2.
Naturalism,
Humanitarianism and Modern Humanism
Humanism as a world view enjoys wide support
among thinking people globally. At the same time, the term is either
misunderstood or at the worst misrepresented by certain forces at play even in
the Rationalist fold. Some people would like to see the idea added to their
decadent ideology so as to make their organization look relevant and
contemporary without themselves undergoing any meaningful change as a result of
their accepting Humanist Philosophy. They use the word Humanism in place of
humanitarianism as if they would very much like to pluck out the secular and atheistic
core from it. Humanism is the philosophic child of the Renaissance movement. The
Amsterdam Declaration of 2002 clearly stated what Humanists mean by ‘Humanism’
basing upon which the International Humanist and Ethical Union works. The IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism says:
“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.”(2)
From the above it is quite clear that humanists reject
all super natural concepts as non-existent and invalid. Since Humanists do not
consider supernatural ideas or collectivities founded on unquestionable dogmas
to be the source of their ethics, their humanitarianism is founded on secular
ethics. Root of such an ethics is to be sought in the rationality of the
individual.
There may be religious people who wrongly qualify
certain actions which are humanitarian in nature as humanism. A contributing
factor that helps to sustain the confusion is the fact that humanitarianism is
contained in the Ethics of Humanism. The Amsterdam declaration has amply made
it clear that Humanism imposes no creed upon its adherents. It further
clarifies that Humanism is committed to education that is devoid of
indoctrination.
It has been noticed that certain rationalists have
been using these terms in a manner that creates confusion. Hence, this attempt
to point out the clear difference that can be discerned when knowledgeable
persons use these words. Dr. D.D. Bandiste, in his book, ‘New Humanism – A
revolutionary Philosophy’ has discussed this aspect. Since his treatment of the
difference will be useful for our readers I propose to heavily depend on him in
this section. I strongly recommend the book (3) for students of Humanism.
Humanists are secular and rational. They are
scientific in outlook. In their Ontology (= the part of philosophy which deals
with the science of BEING), they are Naturalists.
What about the broad class of humanitarians?
Humanitarians may include religious people. It is
possible that some humanitarians are believers in some sort of God, Soul, life
in the Here-after etc. There are humanitarians who strongly believe that the
basis of their humanitarianism is belief in religion or some such thing as ‘Spirituality’.
In fact, some people seem to argue that the religious people are the best
examples of Humanitarians.
Humanists believe that ideas are formed in the human
brain through sense perception. Knowledge, according to them, is not derived
from superstitious scriptures or infallible prophets. Hence their good works
are conscious efforts based on rational thought. Take the case of humanitarians
who are not secular humanists. Their values are sought to be explained using
concepts which they claim to be outside or beyond human understanding! Even
service for the welfare of fellow human beings will be described as service or
duty to some supernatural entity! All the greatness of their altruism fades
when we hear from them that they do good to please some non-existent entity.
One may not respect a person when he affirms that he is moral because he fears
God. The ethics of religionists sound horrible to humanists when destitution
and poverty are justified by some humanitarians on the ground that it is due to
the existence of these inequalities that they ‘fortunately’ engage themselves in the service of their God.
Humanists consider themselves to be the makers of
their own destiny. This sense of freedom makes them self confident. They
cheerfully embark on various activities useful to the mankind. Their altruism
gives them great pleasure. They hate to become servants of any unjust force or collectivism.
Humanists endeavour to make people self-reliant.
Many people have wrong notions about the humility
shown by religious humanitarians. Isn’t it just the expression of mental
slavery? They are virtuous only because they are cowed down by some weird
beliefs. To use the term HUMANISM wherever humanitarianism is intended results
in devaluing the iconoclastic and secular connotation originally and
essentially contained in Renaissance Humanism. No humanist can afford to be
ignorant of the fine distinctions. To the unaware, my clarification, following
Dr.Bandiste, is as below:
The word ‘humanitarianism’ without any qualifier like
secular may be taken to mean non-humanist enterprises. Secular Humanitarianism
is an integral part of Humanism. Hence, HUMANISM need not be mixed up with
religious humanitarianism. Humanism and Humanitarianism are not words
equivalent in meaning or in use. Where acts of kindness are in mind, the words altruism,
philanthropy, humanitarianism etc. are available for use.
Modern Humanism can be considered to have started with the appearance of the first Humanist
Manifesto of 1933. It was the result of the works of a liberal Protestant group
known as Unitarians. They rejected the idea of Holy Trinity. They thought Jesus
Christ was a human being. Believing in one God, they supported social reforms
and advocated individual freedom in matters of religion. Their liberal
interpretations of matters of Church and theology resulted in the movement
known as religious Humanism. Their
emphasis on the human individual enabled them to include skeptics and agnostics
in their movement. They published a more secular version of their Manifesto in
1973 (the second Humanist Manifesto). Many considered the movement as a
reasonable alternative to religion. That their trajectory was progressive and
secular is evidenced by the publication in 1980 of the Secular Humanist
Declaration. The ideas of Renaissance encouraging exploration and enquiry were
instrumental in the splitting away of Roman Catholic Church. To deny the
anti-clerical spirit contained in Humanism is nothing but falsification of
history.
Ref:
(1)’The Naturalist Tradition in Indian Thought’ by
Dale Riepe, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi.
(2)http://www.iheu.org/
(3) ‘New Humanism – A Revolutionary Philosophy’(1996),Dr.
D.D. Bandiste,
New Age International Limited,4835/24, Ansari
Road,Darya ganj,
New Delhi.
Note:
·
‘India’
refers to the geographical areas under British colonial period and hence
includes Bangla Desh and Pakistan as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment