Reclaiming the High Ground

When the International Humanist and Ethical Union was organized in 1952, it set forth its statement of purpose in five brief paragraphs expressing three core principles concerning science, democracy, and ethics. These were, specifically, the use of science for human betterment, commitment to the democratic process in government and other human relations, and reliance on ethics as the essential ground of human dignity, rights, and responsible freedom.

Now, a half century later, we find that human knowledge about our universe and ourselves has increased immensely. Most promising of all has been the rapid growth in scientific knowledge of the interplay of genetic and cultural forces in shaping our social and moral traits. Evolutionary biology and naturalistic ethics are joining together to create a kind of unified field theory of human nature and its needs--a vision never before achievable.

An expanding body of knowledge supports the view that there is a biosocial foundation, encoded in our very genes from a long process of evolutionary selection, that sets the boundaries and substantially conditions the quality and direction of our moral feelings and behavior. Evolutionary biology is beginning to uncover and particularize what many of us humanists have always believed in principle about the natural origin and basis of our ethical traits: the inborn capacity for empathy and compassion, the need to give and receive love, the developmental patterns of socialization which support a sense of fairness and justice, and the recognition of shared obligations and common interests--all of which go into the makeup of self-aware, social beings. It is increasingly apparent that we are within striking distance of refuting forever the canard that a naturalistic philosophy, unsupported by a supernatural or transcendental source, is incapable of providing a reliable foundation for the moral and rewarding life.

Yet, while we may take hope from these prospects, we can hardly be sanguine about the commonplace misconceptions, distortions, and deliberate misrepresentations of humanist naturalism. Some of this misinformation comes from the avowed enemies of science and, particularly, from bitter-end resistance to evolutionary theory. But regrettably too much comes from well meaning friends who are simply misled by the pervasive fear of science, especially as it touches upon questions of human nature and conduct.

If you doubt the effectiveness of this drumbeat of resistance to science and reason, consider the following. While only 7 percent of adults in the United Kingdom believe in the special creation of the human species, a University of California study recently found that 45 percent of U.S. adults reject evolution and believe that the first human beings were miraculously created within the past 10,000 years. Newsweek found an overwhelming belief in miracles: 84 percent of those polled believe that miracles occur, 79 percent think that the miracles of the Bible were actual events, and 72 percent are convinced that survivors of accidents are spared by God's intervention.

In light of this, one might reasonably ask why the United States trails so far behind other advanced nations in assimilating the results of scientific and historical research. U.S. scientists are in the very forefront of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, yet there is little acceptance of their findings here at home.

Then again, why should this matter? One may argue that humanists and other advocates of a naturalistic world view should simply have the grace to accept their minority status. And I might agree--if this were a mere difference of opinion among people of tolerance and goodwill. Thomas Jefferson contended that, in a free and open encounter, truth will prevail. But how free is this encounter if, in the contest for minds, the religious right has declared a culture war?

Some of us may believe the issue is one about fact and theory. But those who contend against science and reason view the issue differently. For them it is a moral question. If you believe as Darwin believed, you do so because you are morally perverse, as Darwin was morally perverse. The fact that Darwin was a highly principled, considerate, compassionate man--as all of his biographers abundantly testify--is pointless. Darwin was wicked because he advocated unholy truths. And ethical humanism is Darwin's moral perversity writ large!

With a welter of conflicting meanings attached to the words humanist and humanism, clarification is in order. Many use the words humanist and humanitarian interchangeably, compounding the confusion. We may hope that as conscientious humanists we are humanitarian, but millions of others are humanitarian who hold to other philosophical commitments. Still others identify humanism with a particular liberal social agenda; but while the majority of humanists may be social liberals, it is not invariably so.

The core of the humanist philosophy is naturalism--the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanist movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.