Is secular humanism a religion?

It’s more an ideology than a religion, but many ideologies are ersatz religious beliefs. I’m not sure secular humanism falls into that category per se, but it clearly tries to address the same perceived needs religion address. I would count among these needs social cohesion, spiritual fulfillment, a narrative order to existence, and meaning in the universe.

And what you refer to as “a secular equivalent to a religion” isn’t so unusual. I suppose philosophers have always kind of danced with the problem of what do about social needs filled by religion; Marx does it most famously. Many authoritarian ideologies such as Objectivism and Stalinism are successful ersatz religions (at least by the standard of their cult-like ability to attract followers). At the very least, they address most or all of the above needs.

The idea of “Nothing x Time x Chance = Everything” seems like it requires a huge leap of faith to me.

It will depend on one’s definition of religion. To me it is not a religion. @prescottman2008 – actually, humanists don’t concern themselves (in their ‘practice’) with that kind of stuff…it’s a non issue, rather than an issue of faith.

@prescottman2008
You are not going to find any sizeable number of people on the atheist/agnostic side who believe anything like that.
On the contrary, the “something-out-of-nothing” claim comes from the theists’ side, with god creating everything out of nothing just by an incantation/spell.

I’d say that it’s functionally similar to a religion. The Supreme Court once ruled that it was a religion.

@ragingloli , My point exactly, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak.

The definition of “religion” is a moving target.

The English word “religion” used to just mean Christianity. As in, “We got to learn them there redskins some religion.”

Later, people realized that Christianity wasn’t all that unique in terms of belief structures, so they started calling other belief structures “religions,” including the beliefs of the native Americans who previous generations would have said had no religion.

Eventually, belief structures like Zen Buddhism—which has no gods as I understand it and is basically a moral philosophy—got called “religion” too.

So, if you keep on expanding the definition of religion to include moral philosophies, then sure, secular humanism can count as a religion. However, I think it’s a mistake—just in terms of clarity of communication—to define a word like “religion” so broadly so as to include almost any type of belief. When I write about religion, I try to define it more narrowly, specifically as a belief structure having to do about a god or gods (who are, in turn, defined as powerful entities with an active role in human history).

@Qingu: it seems difficult to me to justify referring to mere moral and philosophical propositions as religions. Religion is not proposition; it’s assumption based on faith. This is why I referred to non-religious substitutes as “ersatz religions.” They don’t strictly fit the definition of religion, and even reject religion usually, but try to achieve at least many of the same goals as religions.

Well, most religions (if not all) started out as cults. Which is to say, authority hierarchies based on (more or less) unquestioning loyalty to a charismatic leader, propped up by dogma.

Obviously, secular ideologies can also be authority cults, as you pointed out in your first post. But I’m hesitant to sweep them under the same definition as things like Christianity and Hinduism. Their underlying authority structure is very similar, obviously, but the nature of their claims about reality, metaphysics, and where authority comes from are quite different.

@prescottman2008
No, you wanted to imply that atheists and agnostics believe that everything came out of nothing and assembled itself by pure chance.
That is not what we believe.

@ragingloli And I’d use the word know instead of believe.

@prescottman2008, to expand on what @ragingloli has said…

Would you say that “One minute there was nothing, then POOF, God came into existence and later he decided to create the world?” Probably not. You believe God has always existed—that there is no time in which God has not existed, right?

This is what atheists/agnostics typically believe about the universe. And it makes sense, since—as Einstein showed—space and time are part of the same fabric. There is no such thing as a time “before” the universe… which is simply another way of saying the universe has always existed. Our universe encompasses the fabric of time, just as you believe your god does.

“Is secular humanism a religion?”

If the government says so.

In light of Quingu’s first post I think the more interesting question would be:

“Is Buddhism a religion?”

Perhaps it should be re-qualified as Easterm philosophy or mysticism or some combination of the two.

Buddhism is a religion. Westerners like to pretend otherwise because they see it as pure, noble, and un-corrupt, next to our hierarchical, authoritarian, and rather decadent religions.

Like other religions, Buddhism is surrounding by a (I think very interesting) array of philosophy and mysticism.

@bolwerk – I question whether or not it is a religion not because I think of it “as pure, noble, and un-corrupt” but because it lacks a deity. I’m not any more impressed by the claims of eastern philosophy or mysticism than I am by religion.

Whenever I take an online “religion” test, I always get this as the religion I should be. Not sure what that says about me, but I like what @bolwerk said about it being more an ideology, rather than a religion. Although, these days is seems like the term “religion” means something very vague and can be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending on who is doing the interpreting!

@fundevogel: I don’t think deities are generally regarded as necessary to religion. Animism is religious. “Theism” is religion with a deity, and it’s divided into monotheism and polytheism.

Some forms of Buddhism (Theravada?) clearly are religions in the commonly understood sense, because they involve a pantheon of deities.

Whereas the little I know of Zen Buddhism strikes me as something more like Confuscianism, or like the writings of Plato or Aristotle—a moral philosophy, basically, with an accreted authority structure.

Wherever you draw the line for what counts as religion, though, it’s going to be a line in the sand. The goal in defining the term shouldn’t be to make some kind of judgment on the belief structures in question, but rather to engender better communication through a more functional word.

Does it matter at all whether the word “religion” can be applied to secular humanism?

@Fyrius, In the grand scheme of things, probably not, but I wanted to open up a discussion of what is meant by religion. One issue that interests me is if we can have organized spirituality apart from religion. I would be very much in favor of such an institution if it is possible.

Traditional Buddhism includes a belief in reincarnation. In this form I would say that a sufficient leap of faith is required as to qualify it as religion.

“Organized spirituality” sounds to me like it means…religion. And it’s something secular humanism presumably lacks.

“Organized spirituality.” Let’s dissect this term.

Organized—religion is organized, but it’s not a kind of organization I support. Most religions have rigid authority structures. Other organizations, such as scientific journals and websites like Fluther, have less rigid structures, where “authority” is basically replaced by a concept of “moderation.”

Spirituality—I hear this word a lot and I’m not convinced it means anything. It’s one of the vaguest words. Does it mean beauty? Love? Appreciation of wonder/awe? Obviously you can have all of those things without religion as many people on here will attest. On the other hand, some people define the word “spirituality” to mean “God,” thus for them, theistic religion is tautologically required for spirituality.

I think a good concert is an example of organized spirituality, where lots of people are on the same “wavelength.”

It’s a semantics thread, then. Okay.

I’m thinking of another term you can try.
Religion substitute.

@Fyrius – haha. It sounds like a sugar substitute.

I was thinking of vegetarians and their meat substitutes myself.
They’re pretty much in the same position. They’ve taken the position that real religion is bad, but they still want something that can fulfil the same role, just without the nasty aspects.

@Fyrius – The thing is so much of religion seems to come down to trying to take the fear and mystery out of death. Humanism doesn’t provide anything remotely like an afterlife which is a central element in the oft touted “comfort of religion”.

@Qingu, By spirituality I am referring to a way of putting together our values. Science can only take us so far. I am looking at things like morality and regard for the natural world.

I don’t think that the handing down of morals should be organized, actually…

@Qingu said: “So, if you keep on expanding the definition of religion to include moral philosophies, then sure, secular humanism can count as a religion. However, I think it’s a mistake—just in terms of clarity of communication—to define a word like “religion” so broadly so as to include almost any type of belief. When I write about religion, I try to define it more narrowly, specifically as a belief structure having to do about a god or gods (who are, in turn, defined as powerful entities with an active role in human history).”

Expanding the definition to whatever suits it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. The definition of religion already fits most beliefs/organizations. So, why pretend it doesn’t? I say, just get used it.

Really, I don’t see what the fuss is about. Is there some sort of significant difference between a Religion and a Country or a Religion and a Corporation? Or a religion and a family? If so.. what it is it?

@ninjacolin, because we already have a word for a general belief structure: “ideology.” If religion becomes so broad so as to be synonomous with “ideology,” we’ve just lost a word.

We have two futures ahead of us in the next 50 years. If all of us brainy type just accepted “religion” as the new “ideology” I suspect we’d have a better future than if we kept trying to make people believe they are somehow separate.

With so many classic religionists in the world, I think it’s important to make clear that “religion” doesn’t have to be given up, simply updated.

Colin, I see a future in marketing.

@ninjacolin Trying to update Christianity is what lead to the myriad denominations. Some were certainly necessary, like when the Church would start to veer off doctrine (I’m looking at you, Pope Leo X!). Some, like what much of the UCC is trying to do, is not even remotely helpful. But in every case, the party that the new denomination split from carries on.
One wonders: who is going to mandate and administrate this update?

@fundevogel :) ha, yeah.. have a peek at this ted video. Marketing intelligence wins the meme war.

@Nullo the individual, i imagine. The best a well meaning ideology can hope for is to become popular.

Anyway, my answer to the original question is: Yes, of course. Secular humanism is a religion, obviously enough. It may not be as organized as others are but it’s function is exactly the same.

@ninjacolin , What two futures are you referring to? I have the feeling that we are together on this. I also see two futures, one apocalyptic and the other, while far from utopian, is a significant improvement over the current state of affairs (it does not involve marketing). In this second future I imagine a spirituality (call it a religion if you want) that cuts out the mystic mumbo jumbo and tribalism of current religion and replaces is it with a shared set of values.

For some it’s a substitute for religion. And a good choice, because some spiritual voids get filled with paranormal new age nonsense.

@LostInParadise sorray I was unclear.. i just meant: imagine the next 50 years continuing to try to hold the terms “religion” and “ideology” apart compared against the next 50 years where we draw the two terms closer together. I was suggesting that the latter would be a happier future than the former.

lol, marketing is a huge part of our futures, @LostInParadise. always has been.

I think it would be interesting to see other religions converting towards more secular humanist thinking. :) Church has served in the capacity of moral education and I think it should continue to do so.

@mattbrowne – Secular humanism doesn’t involve paranormal or new age ideology, it explicitly denies the supernatural. It is merely the stance that people have the ability to make the world better and that they ought to do so. I don’t really see anything religious about that.

@fundevogel – That’s what I said. Secular humanism is a good choice as a substitute, because some of the other alternatives are not. Then spiritual voids might get filled with paranormal new age nonsense. I also said secular humanism is not a religion. It focuses on human values and concerns.

Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins ruled that secular humanism is, in fact, a religion.
Fun video here!

@Nullo “Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins ruled that secular humanism is, in fact, a religion.”

Uh no. The case was actually about the state of Maryland’s requirement that public official’s must declare a belief in the existence of God. The Court declared that Maryland’s requirement was a violation of the first amendment as it was a religious test.

According to the court:

“neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

So you see, Torcaso v. Watkins didn’t define secular humanism as a religion. It prohibited the use of religious tests for public office and prohibited the government from passing laws that favored religion over disbelief.

I assume this misunderstanding comes from the unfortunate quote by Justice Black:

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”

Given the context I’m going to assume Justice Black just didn’t know what secular humanism was. Either way regardless of his words, secular humanism’s status was not being ruled on. So no, the fact that some judge at some point said secular humanism was a religion doesn’t make it so. Even if it had been a ruling that wouldn’t necessarily mean it was right. Judges can be wrong after all. Plessy v. Ferguson anyone?

As for the video, snappy background music and an air of self confidence does not a good argument make.

In addition to claiming that Torcaso v. Watkins legally defines secular humanism as a religion the video defends the claim with an argument from ignorance. It’s a logical fallacy.

“Sorry to burst any atheist bubbles out there, but legally freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. And it makes sense, I mean there just isn’t enough physical evidence out there to conclusively prove or disprove God’s existence. You’ve got to have faith either way, and nobody has faith like the atheist.”

Let’s overlook the fact that the very case he claims legally defines secular humanism as a religion actually confirms “freedom from religion” and let’s look at what else is wrong with this statement.

If this argument were a sound one it would also apply to Bigfoot, Russell’s teapot, unicorns and Thor. There just isn’t enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting our sun, or that Bigfoot doesn’t exist or that Thor was just a myth either. Do you make a leap of faith in not believing in faeries? Because by this argument a belief in faeries requires no more faith and disbelief in faeries.

And really how retarded can this video get? “Humanists worship humans?” Apparently the author of this video doesn’t understand 1. What a humanist is and 2. What religion is.

Religion requires faith in a deity or supernatural. People are neither. So even if humanists did worship humans (which they don’t) they still wouldn’t be religious.

Ultimately the most amazing thing is that the maker of this video didn’t have to falsely claim that Torcaso v. Watkins legally made secular humanism a religion. There is a another case that did just that. Well almost. Well not really, but it came a lot closer than Torcaso v. Watkins. It didn’t make it to the Supreme Court but Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda declared the humanist group similar enough to a religious group to qualify for religious exemption, though this didn’t qualify them as a religious group and they weren’t actually secular humanists. The subsequent case, Peloza v. Capistrano School District, clarified previous ruling saying, “neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are ‘religions’ for Establishment Clause purposes.”

It’s pretty shameless how poorly researched and argued that video is. Perhaps he should have some put more time into research and writing and worried less about his motion graphics.