Seeking more than humanist religion or spiritual atheism

English: Happy human Humanist logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This post is composed of an attempt to reply to this comment from a thoughtful reader responding to my recent critique of the UUA. After putting my own comment(s) up in response, it seemed clear it would work better as a new stand-alone essay. I have previously written about secularism and humanism (including a follow-up) and why I am not anti-religious,  but this seemed like a good opportunity to update and expand on such themes given that he generously offered a link to one of his sermons about atheist spirituality and morality.

Over a decade ago I am certain I sounded very much like him as I was transitioning from an anti-religious atheist to a slightly more open-minded non-theist. Things have changed a bit since then, but I can appreciate where he is coming from. (All subsequent links are to things written on this blog but in no particular order, and my original comments upon which this post is based have been edited slightly for clarity.)

Here is my response:

Hello Michael and thank you for your reply and the link about your thoughts on morality and spiritual atheism. It is true that if one has certain beliefs about God or religion, then shedding the outer shell of those beliefs can seem like a major release and give a sense of liberation.

Breaking out of one paradigm and worldview involves adopting another, but often at a deeper level things are still framed in the (ontological) categories of the old assumptions. Atheism is predicated on the assumptions of particular forms of religious theism, and thus sets itself in opposition to that which is seen as crucial to religion, sometimes in an aggressively dismissive or derisive way. When embracing atheism some people come to see mocking the view of others on ultimate questions as acceptable and humorous by claiming whole belief systems are unworthy of respect because of the claims or actions of some of its adherents.

From the perspective of psychology and the sociology of deviance, this can be seen at least partly as a defense mechanism against perceived rejection or hostility. Shouting matches posing as debates erupt over conceptions of perspectives such as materialism and supernaturalism. Exploring topics of spirituality and religion can become an exercise in provoking a reactive volatility to particular ideas or an outbreak of a semantic allergy toward certain words that hinder any real dialogue or insight. Little progress is made in such circumstances.

This environment hinders thoughtful and extended reflection on important questions: Is there meaning to existence? Can there be such meaning without God? Is God an inferior or superior hypothesis to be accepted or rejected as such? Does it make sense to believe in God? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is God a person or just a vague cosmic force? Should we rely on God or the self? Is some outside force going to save us? 

Spiritual care for the hurting or seeking atheist

Atheist stickers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Please.

Just please.

I am not going to advocate proselyting to atheists. Nor am I going to  attack, insult, belittle, or cast blanket aspersions against people who identify as atheist. I have a great deal in common with and much sympathy for those who do not profess a belief in God. I have commented before on the decline of manners and increased intellectual lassitude or ineptitude among some minority of people identifying as atheists on message forums and blogs. The ones who at times turn to the same over-generalizing, trivializing of others, lazy or dishonest quote mining, and other tactics often employed by hard-core proselytizing  religious fundamentalists.

What is the point of behaving like the very religious people who love to mock and ridicule the philosophy, ideas, and lives of atheists?, I wondered. I asked if this was a real trend and if so what might be behind it.

Some people like to use terms such as "atheist fundamentalist" or "new atheist" to loosely refer to such people. For reasons that should become clear, I think a more apt term is shallow atheist.

Now I've lectured on deviance and one of those lectures was on atheism, and we came to a sympathetic understanding of why those who feel stigmatized and persecuted might try to neutralize this feeling by reversing it. By over-generalizing about, demeaning, and belittling religion and religious people. By questioning their morals, their certainty, and even their sanity in order to establish the atheists' own. No, WE are the decent people. The ones who have logic and knowledge and facts on our side. We are the ones who are free of delusion.

Now, sometimes this is because someone is still shaking from having left a form of fundamentalist religion or is constantly being harassed because they live in a community that doesn't trust or tolerate those of a different or of no religion. That doesn't justify bad behavior, but it can explain a good bit of it.

But what about those who never continue to heal and get stuck in the mentality that all religion is the same and its all one very narrow thing? Who never move on and instead continue to need to feel better about themselves through crude and offensive slights and put-downs of anything remotely associated in their minds with religion?

Or those who may or may not have never really felt persecuted (even if they may have felt slightly awkward on occasion) over their atheism and who see it as a hip, misunderstood social identity for smart people and iconoclasts? The ones who are too cool in their own minds to ever have anything to do with those backward and outdated fools who are remotely connected to whatever might be associated with religion or spirituality?

Want to stand out and make difference? Try engaged optimism

Yes, that does sound an awful lot like a sugar-coated platitude. You may be wondering what the catch is, but be amazed, because there is no catch. Have you heard that, from the Boomer generation down through Generation Y, Americans want to be individuals? I like to express such sentiment this way: "Everyone wants to be an individual - just like everyone else." Yet culture is not so easily forsaken. There are in each generation and subculture a set of rules, often unspoken, of acceptable ways to be different. The true (or at least truer) individuals are often ridiculed and misunderstood even by the "brooding outsider/misunderstood loner" set. Some are ignored, and some are labeled as mentally ill (this does not obviate the reality or seriousness of mental illness). So if you want to exert your agency, your capacity for choice, why go along with the too-cool-for-hope crowd that has become so pervasive among the "educated", "liberal", and "secular" sets (which are not nearly mutually exclusive)? Does this fit with a Buddhist outlook, even for Buddhists who may share a background or affinity with that crowd?

Not all "secular progressive" types are wholly pessimistic, not by a long shot, yet among the outraged atheist crowd, the idea that hope can exist anywhere except in science and irreligion can sound distasteful. The world, the more extreme partisans insist, is full of gullible idiots and dangerous ideas, and because of this we stand upon the edge of our own oblivion. They require that, unlike those people who practice religion and/or believe in God, the universe must be not warm but cold, not deeply meaningful but random, not personal but impersonal. The idea that seeing the world as warm, meaningful, and personal does not have to be incompatible with atheism, or that the universe may transcend such dichotomies, doesn't get much play. But at least in their own way they have some ideal to which they can attach a hope for the future, even if that message is overshadowed by their vocal cynicism.

Then there are those who may be liberal or moderate with a penchant for nihilistic atheism, weak agnosticism, token deism, or nominal pantheism who seem to be suffused in an ennui which is projected onto everything -- a film that coats the world and soaks into the very pores of our trying and tiresome existences. Convictions are frequently slogans which satisfy the intellect. There is often talk in such circles of making meaning in their own lives, frequently according to an individualistic program for happiness. This need not reduce to strict hedonism, but without the organization, inspiration, and synergy of a well-coordinated and established tradition, such efforts are difficult to grow and sustain. This is unfortunate because of the contributions such individuals are not only capable of making but also very willing to make. With a deflated idealism or inconsistent application, these efforts are not nearly as effective as they could be.

As for Buddhists - they may profess any of the above perspectives, as all one need do to be a Buddhist is to claim the label of one who honors and follows the teachings of the Buddha. At times this may involve a selective (re-)interpretation of one or more of the various strands of Buddhism, for better or worse. I am not going to tell anyone what makes them "not a Buddhist", as the book by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche purports to do. But I was considering what people have called engaged Buddhism. It seems to me that Buddhism, in part, is a form of engaged optimism. I do not mean it is naive or involves trying to take everything in the kindest way possible (although the latter may be a beneficial practice). Instead I refer to a conviction that liberation is possible and that suffering can be transformed. In this, even while not denying the physical, emotional, and spiritual hardships people face, including (attachment to) pleasure, there is a confidence that we are not limited by these conditions of existence.

In some way, isn't the core of all spirituality connected to what I am referring to as engaged optimism? It's just a way of talking about and identifying what is of value in a term that has been somewhat overused and overstretched. What about reclaiming, re-connecting to and revitalizing this concept in our lives? Not just in name only, not just to stand out. Not to be a counter-culture Christian in a secular age or a Buddhist in a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture out of boredom, or to get noticed, or to appear chic. But to take the more challenging path of sincere commitment to ennobling values for the sake of all. To be part of a collective human response to a call to a life of greater depth and purpose. So are you up for it, or does it sound too traditional? Too plain? Like too much effort? Or maybe like standing out in a way that some in your cohort may not understand or appreciate? Or not standing out in a cool way? What is your response to such a call?

Humanist Buddhists? Buddhist Humanists?

I recently wrote some brief thoughts about Christian Buddhists ("Christian Buddhists? Buddhist Christians?"), so now it's time to look at the compatibility, or lack thereof, between Buddhism and Humanism. Previously with regard to humanism ("To be or not to be secular, a humanist, or a secular humanist"), I have written:

By secular I mean the commonly used definitions of the term, which include "worldly, temporal, not overtly religious". It also means that which is common and enduring. It does not necessarily exclude the spiritual, as some may presume. I separate it from the spiritual here *only* to offer a distinction between people and ideas which are more focused on the principle of being non-religious and those which emphasize spirituality regardless of whether or not it is religious. As for spiritual, my view is that it includes "a contemplative attitude" and, a disposition to a life of depth, and the search for ultimate meaning" (as per Teasdale in The Mystic Heart). Throughout my writing it may become obvious that I do not regard these two perspectives to be antagonistic, much less mutually exclusive.
If we briefly take science as an example, it has both a secular and a spiritual component. On the one hand, it deals with the "worldly" and "temporal" and presumes methodological naturalism, which is decidedly on the secular side of things. On the other hand, it involves a "contemplative attitude" and "a search for meaning".

Another area where I find both secular and spiritual elements is humanism. For those who believe "spiritual" is some kind of dirty word and that it has sullied the good name of "secular" humanism, place your head between your knees, put a cold cloth on the back of your neck, and take several deep breaths. Now let us continue. The affirmative aspects of humanist thought are spiritually loaded, with notions of inherent (though not supernatural guarantees of) human worth and the affirmation of the importance of freedom, dignity, and quality of life of all peoples.


Having expressed my views on the relationship of the spiritual to the sacred cows of secular thought, it is important to realize that the door swings both ways. As suggested in the original (and in my humble opinion the far and away best) version of the Humanist Manifesto from 1933, "the distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained". This does not suggest that nothing is sacred, at least not to me. Instead it refers to seeing the everyday world, i.e. what is generally thought of as the secular world in the word's more ancient usage, as the foundation of the sacred. It is a rejection of the dualistic idea that the physical world is inherently wicked or fallen and that purity can only be found by escaping it...


Humanism obviously places emphasis on--you guessed it--humans. However I do not embrace any anthropocentric philosophies of human superiority or dominion over other species. In the most general of terms, humanists of all stripes sees humans as responsible for the course of their lives. People are not born good or evil, but may choose to do good or bad things. Humanism recognizes human strengths and frailties but usually emphasizes optimism with regard to our capacity to better ourselves. Religions, philosophies, political parties, or personal creeds which follow this kind of reasoning could be considered humanist.

This can be contrasted with those world views that suggest humans are inherently evil or unable to make a real difference in the world without the miraculous intervention and supernatural assistance of a Divine presence. Hence, you may also often hear humanism associated with the term secular (i.e. secular humanism) as a tacit rejection of religion as well as reliance on/belief in supernaturalism. There are, however, forms of religion and spirituality which are nontheistic (not dependent on belief in or rejection of an anthropomorphic creator God who dolls out blessings and judgments based on your beliefs) but which could still be considered humanist. Certain schools of Buddhism are good examples. In addition some branches of theistic religions, while accepting the existence of (a) God, believe that we are the miracles and cherish that human potential (summed up in the phrase "We are the answers to each other's prayers"). These faiths share humanistic roots as well.


I would add, to be clear, that this does not mean that said forms of sacred traditions do not emphasize the need to embrace the unknown or to surrender to the possibilities of existence. Such transformative notions often include teachings such as no-self or other expressions of going beyond the personal ego, but this should not be confused with giving up the power to chose or think. This subtle distinction is often lost in sweeping critiques of religion and spirituality, and it is also blurred by those wishing to prey on the vulnerable with brainwashing cult tactics...


Is Buddhism really humanistic? In a basic sense I would say yes, but I would also suggest that it is misleading to simply equate the two. I guess I would say Buddhism has a humanistic flavor, but then, that's going with how I've described humanism here. Many versions of what some folks consider humanism would not be so compatible.


[emphasis added]

I think from this point of view, it is possible to talk about being spiritual/religious AND being a humanist in the spirit of the original version of the Humanist Manifesto. While some may see principle #9 as rejecting traditional forms of worship, it seems to have more to do with attitude than form, though one could certainly debate this point. In any case, it is not an anti-spiritual or anti-religious document, but rightly has concerns about supernaturalism, superstition, and waiting on some grandiose miraculous divine intervention to solve the world's problems. But I see such a document as a starting point, not an end, to spiritual/religious exploration and growth.

At the same time, humanism has come to be virtually synonymous with secular humanism, and for many this in turn has become synonymous with atheism/irreligionism. Others see humanists, especially those who dialog and reach out in partnership to religious groups, as atheists who can't fully commit to the full implications of their atheism.

Along these lines, upon receiving a reply to something I had written, I briefly revisited the issue of humanism, or more specifically, secular humanism ("Revisiting secular humanism"), in dealing with the idea that humanism prefers "cold truth" to a "warm lie" (note all of assumptions and biases bundled into those terms):

I don’t find ‘truth’ to be ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ or otherwise. It simply is. But that doesn’t preclude compassion. For example, let’s say a mother has lost a child to an illness. According the formulation that seems to be suggested in the quote, the ‘warm’ or ‘soft’ lie is to believe that little junior is Heaven with the angels, and the ‘cold truth’ is that he is worm food. This dichotomy and debate obscures the reality of a grieving mother who needs a hand to hold, a shoulder to cry on, and a friend to lean on.


It also highlights the need to appreciate the unique and irreplaceable nature of all phenomena, including the singular existence of each sentient being. No configuration of the ever-present moment in any life can be rewound or replaced. Once it is done, it is done. To that extent I would agree with the ‘standard’ secular humanist position (if there is such a thing). But that observation is the beginning for me, not the end. It’s one thing to intellectually assent to that position, it is another to take it heart, to sincerely and deeply make the realization of that fact into an awakening. For me it is also accompanied by other observations, such as the interdependence (dependent co-arising) of all phenomena (regardless of their 'position' on time and space). In turn these observations suggest that in fact what we refer to as ‘meaning’ is just a shorthand or model of the real thing, a formula or description of the nature of the relationships between phenomena, whereas actual meaning *is* (are) the relationship(s) themselves (objects depend on relationships, relationships depend on objects is the very brief version). Meaning is constantly arising and integral as the substance of existence. Hence, the answer to that ‘ultimate’ search to understand our own nature is present in/is every moment.


I cannot say how many ‘secular humanists’ would or would not agree with this, or how the Buddha used it to describe the delusion of a sense of separate intrinsic existence as the root of our suffering...

This started me thinking about how the perception of religion for those not in traditional religious systems in the West might affect/be affecting Buddhism, both in how it received and how it is presented ("I sometimes wonder"):

In the West, there is the long shadow of mytho-historical literalism mixed with the prophetic nature of revealed religion. Others can talk about basic individual and social psychology, sociological and cultural dynamics, historical factors, and how this is tied together to explain why Western religion tended to gravitate towards certain forms of belief. But, the reaction against this was to set up a dichotomy between faith and reason, religion and science, etc. This I believe contributes to what has been discussed before by many people in the emergence of so-called Western Buddhism. If we make sure we don't really believe in anything other than as symbols, and if we make sure we cleanse any ideas tainted with forces or actions that might be at odds with so-believed-to-be "empirically driven" rationalism, and as long as it has demonstrable benefits to the individual and society, then Buddhism is great. You don't have to pray to (a) God or feel the presence of the Divine. Naw, it's just a nice rational system of observations and applications that is practically a twin of what people tend to see as/think of as science...

It all gets into how people view/conceptualize religion. In my view, people really are often talking about many interrelated things. For example, there is the idea of the self, which is defined as any individual by it's beginning and ending, birth and death. So the nature of the self, including questions about the afterlife, what does or doesn't remain after a physical life form "dies", etc, is one element. Then there is "God", or the Ground of Being, or the Divine, or the Tao - some reflection of a beginning and end - kind of like the issue of the self only on a universal scale of identity, birth, and death. There is spirituality, a sense of connection to something greater than the limited individual. This frequently (but doesn't always directly or obviously) ties into the Greater sense of self alluded to under the idea of God. Then there is faith and the supernatural, which frequently go hand in hand and which are, again, often tied (but not always directly or obviously) to these other elements.

Anything which seems to touch on one or more of these elements, especially when it's more than one, is frequently tagged as "religious". And as mentioned, there is this idea, sometimes consciously manifested, sometimes lingeringly patently in our reactions and perceptions, that religion is just a failed way of explaining things, a primitive science that people cling to out of tradition and an inability to deal with reality as it is (cold, hard, impersonal). Hence the aforementioned cleansing to weed out the "troublesome" aspects of Buddhism so that it's true, nobler essence can be brought forth to shine a light of reason and compassion on all who gaze upon it...

I think ideas like "God", rather than staying as a verb, a perpetual process of creation and unfolding, where phenomena arise and fade, emerge and recede, there is the tendency to take the unlimitable and limit it with names, values, desires, wishes, thoughts, feelings, even a distinct "body" of some kind. Just as we see ourselves as bounded individuals rather than ever-changing aspects of the whole, so too is our idea of "God". And, with so many people believing so many bizarre things in the name of religion, it gets tagged as something for the ignorant or feeble-minded. And so, again, spirituality and everything else becomes "tainted" as belonging to the realm of fools, the insane, the desperate, and those who would manipulate such people. Again, this isn't an unfounded or groundless characterization, but because it is so ubiquitously applied, there is no real discussion of how most of the "flaws" of religion are just manifestations of human nature, not some social illness that can be eradicated. Hence, instead of focusing on things which can infect any institution, and to which religions are particularly vulnerable, folks who do not count themselves as religious often just conflate it all as a nasty mess from the stone age that we should rid ourselves of. But they fail to see that even if you get rid of all the current religions, our religious nature and its pros and cons would remain.

Which takes us back to so-called Western Buddhism and what it should or should not be. And the aforementioned desire I suspect to be at work in some circles to "cleanse" Buddhism of any non-rational elements, with the caveat that rational often means what we think makes sense, hence what fits our current "paradigm", which for a number of potential or actual Western Buddhists is, again, the so-called empirically based rationalism which is often associated with the methodology of science but which is often co-opted into what is sometimes termed ontological naturalism, which means anything that smacks of supernaturalism is out...

I count myself among those who are not supersitious. However, if we are saying that Buddhism is just the science of suffering, and only based on observation, what does that mean? Is it just a window dressing for our established preconception of reality? Oh, well, I embrace only empirical rationalism, and so my definition of "observation" technically is limited to that perspective? Or, when we talk about Buddhism being rooted in observation, is it observation freed from believing "this" or generally accepting "that" - a kind of wide open embrace of existence that does not rely on how we define this or whether we divide the universe like that?

In the end, are we just making a new, secularized, empirically-safe finger to latch onto? Does the nature of the Dharma change whether we call Shunyata (emptiness) the Tao or even God? Or if we fail to name it? Does it change if we believe in magic? If we do not? If we pray or do not? For who or what do we need to reinvent or reconstitute Buddhism "in the West"?

[emphasis added]

So then here we are, with the same questions underlying much of what we think of as Buddhism in the West. I believe that if we take terms like religion, spirituality, faith, and the like strictly in terms of their most superficial usage in the "fundamentalist Abrahamic religionist"/"cynical anti-theist" debate, we might as well chuck out Buddhism right now along with every other religion, because we would be missing something like 60-80% of what is being buried under such simplistic definitions. And in that missing chunk are the core spiritual elements that are shared by the various sacred traditions of the world. What would be left would be the trappings, the decor, of the rich history and collected insights of contemplative traditions and the kind of compassionate life they inspire and describe, a hollow shell. If we are the kind of humanist who runs away from such "dirty" words, I don't think what we would practice as "Buddhists" would be permitted to take us beyond our own predetermined comfort zones where we feel in control/think we fully grasp the sum of our experiences in light of our concepts of reason and intellectual comprehension.

On the other hand, if we can get past the knee-jerk reaction to religion and spirituality, and give such sacred traditions an honest and open inquiry, then we may see that while a move to secular humanism might help us shed our previous assumptions about concepts such as God or faith, it can also serve as a clean slate/firm grounding upon which to take our first shaky steps back into pondering the great questions of our existence. If we have the courage and interest in leaving that seemingly secure shelter of Vulcan-esque logic* and getting back into a messy world where we appreciate that all belief systems, even secularism, involve foundational assumptions which must simply be accepted, where intuition and emotion are not denied in our decision-making process, and where there are possibilities beyond the defined borders of rational/empirical understanding, then we can be the kind of humanist who can truly appreciate and practice various paths including Buddhism.


[*lest a Trekkie object to my usage of Vulcan logic in describing secular humanism, yes, I am aware that Vulcans all have a well-developed/realized awareness of the existence of God; yes, this did happen before when I made a similar comparison]

Revisiting secular humanism

I recently received notification of a reply to a topic I posted about secular humanism, so rather than redirecting people back to it for discussion, I thought I would post the reply (which was a quotation) and my thoughts on the quote here.

"Secular humanists suspect there is something more gloriously human about resisting the religious impulse; about accepting the cold truth, even if that truth is only that the universe is as indifferent to us as we are to it." Tom Flynn

Since this quote was left w/o comment, I’ll just freestyle on it a little…

Without a mutual understanding of what one is referring to as 'the religious impulse', whether one finds any merit in the first half of the quote is to some degree arbitrary and circumstantial.

However, the second half offers a clue. It equates being "non-religious" with what one might describe as "sober rationalism" or "sober realism". This leads *me* to suspect something, that the quote is rooted in the assumption that 'religious impulse' means little more than 'blindly believing things in contradiction to otherwise reasonable sounding evidence' (which is all the credit some folks, even deeply 'religious' ones, give to experiences like faith) or 'wanting to believe in that which permits us to deny what we cannot accept' (death for example, or that there is no justice for some).

I wholeheartedly disagree. I do recognize that there are people who behave in such a fashion, and who use their religion as a cloak or screen their experiences or to justify and allow beliefs which may otherwise be deemed strange or out of touch with reality. But that is not, to me, the 'religious impulse'.

(CONTINUE...)

Every bit of evidence from the earliest signs of the emergence of human creativity and culture shows that the 'religious impulse' is an integral aspect of our nature. In this I am referring to the drive to understand our own nature, including our origins, our purpose, and our place in the universe. This includes the sum of all of our experiences, those which can be rationalized or rationally understood, and those which cannot. It’s the root of being human.

As for the latter half of the quote, I don’t find ‘truth’ to be ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ or otherwise. It simply is. But that doesn’t preclude compassion. For example, let’s say a mother has lost a child to an illness. According the formulation that seems to be suggested in the quote, the ‘warm’ or ‘soft’ lie is to believe that little junior is Heaven with the angels, and the ‘cold truth’ is that he is worm food. This dichotomy and debate obscures the reality of a grieving mother who needs a hand to hold, a shoulder to cry on, and a friend to lean on.

It also highlights the need to appreciate the unique and irreplaceable nature of all phenomena, including the singular existence of each sentient being. No configuration of the ever-present moment in any life can be rewound or replaced. Once it is done, it is done. To that extent I would agree with the ‘standard’ secular humanist position (if there is such a thing). But that observation is the beginning for me, not the end. It’s one thing to intellectually assent to that position, it is another to take it heart, to sincerely and deeply make the realization of that fact into an awakening. For me it is also accompanied by other observations, such as the interdependence (dependent co-arising) of all phenomena (regardless of their 'position' on time and space). In turn these observations suggest that in fact what we refer to as ‘meaning’ is just a shorthand or model of the real thing, a formula or description of the nature of the relationships between phenomena, whereas actual meaning *is* (are) the relationship(s) themselves (objects depend on relationships, relationships depend on objects is the very brief version). Meaning is constantly arising and integral as the substance of existence. Hence, the answer to that ‘ultimate’ search to understand our own nature is present in/is every moment.

I cannot say how many ‘secular humanists’ would or would not agree with this, or how the Buddha used it to describe the delusion of a sense of separate intrinsic existence as the root of our suffering, but then, that’s why I’ve written before that according to the generally accepted use of the label, I probably wouldn’t qualify.

To be or not to be secular, a humanist, or a secular humanist

Given the subject matter of this website I thought it would be prudent to go ahead and share some answers to questions I have been asked about my views of "spiritual" and "secular"...

"What is spiritual and what is secular?"

By secular I mean the commonly used definitions of the term, which include "worldy, temporal, not overtly religious". It also means that which is common and enduring. It does not necessarily exclude the spiritual, as some may presume. I separate it from the spiritual here *only* to offer a distinction between people and ideas which are more focused on the principle of being non-religious and those which emphasize spirituality regardless of whether or not it is religious. As for spiritual, my view is that it includes "a contemplative attitude" and, a disposition to a life of depth, and the search for ultimate meaning" (as per Teasdale in The Mystic Heart). Throughout my writing it may become obvious that I do not regard these two perspectives to be antagonistic, much less mutually exclusive.
If we briefly take science as an example, it has both a secular and a spiritual component. On the one hand, it deals with the "worldly" and "temporal" and presumes methodological naturalism, which is decidedly on the secular side of things. On the other hand, it involves a "cotemplative attitude" and "a search for meaning".

Another area where I find both secular and spiritual elements is humanism. For those who believe "spiritual" is some kind of dirty word and that it has sullied the good name of "secular" humanism, place your head between your knees, put a cold cloth on the back of your neck, and take several deep breaths. Now let us continue. The affirmative aspects of humanist thought are spiritually loaded, with notions of inherent (though not supernatural guarantees of) human worth and the affirmation of the importance of freedom, dignity, and quality of life of all peoples.

Having expressed my views on the relationship of the spiritual to the sacred cows of secular thought, it is important to realize that the door swings both ways. As suggested in the original (and in my humble opinion the far and away best) version of the Humanist Manifesto from 1933, "the distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained". This does not suggest that nothing is sacred, at least not to me. Instead it refers to seeing the everyday world, i.e. what is generally thought of as the secular world in the word's more ancient usage, as the foundation of the sacred. It is a rejection of the dualistic idea that the physical world is inherently wicked or fallen and that purity can only be found by escaping it.

(CONTINUE...)

"Are you a secularist?"

Since that's a bit of a loaded question, here is a qualified set of responses:

• If that means anti-religious, then the answer is an emphatic "NO!"
• If that means that I am for the separation of church and state in order to preserve both "church" and "state", then the answer is "Yes."
• If that means that I think religious expression should be prohibited on or near public property, then the answer is "No."
• If that means I think that equal time, space, and protection should be afforded to all faiths and that the state should not favor any one faith or compel religious observance, then the answer is "Yes."

I think that those who might consider themselves "hardcore" secularists or atheists would not see me as being "secular", and I think the "hardcore" religionists, especially the hyper-exlcusionist conservative fundamentalists, would have a hard time seeing me as anything but. I think that says quite a bit about attachment, delusion, and the black-and-white tendencies not just of those ideologies but how the mind discriminates and defines objects.

"What is humanism?"

Humanism obviously places emphasis on--you guessed it--humans. However I do not embrace any anthrocentric philosophies of human superiority or dominion over other species. In the most general of terms, humanists of all stripes sees humans as responsible for the course of their lives. People are not born good or evil, but may choose to do good or bad things. Humanism recognizes human strengths and frailties but usually emphasizes optimism with regard to our capacity to better ourselves. Religions, philosophies, political parties, or personal creeds which follow this kind of reasoning could be considered humanist.

This can be contrasted with those worldviews that suggest humans are inherently evil or unable to make a real difference in the world without the miraculous intervention and supernatural assistance of a Divine presence. Hence, you may also often hear humanism associated with the term secular (i.e. secular humanism) as a tacit rejection of religion as well as reliance on/belief in supernaturalism. There are, however, forms of religion and spirituality which are nontheistic (not dependent on belief in or rejection of an anthropomorphic creator God who dolls out blessings and judgements based on your beliefs) but which could still be considered humanist. Certain schools of Buddhism are good examples. In addition some branches of theistic religions, while accepting the existence of (a) God, believe that we are the miracles and cherish that human potential (summed up in the phrase "We are the answers to each other's prayers"). These faiths share humanistic roots as well.

I would add, to be clear, that this does not mean that said forms of sacred traditions do not emphasize the need to embrace the unknown or to surrender to the possibilities of existence. Such transformative notions often include teachings such as no-self or other expressions of going beyond the personal ego, but this should not be confused with giving up the power to chose or think. This sublte distinction is often lost in sweeping critiques of religion and spirituality, and it is also blurred by those wishing to prey on the vulnerable with brainwashing cult tactics.

"What is the meaning of/basis of morality in humanism?"

I cannot speak for humanism. I would simply assert that that which promotes the inherent value of human life and well-being *is* the morally correct way to behave. This position suggests that any time we feel we must resort to violence or hurting others we have failed. The "greater good" argument can be very dangerous when placed in the hands of an interventonist miracle-working God because too many theists tend to accept God's will even if it is blatantly harmful and malicious. This is not limited to theism--some people will go along with terrible things so long as it seems to have explicit approval of their preferred authority, whatever or whoever, that may be (for example, the Jim Crow laws of the early 20th century). I would argue that we should never abdicate responsibility for our actions to a supernatural or secular figurehead or dictator.

Still, there are those who level the charge that nontheists, humanists or otherwise, spiritualists or not, are either amoral or have no reliable basis for morality. I will quickly address this assertion.
Many people of varying faiths and methodologies have independently come to the conclusion that one component of morality is a recognition that others are like us, that they exist as people and have the same kinds of feelings and needs. This empathy allows us to share joy, grief, love, hate, pleasure, and pain. The mechanisms in the brain that produce this phenomena will be sufficient to keep scientists busy for a long time to come, along with debates over how and why such features evolved. But it is a mechanism. And, like other mechanisms, it can be fooled. Observe people crying or cheering during a motion picture or television program, or even during a symphony. Something, the sound, the picture, etc, triggers the empathic reaction and we sympathize with the fictional person being projected on a flat screen. This mechanism seems to work as well in nontheists as in theists, though a certain minority of the population in general seems to have a defect in this mechanism. So, nontheists, atheists, and theists qualify in the first regard as having moral potential.

Nontheists and atheists, despite some depictions to the contrary, are not all (or even mostly) hedonistic anarchists who disregard the law and general rules of conduct. They are not rampantly unethical. They learned good and bad behavior from their parents and other adult influences when they were small children. The number of children from religious homes who end up getting In trouble should indicate that religion itself is no guarantee someone will end up learning the right examples from their parents. Nor are all theists hypocrites or snake oil salespeople. Hence all three qualify for the second criteria of moral potential.

Nontheists, theists, and atheists alike who are sane appreciate that their actions have consequences, and therefore all qualify for the third requirement of moral potential.
So what is all this moral potential? Basically, the qualities needed to make choices conforming to the general notion of morality. But morality is a choice. And most nontheists, like most theists, make the choice more often than not to behave in a moral fashion. The real problem is that morality itself is a slippery term. Some religions teach eating certain foods is immoral, or that it is only immoral on certain days. That certain behaviors are immoral, or only with certain people. That certain words are immoral, or only in certain contexts. Thou shalt not kill, unless you are taking the city of Jericho or stoning a heretic. Thou shalt not steal, unless you are looting an evil vanquished foe. Ideas of morality have purpose but may only make sense in certain circumstances. Attempts at general morality typically boils down to the Golden Rule—treat others as you would like to be treated. This does not mean that there is nothing more to morality, but this basic commonality does have significance. This dictum suggests that justice, dignity, and liberty are the ideals which are most robust and most fundamental to our common welfare. It puts the capacity for bettering or worsening the human condition squarely on our own shoulders. Nontheists and atheists are no less moral than any theist, especially those who claim that it is the fear of damnation or the reward of paradise that motivates them to treat others with love and respect and kindness.

"How does that notion of morality square with use of violence in extreme situations?"

Violence should be the last of all replies to a situation. When I speak of moral failing, I am not strictly talking about personal failures, but failures as a class, an office, a group of people on a bus, a town, a state, or a nation. It is collective. Whenever possible, we should hold dignity and freedom from oppression as our highest goals. But violence and threat of coersion should not be the preferred method of achieving those goals.

Those who wish to make up specific scenarios, be my guest, but it does not negate the correctness of choosing human life over something like what one thinks is a God's will. Believe it or not, people don't like bullies. If someone had begun beating a smaller person a crowd would have gathered to step between the bully and the abused. If necessary, he or she would have been restrained. In any case, my point is that it is better to realize that the responsibility for our actions is our own and cannot be abdicated to a higher power.

How does one choose between one human life and another? That question has never had a satisfactory answer. At that point several failures have already occurred. We can always make up stories. Here is one.

A well-known axe murderer has just escaped his guards after being convicted. He managed to get a weapon and two guards and one passerby are down. You think one guard is dead and the other two victims will be if they do not get immediate medical assistance. Brandishing the sharp bloody weapon and screaming about how everyone is going to pay, the killer turns his eyes to you and a little girl standing next to you. One of the guards is at your feet and his loaded gun is within easy reach. The maniac screams and charges toward you and the little girl. What do you do? Some extreme pacifists would do nothing. I think many of us, though, myself included, would grab the gun and warn the maniac to stay back. If he kept coming I would empty the chamber into him.

Now, does that mean that I devalue the maniac's life? No. Have moral failures on the parts of many people led to this tragic situation? Yes. I firmly believe that 90% of the violence (both physical and verbal) that goes on in western countries can be avoided if we recognized the value of human life and chose the most peaceful path possible. Sure, there will always be depraved individuals who will go so far (as in my example) as to make a dream of total peace impossible. But that does not make violence an acceptable solution. My answer to the scenario is a failure, but in that case by that point in the story all possible answers are failures. I resorted to choosing the life of one person for the lives of at least four. The only true "win" would have allowed all of us to live. Hence I see my position as a proper blend of pragmatism and idealism.

So was my solution to the above scenario a proper "Buddhist" answer? I don't think there is such a thing. There is a story about how in a previous life of the Buddha he was on board a ship and learned that one of his shipmates planned to sink the craft and kill 500 sailors. To save the lives of the sailors as well as the save this man from the negative karma of taking 500 lives the person who would one day be born as Siddhartha Guatama (a.k.a. the historical Buddha) he throws the would be murderer overboard and the man drowns. The man who would be reborn as the Buddha voluntarily accepted the horrible karma from his act of violence. In other words, even though we might be tempted to say that killing one man to save 500 is moral, in Buddhism even this seemingly justified act of violence has consequences for the perpetrator. There was no ideal situation, just choices with consequences.

"Is Buddhism really humanistic?"

In a basic sense I would say yes, but I would also suggest that it is misleading to simply equate the two. I guess I would say Buddhism has a humanistic flavor, but then, that's going with how I've described humanism here. Many versions of what some folks consider humanism would not be so compatible.

"Is humanism sans religion better than religions such as evangelical Christianity?"

When it comes to practical problems the answer is very simple. If someone digs a well in an area that allows people to have clean drinking water, that is a good thing. If someone builds a school so children can learn in safety and comfort, that is a good thing. I don't care if they are evangelical Christians, Mormons, Muslims, or devotees of Thor or Anubis.

I am not worried about the messenger as much as the message. Therefore I prefer the interpretation of Jesus wherein he is saying that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is here and now, that when you exercise self-control, or non-violence, or forgiveness, or compassion, that you are making Heaven on Earth. The same vein runs through Buddhism. Buddha gave up a life as a prince (the son of the King), left his father's palace, and ministered to the sick and oppressed and taught universal principles to eliminate human suffering. Some of the Pure Land schools of Buddhism also say that we can, through applying certain principles, realize the world is a Pure Land and properly value and nourish it.

I recently read a great book by a Buddhist Jodoshinshu priest and I think he does a wonderful job summarizing this kind of perspective:

Someone may say, "Yes, I believe in Jesus." That's fine, but what is the point? Someone else may say, "Mohammed is the final prophet." That's fine, but what's the point? Share it with me! Someone else may say, "I follow the Buddha." Yeah, that's fine, you have the freedom to follow anything, but what is the point? What is the bottom line? What is the Buddha teaching us?

People are getting tired and disgusted with religion. One reason this is happening is because religion becomes very exclusive. People talk about loving thy neighbor but practice only loving their friends; they bitterly criticize others with beliefs differing from theirs. But if people would look at themselves and consider What can I do with my life? then followers of each religion could live up to the principles of their religion. Each religion has beautiful principles to share with others. (pp.219)

To me Jesus Christ was a great spiritually awakened one who talked about God's love which is unconditional love. He talked about how all sentient beings could be loved. In Jodoshinshu Buddhism, one talks about Amida Buddha's compassion and wisdom which are an unconditional power to take in all sentient beings without any condition and without discrimination. This infinite compassion and wisdom breaks us out of the darkness of ignorance into infinite light and life. It is like the warmth of the sun which takes in all sentient beings without any condition. When one realizes this unconditional love or unconditional compassion and wisdom within oneself, one cannot help to experience a deep spiritual sense of confession and being sorry for the times we have caused trouble to others. At the same time, we feel a thankfulness and joyfullness of life. At such moments one experiences oneness with myself and non-myself. There, one's life is saved. It is nice to know we have been living in such unconditional love, unconditional compassion and wisdom of the universe whether we realize it or not, whether we care or not. (pp.225-6)

from Zen Shin Talks by Sensei Koshin Ogui

Wonderful. Simply wonderful. May peace and joy be with you.

So are you a secular humanist or aren't you?

Yes and no, both and neither.

No, really, are you or aren't you?

Wu!
(How's that for a Ch'an response?)