Fine Rooms, Royal Academy of Arts, Piccadilly

This important document was prepared by a small committee of five members of the American Humanist Association and published in April 2003. It supersedes the two previous manifestos of 1933 and 1973 and is a distinct improvement on both in at least one respect, it is short and succinct. It is not designed to express the way humanists ought to think but, rather, the way they do think. It has been widely endorsed by prominent humanists while, at the same time, receiving many suggestions for further improvement.

Copies of Manifesto III (see below) were distributed to members of EHA earlier this year together with a short questionnaire. At our 29th April Thursday meeting we entered into a full discussion of the Manifesto clause by clause and dealt with the suggestions received one by one.

The discussion was extremely rewarding. There were a few disagreements about the choice of words and further disagreements about their meanings but, on the whole, the Manifesto was considered a valuable contribution to the humanist cause. Much of the document is equally appealing to humanists and those members of religious faiths who have achieved a sort of intellectual and moral maturity despite retaining a dependence on primitive theological notions. While I consider it is no bad thing to generate common ground in this way, others see it as a sign of weakness. There is, of course, much to be said for an uncompromising opposition to all the hoary old religious organisations in view of their appalling history of deception and internecine greed. But such vigorous opposition is not really appropriate in a Manifesto where an attempt is being made to make a positive assertion of how we think. Furthermore, humanists do not wish to alienate those people who are essentially humanist in their thoughts and actions while still clinging to the skirts of religious creeds. The Manifesto III is an encouraging document and allows people who are in the process of becoming humanists to see the positive value of a way of thought that does not depend on quaint notions of supernaturalism.

Our analysis of Manifesto III is incomplete and we plan to continue the discussion at the next available opportunity. The task may become a little more difficult as we advance into the second half of the Manifesto which appears to contain more contentious ideas. When the task is complete, we will publish a full set of proposed amendments. There will, of course, be no changes to Manifesto III for perhaps another 30 or 40 years but, in the meantime, we might come up with a more satisfactory version for our own use. So far, our amendments are small but not insignificant. For those who have not yet had an opportunity to study this interesting document, it is reproduced below.

ARC

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfilment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism — guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience — encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience — each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life’s fulfilment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the life-stance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

R.C. et al.

From 15 proposed items for our discussion we unanimously accept 8 - and accepted one further by a majority. There was at times slight modification in the interests of greater precision.
1)Humane;
2)According Dignity;
3)Compassion;
4)Sympathy;
5)Tolerance;
6)Understanding, as a translation of Verstehen (Weber);
7)Empathy;
8)Love, as a translation of Agape.
Atheism was unanimously excluded as an attribute.

D.H., V.H., H.C.C.

R.C. et al.

Why did Tony Blair and Patricia Harmsworth send their children to selective schools instead of to the comprehensives which they advocate for children in general? To answer we need to take account of an individual politicians' subjectivity.

How is it that evangelical, Jesus-died-for-you preachers so often win over their audiences? "Because", no doubt, "they know how to make a personalised appeal" - which is subjective. And they pile it on by offering each of us the choice of heaven or hell after we die.

On the other hand most people most of the time find science cold and impersonal. Either, it seems, too remote as with the big bang (cosmology) or personally threatening, such as with cancer research.

Objective messages if important for us must be made to relate to each of us ultimately. Only too often, we feel, scientists are unconcerned about whether or not they are understood by the layman.

On balance we can admit that pure objectivity is almost totally irrelevant and that subjectivity is essential for any message to have meaning. However we find there is an underlying reason why, in any practical philosophy, objectivity should come first. As humans, we are unlike other animals in that we all share a special accumulated objective heritage. Our contemporary human culture we realise is now global to an overwhelming extent (this despite our justified concern with the local variations - between Middle Eastern and Europeanised variants, between those who use our language and those who do not, and so on). Thus we offset our personal awareness with the collective awareness of our human culture - not present at all explicitly in any other species.

In stark contrast to humanism, religions put subjectivity ahead of an objectivity, which suffers as a consequence. But it is not correct to say that the subjective humanist is only interested in himself or herself. It is their sympathy that often makes them more concerned for other individuals (non-pet animals, even) and to communicate their personal experience if it seems relevant. Sympathy is for them emotionally motivated.

So it is too for the objective humanist who must either deny the fact of his/her objectivity or else appeal, for theoretical support, to Darwinian mechanisms. This theorising though flies in the face of the latter's true objectivity, which tends to invalidate emotional motivation: a conundrum that has frequently figured in past EHA discussion.

The solution offered by our fresh thinking has involved consideration of the group, whose 'awareness' lies - for many purposes - at some point between an individual's personal awareness and the collective awareness of the human race. Call it an 'inter-subjective' viewpoint (see 5. in the article above). When confronted by another individual whom we wish to help, ones attitude is neither purely objective (textbook rules) nor fully subjective (from ones own experience) but a mixture of the two. This solution also merits the new description - 'combined humanism' - hitherto applied, in our discussions, to essential (atheist) plus tolerance (traditional) humanism.

Our small group came together in the courtyard of the Royal Academy (which is surrounded by the premises of Learned Societies) and walked down to the restaurant for an enjoyable and leisurely lunch punctuated by lively conversation.

The object of the visit was to view the Fine Rooms, recently opened to the public. Lord Burlington not only gave his name to one of the first Palladian buildings in Britain, he also helped design the suite of Fine Rooms at Burlington House, which have been splendidly restored. He believed that the clarity and reason of Palladio's classical architecture, with its harmony of proportion and scale, represented a style that was ideal for grand buildings in the expanding British Empire. As Sarah Greenberg has remarked in the RA Magazine, "Lord Burlington still has a lot to answer for. If you've ever wondered why British streets (not to mention those of the former colonies) are littered with classical columns and Roman temple motifs, look no further than Burlington House". If anyone wishes to read about the architecture and social history of the Fine Rooms, it is all contained in the Spring Issue (2004) of the Royal Academy of Arts Magazine which is for sale in the RA shop.

When walking around the rooms pause for a moment and like Jenny Uglow imagine yourself "in a time when the gilding and the crisp plaster mouldings are softened by the light of a thousand candles; when the noise outside comes not from buses and taxis, but from rattling carriage-wheels, the cries of street sellers, the calls of link-boys lighting travellers across the city".

Our group also felt that sense of history when sitting in the General Assembly Room, with its ceiling decorated by Ricci's 'The Triumph of Bacchus' (originally displayed as a wall painting) and surrounded by early nineteenth century portraits of men at the heart of the Royal Academy's governance particularly that of George IV over the mantelpiece, who became second patron of the Academy.

In the other rooms are paintings submitted as Diploma Works by artists as part of their application for RA membership: these range from works by John Constable up to Stanley Spencer and Davis Hockney. All in all, the opening of these rooms is a major event in the appreciation of this important building.

John Bennett

Maggie Adams

• Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Copies (see EHA Bulletin 49) were circulated, following up the discussion of 29 April on the use of Manifesto II as an agreed expression of what Ealing Humanists believe. It was concluded that - as both documents had points which were better presented than in the other, or absent from the other - possibly a brief, selective combination could come closest to an ideal for support within the UK.

• "The Costly Fraud that is Organic Food"
Should the Soil Association be generally recognised as an organisation opposed to objectivity? Dick Tavern's article that had appeared in The Guardian of 6 May was circulated in copy and letters printed in reply were read from the following issue. Some of the facts advanced by Lord Taverne and by Nick Couland, one of the correspondents, were quoted by Raymond Carlisle. He voiced his support for the former as advancing an objective view: and commented that the latter had misleadingly quoted 100 to 150 deaths in the UK per year as being due to paracetamol. These were suicide deaths and due to depression rather than, realistically, due to the pure chemical (usually safer than subjectively-preferred, 'natural' mish-mashes of variable composition), and used here in over-dose. Maggie Adams and John Bennett both advocated locally produced rather than specifically organic food and Maggie expressed a preference too for buying free-range eggs whatever their further description. John cited a Friends-of-the-Earth report on organic vegetables and said the pricing - and that of organic food in general - was extortionate. It was generally accepted that toxic substances could be at concentrations in purely organic food that were appreciably greater than those reached by pesticide residues.

• What is Atheism?
A book with this title, by Douglas E. Krueger, was presented to the EHA Library by Maggie. Raymond spoke though of "Thought of the Month 14" appearing in the printed version of EHA Bulletin 61 and he circulated copies of an editorial (see Editorial above). His claim was that Atheism and Theism alike were dogmas while 'God is a false conception' came closer to fact - although unfortunately not yet a generally accepted fact.

• Almost Human
In connection with a poster-sized illustration (see Feature "Was Homo Erectus human" in EHA Bulletin 61) it was agreed that 'alternative views on the site of an objective human-nonhuman boundary (A,B,C,D or E?)' was a valid anthropological discussion point. However time did not allow it to be explored.

The following statement has been received from Anthony Constable, EHA Chairman for dissemination to the Ealing Community Network Conference on 12 June 2004 at St Andrew's Centre.