Keynote Address, Australis2000 Congress, International Humanist and Ethical Union [IHEU] / Council of Australian Humanist Societies [CAHS], Sydney NSW, 14 November 2000 - Copyright Dr Ian Ellis-Jones - All Rights Reserved

1. MAKING HUMANISM
RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL
by Dr Ian Ellis- Jones
President, Council of Australian Humanist Societies Inc
President, Humanist Society of New South Wales Inc
Keynote Address, Australis2000 Congress
International Humanist and Ethical Union [IHEU]/Council of Australian Humanist Societies [CAHS]
Sydney NSW Australia, 14 November 2000
The title of my address is “Making Humanism Relevant to the Individual”. At the outset, I
think it might be helpful if I attempt to define a couple of key words in that title, namely,
what is meant by “Humanism” and the meaning of the word “relevant”.
I will deal with the meaning of the word “relevant” first, because that appears to be an
easier task. The word “relevant” means “pertinent” or “apposite”. Pertinent or apposite to
what? The “needs” of the individual. What are those needs? I will deal with that later, but
one might pause, at this stage, to reflect, whether with approval or not, upon what William
James once wrote:
One of the deepest drives of human nature is the desire
to be appreciated.1
Now, “Humanism”. There are countless definitions, or attempted definitions, of what is
meant by Humanism, and each of them is fraught with difficulties. One of the problems is
that, as we all know, there are many different types of Humanism, such as “Philosophical
Humanis”, “Cultural Humanism”, “Religious Humanism”, “Christian Humanism”, “Secular
Humanism”, and so forth. However, it is with the latter, “Secular Humanism”, with which I
am chiefly concerned.
The expression “Secular Humanism”, like all the other different types of Humanism,
means different things to different people, and even at this early stage we are in danger of
descending into confusion and disarray. Rather than attempt a definition of Secular
Humanism (hereinafter referred to simply as “Humanism”), I would prefer to state some of
the more important things that, in my opinion, denote, a Humanist:
1
William James, quoted in Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking, Prentice-Hall, 1952, ch
15.
1

2. A Humanist believes that human problems can and will
only be solved by human beings, who alone have the power
or potentiality of solving those problems. (The humanist
believes that our refusal to recognise this point is one
of the chief causes of humanity’s failures throughout
history.)
A Humanist has ultimate faith in humanity, does not
believe in a god or gods or in any other so-called
supernatural power or force, and does not seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms.
A Humanist believes that the universe is self-existing,
that all events have natural causes, whether known or
unknown, and that human beings are the product of
evolution by natural selection.
A Humanist does not believe in life after death, but
does believe that the effect of a person’s life can be
felt long after that person has died.
A Humanist believes that reason, together with methods
of scientific investigation, is our most powerful tool
for solving human problems, that we have the right and
duty to think for ourselves.
A Humanist believes that human beings are responsible
for themselves and for each other.
A Humanist believes that the higher sensitivities and
aspirations of human beings spring naturally from our
biological make-up and cultural history.
A Humanist believes that life should be as satisfying as
possible for every individual, and that although life is
not necessarily worth living, it can be worth living.
A Humanist believes in the value and dignity of the
individual, and that all people have equal rights free
from discrimination of any kind or on any ground.
A Humanist believes in moral values without religious
dogma, that the basis of morality is reason and
reverence for life, that we should be motivated by
compassion, and that moral principles must and can only
be tested by their consequences.2
2
I have compiled this list, quite unashamedly, from a number of Humanist sources, including the American
Humanist Association, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and the British Humanist Association.
One of my favourite “definitions” of Humanism (from Harold Blackham of the British Humanist Association)
is the following: “Humanism proceeds from the assumption that man is on his own and this life is all, and an
assumption of responsibility for one’s own life and for the life of mankind - an appraisal and an undertaking:
two personal decisions.”
2

3. In short, Humanism is a way of living, a way of thinking, and a way of acting - a distinctive
approach to life, both idealistic and practical. In the words of the American Humanist
Association, Humanism is “a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and
motivated by compassion”. As Gordon Hawkins stated, Humanism involves “what the
great nineteenth century radical John Morley ... called ‘rational humaneness’”.3 Hawkins
went on to write:
This means a rationality which is informed by
consideration and compassion for the needs and
4
distresses of human beings.
When we speak of “rationality”, I start to cringe. Don’t get me wrong, I am totally in favour
of a rational approach to life, but herein lies a formidable difficulty, perhaps the greatest
difficulty that we have, in making Humanism more relevant to the individual. It is this:
Frequently people enjoy being irrational. It may even be “natural” to them. All the endless
talk from management gurus and conflict resolution “experts” and the like about
“separating the people from the problem” and “dealing rationally with irrational people”
misses the point entirely. I repeat - frequently people enjoy being irrational.
Indeed, I will go so far as to state, again quite unashamedly, that people have needs, as
human beings, that transcend the rational. Those needs are, as Sir Julian Huxley used to
point out,5 “transrational” or “transnatural”. Note, transrational, transnatural, not
“supernatural”. The needs in question relate to certain things that transcend ordinary
rational explanation and ordinary explanation, even though they grow out of ordinary
nature.
It is often said - correctly, for the most part, I think - that the appeal of religion is primarily
to the emotions, to the “heart”. Former Patron of the Humanist Society of New South
Wales, the late Jim McClelland, forcefully pointed that out on innumerable occasions.6
Religion, as Matthew Arnold once described it, is morality touched by emotion.
Famed Protestant minister Leslie Weatherhead, in his book It Happened in Palestine,7
summarises a sentimental “psychological case” taken from a book entitled Pastoral
Psychiatry and Mental Health,8 written by one Dr John Rathbone Oliver. (The story can
3
Gordon Hawkins, “Humanism and the Crime Problem”, in Ian Edwards (ed), A Humanist View, Angus and
Robertson, 1969, p 180.
4
Ibid, p 180.
5
See, for example, “The New Divinity”, in Essays of a Humanist, Chatto & Windus, 1964.
6
See, for example, “A Humanist Rival for the Olympics”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September 1997.
7
Hodder and Stoughton, 1936.
8
Scribners.
3

4. also be found in Weatherhead’s collection of sermons That Immortal Sea.9 ) He tells the
story to illustrate the Christian doctrine of the so-called “Atonement” of Jesus Christ.
The story concerns a seven year old boy who is something of a “problem child”. All
methods of correcting the boy’s behaviour had apparently failed. The boy, whose only joy
in life, it seemed, came from his pet dog, a white-haired terrier, was one day trying to
teach the dog a new trick. The dog was slow to learn, so the boy lost his temper and
kicked the dog in the mouth, causing its mouth to bleed. The dog licked the blood away,
looked up at his little master with a puzzled expression in its eyes, and then tried one
more time to learn the trick which the boy was trying to teach it. When the boy came
nearer to the dog, it put out its blood-stained tongue and licked its master’s hand. Blinded
with tears, the boy ran, sobbing, to his mother and poured out his confession to her,
saying words to the effect, “I have done an awful thing!” The “message” is how the power
of suffering love can break people down.
As a young Protestant boy, I remember going into Catholic homes and seeing gaudy, and
often chipped, statues of Jesus and Mary. I could never understand their appeal. Many
years later, quite broken in body and spirit, I converted to Catholicism. Those same
statues, which once revolted me, were then very instrumental in bringing home to me, at a
critical point in my life, the “message” of suffering love. (Although no longer a practising
Catholic, or a Catholic at all for that matter, and despite the complete absence of any
“mother’s knee” or “cradle” Catholicism, those statues still speak to me in terms of
mystery, awe and wonder.)
The iconoclastic Mary McCarthy, in her delightful book Memories of a Catholic Girlhood,10
spoke of the continued appeal of such things from her childhood as “ashes put on one’s
forehead on Ash Wednesday, the blessing of the throat with candles on St Blaise’s Day,
the purple palls put on the statues after Passion Sunday ... the ringing of the bell at the
Sanctus, the burst of lilies at Easter”. She stated that in those “exalted moments” her soul
was fired with reverence. Such images explain the fact, as Evelyn Waugh once pointed
out, that a Catholic who loses his or her faith and rediscovers the need for it returns
almost inevitably to the Church he or she left. Once a Catholic ... .
We Humanists like to think that reason and logic will ultimately prevail. Will they? I very
much doubt it. If it be the case, as many rationalists and logicians contend, that our only
so-called “meaningful” information consists either of logically true propositions with no
factual content, or of factual propositions which can never be shown to be true by logic
9
Epworth Press, 1953.
10
William Heinemann, 1957.
4

5. alone, is it not surprising that so few people, even if they have given up the practice of
their respective childhood faiths, find little or no comfort in, and have no real interest in,
alternative ways of living such as Humanism?
It is simply pointless to assert that just because many nominal adherents of the Christian
faith - and even some who are not so nominal - agree with Humanist “beliefs” they are
really “closet Humanists” and should therefore take the bold step of declaring themselves
to be Humanists. Well, they generally don’t.
Why don’t they? I suspect there are a number of reasons. One is that many people seem
unable to do without the “crutch of some transcendental belief”, as McClelland pointed out
in the article cited above. Perhaps another reason - arguably more powerful - is that
people never really change unless they are emotionally moved to do so. People ordinarily
are prone to do those things that they really want to do, and wanting has more to do with
the emotions than the head. No thought, concept, principle or idea can ever really take
hold of a person unless that person emotionalises it. All the intellectual arguments in the
world will not alter a person’s “altars” unless that person is sufficiently emotionally
challenged to change his or her position.
Christian evangelists have known all of this for years. Humanists appear either unable or
unwilling to learn this lesson in fundamental human psychology.
I am not suggesting that we must adopt the practices of the old-fashioned evangelist and
use his methods. Heaven forbid! However, until we are able to present our distinctive
philosophy in a way that appeals to the heart, as well as the head, we will never make any
real progress in disseminating Humanist principles. I will later suggest to you how I
believe that can best be done.
Humanist writer and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery, in The Little Prince,11 wrote: “It is
only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” 12 So-
called “pure” logic and reason are too often used simply as instruments for bolstering a
prejudice. Whether we like it or not, people are rightly suspicious of logic and reason, as
so much of our reasoning takes the form of mere self-serving rationalising.
What religion has traditionally given people, and continues to give many people, including
many who have abandoned the formal practice of their faith, is a set of ancient archetypal
symbols, myths, fables, stories, moral principles, as well as rites of passage, by means of
11
First published New York 1943. Published by Gallimard 1945 and by William Heinemann Ltd 1945.
Translated by Katherine Woods 1945.
12
Ibid, ch xxi.
5

6. which they can have a satisfying emotional attitude to the universe (a “feeling of being at
home in the universe”, as William James once put it), as well as a sense of “belonging”
(and, at best, not just to a particular group).
The “comfort” of those symbols, myths, fables, stories and principles often remains in
people’s consciousness, in sweet remembrance, long after the “substance” of the faith
has been relinquished by the former believer, for, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has correctly
pointed out:
The majority is content with increasingly attenuated
forms of attachment ... Religious identity can persist
in the absence of religious belief.13
Religion is more about belonging to a people and a tradition than upholding a particular
set of defined doctrines. As the nineteenth-century French sociologist Emile Durkheim,
often called the father of modern anthropology and sociology, pointed out, although “[t]he
old gods are dead”, the rituals and other social aspects of religion tend to continue in a
modified form for many formerly practising religious adherents. God, if no longer an
objective reality for those persons, may or may not still remain as some sort of human-
created subjectivity, but it is demonstrably the case that belief in some so-called
supernatural “God”, and in other tenets of faith, is entirely secondary to such matters as
cultural identity and continuity, rites of passage, family belonging, moral structure, and the
like.
Thus, ritual marks the transition of individuals through different roles or positions in life (ie
rites of passage). Ritual also marks the passage of time through the cyclic changing of the
seasons (ie rites of intensification). Ritual is considered sacred because it denotes a
special time in which we do certain things that, in theory at least, confirm the importance
of beliefs or, in the absence of such belief, nevertheless symbolise group solidarity and
unity. (Perhaps the latter is the most important thing, and explains why, for example,
certain rites of passage continue as cultural events long after belief in their “spiritual” utility
or efficacy has disappeared.) Myth has its place as well, although, unless it is constantly
re-interpreted in the light of new knowledge, it tends to become frozen in time.
Religion, at its best, is, as the anthropologist Clifford Geertz has written, a cultural system
that acts to “establish powerful, persuasive and long-lasting moods and motivations” by
“formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions
with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”14
13
Jonathan Sacks, The Persistence of Faith, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1991, pp 7, 8.
14
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, 1973, p 90.
6

7. Naively, we Humanists think that if we are successful in debunking the “absurdity” of
religion, it will simply disappear. We also tend to think, again most naively, that the
continued impact of religion can be measured by church attendance figures and the like. I
dare to suggest that ritual and myth can serve useful cultural functions, and that we need
to be looking more closely at them.
Closely related to all of this is that when people give up on the practice of organised
religion, they generally do not make their way to Humanism. As Dick Gross has written:
When organised religion fails to hit the mark, it is
rarely replaced by humanist rationalism. Instead people
are turning to the groups derisively referred to as
cults, or to secular “self religions” promising self-
improvement and happiness if you are prepared to take
leave of your money as well as your senses.15
Returning now to that quotation of William James, the one to the effect that in each of us
there is some “desire to be appreciated”, it is often said that the fundamental need of each
human being is to be loved, and to be appreciated. Now note what Professor James said.
He did not say that there was a need to appreciated, only a “drive” and “desire”. Who
could seriously deny that? However, many, in particular New Agers, go further and
postulate that the fundamental needs of human beings are:
1. A need for a sense of belonging.
2. A need to be appreciated, to be needed, and to be
loved.
Now, I am going to suggest that both of those supposed needs are not true needs at all.
As regards the first, I wish to state, despite what I have already said about religion
satisfying, at least for some people, some desire for a sense of belonging, the truly
“enlightened” (rationally informed) person does not need to belong to anybody or anything
- not even a Humanist Society! Such a person does not give a damn what anybody says
or thinks about them. It is enough to “belong” to life itself, something the religionists tend
to overlook:
Ah, with the Grape my fading Life provide,
And wash the Body whence the Life had died,
And lay me, shrouded in the living Leaf,
By some not unfrequented Garden-side.16
15
Dick Gross, Godless Gospel: A Modern Guide to Meaning and Morality, Pluto Press, 1999, p 29.
16
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, xci. Translated by Edward Fitz Gerald.
7

8. As to the supposed need to be appreciated, and to be loved, there may be such a desire
in human beings, but I tend to think that it is symptomatic of a certain dysfunction in the
individuals concerned. There is, in my opinion, no such need. The true need is to be free,
and to love, NOT to be loved or appreciated. Religion, at its best, is about setting people
free, to love others. Whilst we may not see much evidence of that, it is nevertheless the
primary purpose of all major religions.
Jim McClelland wrote of Humanism in these words:
Humanism is an affirmation of a system of beliefs and
values, hopes, fears, joys and aspirations without
expectation of eternal rewards or fears of eternal
punishment. This face of humanism often has been
obscured by its steadfast refusal to grant a monopoly on
what constitutes true belief to Judeo-Christian
tradition or Islam or any of the world’s “great
religions”.17
Beliefs and values? Yes, we have them, even if some of us balk at the word “beliefs”. But
what about “hopes, fears, joys and aspirations”? Now that’s getting too close to home.
The plain fact is that ordinary people - if I can use that phrase - are indifferent to an
academic and pedantic philosophy. If Humanism is to have any meaningful and long-
lasting influence in today’s world, it too must show how its symbols and its principles can
appeal to the human heart as well as the head.
Where is our vitality? Where is that spark of “exuberance”, and the “good life”, the
“exuberant life”, that Paul Kurtz has written about?18 Bertrand Russell, in his book The
Conquest of Happiness, referred to “zest” as “the most universal and distinctive mark” of
the happy individual. Zest for what? Zest for living. How much zest for living do we
Humanists have? How much are we showing to those around us - our families, friends,
work colleagues? Does the living of our days really inspire these people to embrace our
ideas?
The best way - and, I submit, ultimately the only way - to effectively promote Humanism is
for us, by our daily lives, to “inspire”, if that be the right word, others to embrace it as an
affirmative, life-changing life stance.
17
“A Humanist Rival for the Olympics”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 September 1997.
18
See Exuberance: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life, Prometheus Books, 1978.
8

9. Publications, conferences, talks, meetings, secular ceremonies and alternative rites of
passage, advertising and other forms of promotion, and so forth, are very important, but
can only do so much. The rest is up to us, in our daily living.
Has Humanism made an objectively discernible difference in your life? Ask yourself these
twelve questions, and try to answer them honestly:
Are you happy, really happy?
Do you have a zest for living?
Are you rationally informed, inspired by art, and
motivated by compassion?
Do you have a childlike sense of mystery, awe and wonder?
Are you socially adjusted?
Can you live with each problem in life as it arises?
Do you have insight into your own conduct?
Do you have a sense of the ridiculous and the absurd?
Are you a builder, or are you a destroyer?
Do you inspire people by the way you go about your daily
life?
Are you rigorously honest in all your dealings with
others?
Are you honest with yourself?
Professor Kurtz has spoken of the “first humanist virtue” being the “development of one’s
own sense of power - of the belief that we can do something, that we can succeed, that
our own preparations and efforts will pay off”.19
Are we telling people that? Regrettably not. Why? Perhaps because we don’t believe it
ourselves. Perhaps it sounds all too New Age, or too much like the message of
motivational speakers in the Positive Mental Attitude / Positive Thinking tradition. Or is it
because we don’t really believe that we can do what Professor Kurtz wrote?
Do our lives demonstrate to others that Humanism “works”, in the sense described above
by Professor Kurtz? Is Humanism empowering us with the life changing belief that we can
succeed, that our own preparations and efforts will pay off?
19
Ibid.
9

10. Are we telling people that their greatest human need is the need to love, not to be loved.
Where is our “humaneness”? Do we really think that discussing philosophy will ever
change people or events? Don’t get me wrong, I love reading and discussing philosophy
myself, but that will not change things one bit.
Dick Gross, in his book Godless Gospel: A Modern Guide to Meaning and Morality,20
makes it clear that we Humanists can still learn a lot from religion. He refers to the “three
Ms”:
Morality ... Mortality ... Meaning.
Religion has something to say about all of those things, and although what is said may be
irrational and incoherent, that is often irrelevant to its continuing “hold”, in one way or
another, on people. Unless a philosophy or way of life addresses all of those three things,
it will not “win” many adherents, at least not those persons who are seeking a “sense of
meaning to life that too frequently conveys a feeling of absurdity”. 21 Humanism has not, to
date, adequately helped people to respond to the full range of problems of the human
condition.
We are verging perilously close to becoming a totally innocuous and ineffectual influence
in Australian life, despite what would otherwise appear to be the case, namely, that
around 40 per cent of the Australian people have no religious affiliation. Humanism must
be more than just a “social-political-ethical system”. People want more than just the “stone
of social action”, they want - please forgive me - the “bread of life”. What we are
witnessing now is:
the failure of secular humanism to establish itself as a
viable life-stance for the millions ... . Humanism
surely does not lack morality, as its critics have
charged ... [but] humanism as a social doctrine will
likely always remain of marginal significance, limited
primarily to the childless, to rootless cosmopolitans,
to angry, highly educated but low-income radicals - in
short, to those who have no reason to fear being
envied.22
20
Pluto Press, 1999.
21
Spilka, Hood and Gorush, The Psychology of Religion - An Empirical Approach, Prentice-Hall, 1985, p
124.
22
Robert Sheaffer, The Making of the Messiah: Christianity and Resentment, Prometheus Books, 1991, pp
178, 179.
10

11. I hope that is not the case, or will not always be the case, but I suspect that it is not a
wrong diagnosis of our present malaise. Now, resisting what Paul Kurtz has referred to as
the “transcendental temptation”, we should, in my view, present Humanism as being an
expansive way of life, embracing the many wondrous things to do and enjoy, such as food
and drink, music, art, literature, travel, sex, friendship and love, not to mention work.
Humanists need to stress these things, and to present ethics and values in a coherent
manner. Finally, as each person must face death at some point in time or other, we
Humanists need to get the point across that life has meaning ONLY when we embrace,
both intellectually and emotionally, the fact that it will end, sooner or later, for each one of
us.
O threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain - This Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.23
We must ever place reason over fantasy, but we must learn to do it in a way that has
emotional appeal. We must present Humanism as the “good life”, as an exuberant way of
life, as a philosophy of happiness and creative achievement. We are not doing that. We
are failing miserably.
-oo0oo-
23
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, lxiii. Translated by Edward Fitz Gerald.
11