Your thoughts, please: Humanist Manifesto of 1973 on religion

[TechBear_Seattle]

(Note to mods: I believe that reprinting these five paragraphs here falls within the rights granted by the copyright holder of note, the American Humanist Association.)

I would be interested in comments about this excerpt. It is the complete section on religion from the Humanist Manifesto of 1973:

Religion

FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.

We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the "God Is Dead" theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance. Some forms of political doctrine, for instance, function religiously, reflecting the worst features of orthodoxy and authoritarianism, especially when they sacrifice individuals on the altar of Utopian promises. Purely economic and political viewpoints, whether capitalist or communist, often function as religious and ideological dogma. Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.

The full document can be read at http://www.serv.net/~techbear/humanism/manifesto2.html

[More Than A Feeling]

1. They say it in more words than I do, but I mostly agree with this:

"Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals."

Peace, Love, Equality, Freedom, and intellectual exploration for all are not "new human purposes and goals", they've just been semi-cloaked in religion. Doesn't make them new. Other than that, they are right on.

[Democrats_win]

2. In 2003 Humanist Manifest III came out. It is very good.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

I like this quote from it:

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis."

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I found III to be very bland and unpalateable

HM I and II involved a few thoughtful people putting their beliefs down on paper, circulating the document around to their peers for critique, making a few revisions and then publishing it to be accepted or not. HM III has the unmistakeable reek of focus groups and public relations research; it is designed to appeal as widely as possible and offend as little as possible and, as a result, I think it presents a lifeless, sterile philosophy.

But that aside, what are your views of the text I posted? :hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Wow, you're right about that. HM III can't compare.

I went back and read the whole thing, and holy mackerel! They said everything I've been saying, but better. HM III is like a rough outline, this is the finished product. I would have left out the part about sexual permissiveness and promiscuity (it makes them sound like a bunch of old fogies). I also would have dropped the part about other ideologies being "religious" . But other than that, it was a thing of beauty. Given the disclaimer that I wouldn't be committing myself to every specific point, just the broad outline, I would have no problem signing it.