What is the difference between atheism and secular humanism?

[Humes fork]

In practice, that is...

I know self-identified secular humanists often say that their philosophy entails much more than atheism (for example, Stephen Law's outline), but it's hard to see that in practice.

Look at these blogposts about the future of humanism. When you read them, they are all about the future of athiesm or irreligion (in the US). Or take a look at the main theme of the current issue of Free Inquiry (which is published by the Council for Secular Humanism). This is what is directed to their target audience, and it is about how young Americans are becoming less religious.

That collection of blogposts could just as well have been called "the future of atheism" and Free Inquiry could just as well have been dedicated to atheism than secular humanism. Nobody would have noticed any difference compared to now.

If secular humanism is an euphemism for atheism (which in practice it seems to be) then why use that term at all? Why not simply say atheism? "Atheism" is an enormously more widely understood term than "secular humanism". Ask a sample of say 1000 persons in Los Angeles. My very strong gut feeling is that many of them will have an idea of what an atheist is. By contrast, very few of them will be familiar with, or having heard of, "secular humanism".

If I'm missing some detail or nuance or very important issue here, please tell. But I don't see Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Hindus define themselves by what they are against, which secular humanists seem to do.

 

[turingtest]

In practice, that is...

I know self-identified secular humanists often say that their philosophy entails much more than atheism (for example, Stephen Law's outline), but it's hard to see that in practice.

Look at these blogposts about the future of humanism. When you read them, they are all about the future of athiesm or irreligion (in the US). Or take a look at the main theme of the current issue of Free Inquiry (which is published by the Council for Secular Humanism). This is what is directed to their target audience, and it is about how young Americans are becoming less religious.

That collection of blogposts could just as well have been called "the future of atheism" and Free Inquiry could just as well have been dedicated to atheism than secular humanism. Nobody would have noticed any difference compared to now.

If secular humanism is an euphemism for atheism (which in practice it seems to be) then why use that term at all? Why not simply say atheism? "Atheism" is an enormously more widely understood term than "secular humanism". Ask a sample of say 1000 persons in Los Angeles. My very strong gut feeling is that many of them will have an idea of what an atheist is. By contrast, very few of them will be familiar with, or having heard of, "secular humanism".

If I'm missing some detail or nuance or very important issue here, please tell. But I don't see Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Hindus define themselves by what they are against, which secular humanists seem to do.

I don't think either atheists or secularists are responsible for the confusion (sometimes deliberate) of the two that exists "in practice" when the real difference is not all that hard to suss out. Atheists aren't "against" god, they simply don't believe in him. And secularists aren't "against" religion, they're just against the use of it, as a system, in strictly human concerns. While an atheist, almost by definition,* would be a secularist, a secularist is not necessarily an atheist; in fact, some of the groups on this list of American secular organizations have at their head Christians such as The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and, at the American Humanist Association, Anthony Pinn, who has a Master of Divinity degree from Harvard University Divinity School.

*Note the "almost"; I used to get into pretty regularly with a guy on MediaMattersForAmerica's comments board who claimed to be an atheist, but was all for religious (read "Christian") influence in American politics on the ground that "it's traditional" (you can guess where he stood on the issue of gay marriage rights, though I was never sure in which direction his reasoning went).

 

[mike3]

I don't think either atheists or secularists are responsible for the confusion (sometimes deliberate) of the two that exists "in practice" when the real difference is not all that hard to suss out. Atheists aren't "against" god, they simply don't believe in him. And secularists aren't "against" religion, they're just against the use of it, as a system, in strictly human concerns. While an atheist, almost by definition,* would be a secularist, a secularist is not necessarily an atheist; in fact, some of the groups on this list of American secular organizations have at their head Christians such as The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and, at the American Humanist Association, Anthony Pinn, who has a Master of Divinity degree from Harvard University Divinity School.

*Note the "almost"; I used to get into pretty regularly with a guy on MediaMattersForAmerica's comments board who claimed to be an atheist, but was all for religious (read "Christian") influence in American politics on the ground that "it's traditional" (you can guess where he stood on the issue of gay marriage rights, though I was never sure in which direction his reasoning went).

What about Buddhist atheism? That would also seem to be "'atheist' but not 'secular'". Also, if "atheist 'almost implies' secular", does it 'almost imply' "secular humanist", since "secular" just means "non-religious", and therefore may include more than just "[secular] humanism" in terms of philosophies.

 

[Brainache]

Atheism isn't a Philosophy, or system of belief, or social movement, it's just a statement of a person's belief in regards to the existence of Deities. ie: I don't believe in God. It says nothing about social organisations like government or social justice. A person can be a fascist or a communist or a social democrat or a libertarian or an Anarchist or whatever and be an Atheist.

Secular Humanists have a system of belief about how governments etc should be run, I don't think you have to be Atheist to be a Secular Humanist.

 

[angrysoba]

"atheism" just means either that you do not believe in God, either actively disbelieve or see no evidence for one so wait to be convinced.

"humanism" refers more to a moral stance in which human beings are seen to be the starting point for any system of laws or morals.

"secularism" either means the active discouragement of religion from society or the idea that governments should be neutral on individual's personal beliefs about religion.

Really, these ideas are quite distinct from each other but how you define them may vary, and you can be any combination of them all.

 

[Bikewer]

Humanism is a political/social philosophy as iterated in The Humanist Manifesto. (Several iterations thereof by now)
It's essentially predicated on the primacy of human rights, justice, and so forth, but does not draw it's justification for these things from religious sources.
It's quite possible to be a religious believer and to also be a humanist.
"Secular" Humanism just affirms the fact that society is created by humans, not ordained by God, and that human rights are (to borrow the phrase...) "self-evident".

Humanism as a political movement is, at least in this country, so rarefied that most folks would give you a blank stare if you asked them to describe the principals or ask if they'd ever read the Manifesto.
However, the religious Right has made a great deal of hay over conflating secular values with the Humanist movement, and so one frequently hears such folks ranting about the "secular humanist agenda" in regards to hot-button topics like school prayer and abortion and those things.
I hear tell that there is an active Humanist political movement.... Somewhere. In some other countries. Here.... There may be a few organizations around but essentially it's off the radar.

 

[Humes fork]

Secular Humanists have a system of belief about how governments etc should be run, I don't think you have to be Atheist to be a Secular Humanist.

The IHEU, which is the global umbrella humanist organization defines humanism as follows:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

So yes, atheism, or at least agnosticism, is a requirement.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The IHEU, which is the global umbrella humanist organization defines humanism as follows:

So yes, atheism, or at least agnosticism, is a requirement.

Why not just start with your pre-selected "gotcha", so as to save time?

Here's Paul Kurtz:

There have been fundamental and irreconcilable differences between humanists and atheists, particularly Marxist-Leninists. The defining characteristic of humanism is its commitment to human freedom and democracy; the kind of atheism practiced in the Soviet Union has consistently violated basic human rights. Humanists believe first and foremost in the freedom of conscience, the free mind, and the right of dissent. The defense of religious liberty is as precious to the humanist as are the rights of the believers.

As usual, the situation is more complicated, less black-and-white, than you would like to be able to describe it.

 

[dudalb]

"atheism" just means either that you do not believe in God, either actively disbelieve or see no evidence for one so wait to be convinced.

"humanism" refers more to a moral stance in which human beings are seen to be the starting point for any system of laws or morals.

"secularism" either means the active discouragement of religion from society or the idea that governments should be neutral on individual's personal beliefs about religion.

Really, these ideas are quite distinct from each other but how you define them may vary, and you can be any combination of them all.

That a great many Humanist groups have a very heavy political bent to the Left irritates a lot of people who would be both secluarists and humanists by the above definition, but have Libertarian/Pro Free Market economic views.

 

[gnome]

I think that comes as a result of the political right adopting outright hostility to secularism as a main platform. Secularists then find themselves mainly in left-wing company.

 

[mijopaalmc]

[...]

Atheism, a-theism

[...]

"atheism" (or "a-theism")

[...]

Atheism (a-theism)

[...]

Are atheism and a-theism different concept?

Your first mention of them seems to contrast them, whereas the last two mentions seem to conflate them.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Are atheism and a-theism different concept?

Your first mention of them seems to contrast them, whereas the last two mentions seem to conflate them.

No, not at all. With a certain level of contentious poster, it is useful to keep stressing the point that atheism is nothing more (and nothing less) that the lack of belief in 'god', a 'god' or any 'gods', by continuing to demonstrate the roots of the word.

Some posters want to make it more; some want to make it a religion, some want to make it some sort of lodge badge. Assuming that there is any organizing precept, any monolithic consensus, any creedal confession that otherwise defines the term is inherently misleading.

 

[Brainache]

The IHEU, which is the global umbrella humanist organization defines humanism as follows:



So yes, atheism, or at least agnosticism, is a requirement.

But it is also possible to be Atheist without being a Secular Humanist. I'm sure there have been, or are still Atheists who are Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, or any other "...ist" you can imagine.

There have also been people who claim membership of Religious organisations involved in the Secular Humanist movement. People are funny that way, they are prone to acting in ways which Humes Fork might find logically inconsistent. Whaddaya gonna do?

 

[Agatha]

If we were to accept that to be a secular humanist one must be an atheist, that still does not mean that the two terms are interchangeable, either in theory or in practice.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.

Secular humanism is a political stance, which encompasses atheism and a great deal more.

All secular humanists (if we believe that IHEU are the only people who can make the rules) are atheists, but not all atheists are secular humanists. Further, all secular humanists are humanists, but not all humanists are secular humanists (and by extension, not all humanists are atheists).

And frankly, why does it matter how an organisation decides to define itself? There is no requirement for any atheist, humanist, secularist or theist to join any organisation, even if the person meets all or only some of the defined goals of that organisation.

 

[Humes fork]

If we were to accept that to be a secular humanist one must be an atheist, that still does not mean that the two terms are interchangeable, either in theory or in practice.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities.

Secular humanism is a political stance, which encompasses atheism and a great deal more.

Finally someone actually replying to the actual OP!

Yes this is the theory behind it, as I understand it.

The question was why we see so little of it in practice. Humanist groups seem almost exclusively devoted to atheism and religion/state separation. Why is that? It is telling that Richard Dawkins (who is vice president of the BHA) percieves the word to be an euphemism for atheism.

All secular humanists (if we believe that IHEU are the only people who can make the rules) are atheists, but not all atheists are secular humanists.

That's right. It is the same as in that all Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians.

Further, all secular humanists are humanists, but not all humanists are secular humanists (and by extension, not all humanists are atheists).

Actually from what I know, what is called "secular humanism" in the US is simply called "humanism" elsewhere.

And frankly, why does it matter how an organisation decides to define itself? There is no requirement for any atheist, humanist, secularist or theist to join any organisation, even if the person meets all or only some of the defined goals of that organisation.

Define "matter". I simply asked a question with regards to humanistic organizations ans activism. Whether it "matters" is a subjective question. It's also a sbjective question if war crimes in Syria "matters".

 

[Agatha]

Well, I really don't care for organisations or clubs and the like. Like Groucho, I wouldn't want to join a club that would accept me as a member. It matters because as long as you use the definitions put forward by these organisations as the definition which counts for everyone, then people are going to object to these organisations 'speaking' for them, even if (or perhaps 'especially if') if they are non-members.

Opinions, such as beliefs in deities or in political positions, are always subjective.

 

[Wolfman]

What's the difference between atheism and secular Humanism? There's a whopping difference between them. This has been discussed somewhat previously, but I want to make it clear.

Neither "atheism" nor "theism" is a belief system; both are categories of belief systems. Atheism covers all belief systems that specifically do not believe in god, including Humanism, Communism, Social Darwinism, etc.; theism covers all belief systems that specifically do believe in god, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (Of course, there is some crossover...you can have Communists who believe in god, and Buddhists who do not).

While Christianity and Islam are both "theist", they obviously are not compatible with each other, and actually hold many fundamental tenets that are in direct opposition to each other. Similarly, both Humanism and Communism are "atheist", but they have fundamental differences which make them entirely incompatible with each other, particularly in regards to their attitudes towards issues such as human rights, freedom, and democracy.

Yes, some Humanists focus specifically on issues of atheism; but in my experience, Humanists in North America focus much more on issues of secularism, particularly separation of church and state. While many in the religious camp tend to depict this as an "atheist agenda", it is not. It is, in fact, an agenda that many religious groups support, as well.

"Separation of church and state" doesn't mean getting rid of religion, or promoting atheism. It means simply that the government cannot support or promote one particular belief system over another. You want to have prayer in school? Fine...then either allow prayers by all religions, or allow no prayer; but giving one group the right to pray, and denying that to others, is in direct opposition to American law, and the principles of the Constitution. And since I can't see Americans supporting the idea of Muslim, Wiccan, or Baha'i prayers in public schools, the best solution seems to be simply not to allow prayer.

Humanists, in my experience, focus much more on issues of equality and balance, than on atheism. The IHEU has made major international efforts to raise awareness of religious oppression in countries around the world, and fight for more open, secular societies. That does not mean atheist societies, but rather societies in which people are free to practice whatever belief they want -- religious or not -- without fear of persecution; societies where no one particular belief system, including atheism, is forced on others.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is by comparing Humanism to another atheist ideology -- Communism. Both are fundamentally atheist. Communism sought to actively and aggressively promote atheism, to the point of punishing, imprisoning, torturing, and even killing those who had religious beliefs. It used methods of propaganda, mind control, and brain washing to ensure citizens who only believed what it wanted them to believe.

Humanists are absolutely and adamantly opposed to any such action. Far from seeking to legislate atheism, we believe strongly that people have the right to choose for themselves what they believe. We are just as opposed to atheists who try to force their beliefs on others as we are to theists who do so.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Atheism regarding whether God exists or not (negative). Humanism being a starting point for ethics. Secularism being the absence of religious privilege in the sphere of public life.

Secularism was brought about by Christians aghast at religious wars. Hence many theist secularists.

Secular humanism as conflated with atheism is a category mistake made by atheist and religious fundamentalists.

 

[Jono]

Secular humanism as conflated with atheism is a category mistake made by atheist and religious fundamentalists.

Exactly. As a result of secular humanism in the West, more people shed their religious scales (so to speak), so there is a convergence. Yet they are, of course, not interchangable.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I think of atheism and secular humanism as being pretty much the same, but they have arrived at their sameness from different origins. Atheism says, "We do not have sufficient evidence to believe in a deity," and derives a moral code from the need to create one for ourselves. The Golden Rule is paramount.

Secular humanism says, "We need to create a moral code that is fair from logic," and the Golden Rule seems to be a good starting point.

So they end up at about the same philosophy thru different routes.