)
Are we then to believe that God is really more concerned with envy than with actual crimes against humanity? The commandments would need a lot of support from other statements before they started to sort out our problems. Surely God could have come up with something a bit snappier and less ambiguous, but designed to improve the quality of life? You know, something like
"Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"
Oh wait, that's already taken. I guess Bill & Ted could have taught Jehovah a few things...

If you squint, hold your head at the right angle and use your imagination, you can juuuust about make out some Humanist values hidden away in there...

[4] This is one of the reasons that secular Humanism should be taught in schools (Shock! Horror!). It can lay down a solid foundation for reasonable, ethical thinking and behaviour which can be neutral towards all religions, while at the same time teaching the values that are common to most of them. If parents feel the need to add the teachings of their own religion on top of this (which may possibly detract from the humanist values instead of enhancing them), then that is their decision and they are free (as they always have been) to do it at home or in church. It would certainly be valuable to teach the children about their history, family background and culture, but whether or not it would contribute a great deal more towards the development of morality and ethical behaviour is debatable. Humanism appears to take care of that aspect quite adequately.