Symposium: What Is Humanism?

Humanism is a Religion

Archie J. Bahm

Amajor obstacle to doctrinal consensus among humanists is disagreement

about what the word religion means. Unfor-tunately, it has several legitimate meanings. To simplify the issue, I will reduce these to two and call them the "theistic" and the "scientific" meanings.

In its theistic sense, "Religion is belief in god." The many variations on conceptions of god include polytheism, pantheism, duo-theism, deism, belief in the supernatural, etc. This is the most popular meaning of the term, at least in Europe and America where ethical monotheistic religions prevail. To use the term religion in its scientific sense, one must take into account that a factual study of all of the world's religions will reveal that some major religions are not ethical mono-theisms and that some are explicitly atheistic.

Religions of the world are often divided into two groups: the "self-help" ("monkey-hold") and "other-help" ("cat-hold"). Most Asian religions are self-help religions: Each person must work his own way to the goal of life. The ethical monotheistic religions are other-help religions: Each person is brought into the world and helped to achieve the goal of life by a personal deity upon whom he or she depends. Many self-help religions involve a "law of karma," by means of which a person's intentions and actions can pro-mote or retard progress toward the goal. Self-help religions are largely nontheistic. If, as seems to be the case, more people belong to nontheistic religions than to theistic reli-gions, religion should not be defined as belief in god. Humanists, if they have any regard for scientific investigation into the nature of religion, should recognize this fact.

Two major Asian religions—Jainism and Theravada Buddhism—are explicitly atheistic. Jains believe that eternal souls are perpetually reincarnated in accordance with the law of karma. Since one must work one's

Archie J. Bahm, professor emeritus of phi-losophy at the University of New Mexico, is the author of The World's Living Reli-gions.

way to the goal by one's own efforts, no savior is needed. Since both souls and the material world that includes their bodies are eternal, no creator is needed. Since only self-help counts favorably, any appeal for help to another being, including any sup- posed deity, is cheating and results in more bad karmas. Jainism is explicitly atheistic, not only because no god is needed to create or save, but also because any appeal to a god for help has evil consequences.

Theravada Buddhists believe that there are no souls because they believe that every-thing is impermanent, and souls are sup-posedly permanent. Life is a succession of moments of consciousness emerging from an undisturbed flow of being by an ignorant act of will that, wanting what it lacks, pro-jects ideas of self and objects as entities of enduring worth, of goals worth pursuing and of things worth possessing. But desire, which is the source of frustration and thus evil, generates an accumulation of bad karmas that must be overcome by good karmas before one can be freed from the sufferings ("All is suffering") normal to life. One who dies with a surplus of bad karmas is reborn, or rather begets a new succession of moments of consciousness in which any remaining surplus of bad karmas must be eliminated before one can achieve the goal of extinction of desire without consequent reincarnation. Theravada Buddhism is explicitly atheistic, both because its basic doctrine of impermanence excludes the exis-tence of any permanent god and because any appeal to such a god would be cheating and result in evil consequences.

Since many religions are nontheistic and some are explicitly atheistic, the definition of religion as belief in god is clearly false. Many humanists do not know this fact. In formulating a manifesto expressing the essentials of humanist doctrine, should American humanists use the term in its popular, widely understood, theistic meaning or in a scientific, factual sense? Humanists who do not know that the popular meaning is false continue to use it, and they com-municate easily with others also lacking in such knowledge. But if humanists, at least those committed to using the scientific

method to obtain reliable knowledge about religion, desire to be factual, they will avoid using the w16rd religion altogether. This will be difficult because many of the items pro-posed for inclusion imply references to the popular meaning of the term. This will not end controversy, but it will not saddle the manifesto with built-in controversy.

Thus far, 1 have dealt with only half the problem. If religion is not essentially

belief in god, then what is it? Without reviewing the plethora of historical attempts at definition, 1 propose one resulting from my own use of scientific methods in studying the world's religions.

For many years I taught courses in the philosophy of religion involving most of the religions of the world. Every student was assigned a semester-long project of discover-ing what beliefs and practices all religions studied had in common. Each made a chart, with religions listed across the top and essen-tial characteristics down the side, and each square was marked with the characteristic present or absent and a note about its peculiarities when present.

My own conclusion, shaped and reshaped several times following such exten-sive searchings, is: Religion is concern for the ultimate values of life as a whole. Generalizations about the nature of values and of how concern about them is expressed through beliefs and practices extend the defi-nition. But the key words are "concern for ultimate values," not "belief in god."

My third suggestion to bring cohesion to humanism is to state, explain, and pro- mote this conception of religion to all humanists, and to all others. When under-stood in this way, humanism not only is religion but religion par excellence. The task of promoting this definition, with all the reasons for it, is too great to undertake as a prerequisite for an immediate manifesto. But I suggest that the conception be kept in mind by formulators even if not expressed as such. Omission of the word religion still seems the wisest tactic for present purposes. But the need for becoming more factual will increase as we Americans live more fully in the world. •

44 FREE INQUIRY