Religion: The Supreme Being: Man

The Renaissance “Humanist” was a foe of medieval scholastic philosophy, an admirer of the Greek and Latin classics. Now Humanist means a believer in an ethical nonreligion, in which the Supreme Being is man, and prayer is “a telephone conversation with no one at the other end.” To Humanists, God is a bundling up of all life’s mysteries in one package, just as a man with bills at many stores might consolidate his debts with a bank loan so as to owe only the bank. Humanists reject both consolidations as equally delusive.

Contemporary Humanism is catching on. Last week, at the Third Congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Oslo. 400 sober-minded Humanists were on hand, representing more than 300,000 of their fellow believers in 24 countries. Although West Germany subsidizes some Humanist organizations, and The Netherlands allows them to have their own army chaplains, Humanist societies are generally denied the recognition that governments accord to religious groups. But what they lack in privilege, the Humanists make up in prestige: the ranks of the American Humanist Association are heavy with scientists and intellectuals, and the international union boasts such influential leaders as British Biologist Julian Huxley and two Nobel prizewinners, British Agriculturist Lord Boyd Orr and U.S. Geneticist Hermann Muller.

From Atheists to Agnostics. Chief purpose of the Oslo congress was a discussion of long-range Humanist goals, and talk at the six-day session centered on the problem of how to develop a mature (meaning nonreligious) personality, and how Humanists could help preserve individual freedom in an overorganized world. The socially conscious delegates also thought about goals closer to hand, passed a resolution approving the antihunger work of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization as “a notable example of Humanist action.” To abet the work of FAO, Humanists of the world were urged to work for better birth-control campaigns at home, and for the industrialization of underdeveloped nations.

Delegates ranged from dedicated atheists to questioning agnostics eager to cooperate with well-meaning Christians in building the good society, and they differed widely in their attitude toward religion. Norwegian Psychiatrist Gabriel Langfeldt argued that individuals would, in the future development of mankind, have to make a choice between religion and ethics: “Crediting ethics to supernaturally inspired messages and to revelations has led and still leads to brutal wars. Ethics, anchored as it is in purely human needs, will always win where religion and ethics come into conflict.”

“We Cannot Go Back.” Belgian Astronomer Karel Cuypers pointed out that Humanism is the heir of organized religion, and warned the delegates that totalitarian ideologies may take advantage of the decline of organized religion to substitute themselves for God. “The loosening of the grip of religion has created great danger both for religion itself and for Humanism,” Cuypers warned. “But we cannot go back. We cannot return to irrationalism and to mysticism without denying ourselves.”

Does Humanism’s godless, man-centered faith offer much hope to the world? So far, the world as a whole has its doubts, but Humanists are convinced that their emphasis upon life here and now frees man to concentrate upon the improvement of the earth he occupies. Sums up Humanist Langfeldt: “As man becomes more educated, mysticism and dogma disappear and are replaced by rational thinking. We believe in the goodness of men. If we can get rid of the political and religious pressures burdening man today and encourage his honesty, generousness and intelligence instead, we can make a better world for all of us.”