By John W. Cones, J.D.

Thank you Peter for that introduction. Everything you said was true – except it wasn’t East Texas, it was Houston, and it wasn’t the lumber business it was the oil business, and it wasn’t a million dollars, but more like $100,000, and it wasn’t me, it was my brother, and he didn’t earn it, he lost it.

As you mentioned, however, even though I am in the cocktail hour of my life, I’m a fairly new Humanist . . . a baby Humanist . . . a rookie, if you will. Which makes this easy for all of us. If you disagree with anything I say here today you can easily dismiss it by taking the position: “Oh, that’s just rookie rambling, don’t pay any attention.”

I had not actually held myself out as a Humanist until about nine months ago when I joined the national and local associations. Even now I only hold myself out as a Humanist in the safety of our own group or other similar groups of atheists and skeptics. I still haven’t come entirely “out of the closet” as they say. My Dad doesn’t know I’m a Humanist for example. And, I think he’d probably be upset, since he and his 2^{nd wife are still very active members of a moderate Southern Baptist Church back in East Texas. On the other hand, they’re really nice people, and if they found out, I’m sure they’d pray for me.}

I’ve actually considered myself to be an atheist since my freshman year in college. I’ve just never been active within an organization. I now prefer, however to think of myself as a Humanist, as opposed to free thinker, skeptic, agnostic, atheist, inquiring mind, bright, member of the community of reason, non-theist, Unitarian, non-believer, rationalist, or all the other possible choices of labels, even though I may be some of those things too.

As Canadian sociologist Pat Duffy Hutcheon explains in her book The Road To Reason – Landmarks in the Evolution of Humanist Thought (181/182):

“ . . . humanists who accept the position of atheism are guilty of neither dogmatism nor nihilism. They do believe – albeit tentatively – in an ultimate ontological premise: that of naturalism rather than supernaturalism.”

Hutcheon continues: “Atheism or ‘free thought’ is, however not in itself sufficient as the foundation of any philosophical stance. It is simply the essential first step toward achievement of a comprehensive humanist world view.”

So, I’ve gone past that “first step” and adopted this Humanist world view (without any modifying adjectives, by the way), but I’m still trying to get a handle on the “comprehensive” part, and what I’d like to share with you today, is a portion of what I’ve learned so far, about my new world view, or philosophy of life, as some call it, including some ideas about where the future evolution of Humanist thought ought to lead us (from a rookie’s point of view, of course).

First, and regrettably, I have to report to you that it’s all pretty confusing and somewhat intimidating. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus among Humanists, much less among the adversaries of Humanism, on the meanings of key concepts such as religion, spirituality or even Humanism, or on whether the term Humanism ought to be modified with additional descriptive adjectives or whether Humanist groups ought to claim the federal religious tax exemption. There are dozens of groups throughout the country engaged in a fairly friendly competition for the allegiance of those we call “non-believers” (for lack of a better term).

The modern Humanist movement itself seems to have split off here in the U.S. between one group that is willing to tolerate the so-called “religious Humanists” in their midst . . . that’s presumably the largest Humanist group – the American Humanist Association. Members of the other, the Council for Secular Humanism, go out of their way to make it clear that they do not consider themselves religious.

In addition, there is another Humanist group that specifically holds itself out as a religion, and calls itself “Spiritual Humanism”. They offer free clergy certification right online.

Other Humanists, some here in our local chapter seem to be saying: “Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me, either. Just leave me alone.” It’s almost as if there is a god . . . a god of Humanism, who came through and said, “Chaos, panic & disorder -- my work here is done.”

So, I assume that if it’s a bit confusing and intimidating for me, it may also be confusing and intimidating for some others. That may be one of the reasons why, some people visit our local chapter meetings and do not return. Apparently, they weren’t looking for confusion and intimidation. They were looking for something else. Maybe Carl Sagan had it right when he said: “ . . . the fallibility of all of us (creates a) . . . human need for fellowship and for re-assurance . . . in a frighteningly complex world. . . . Carl Sagan (The Road to Reason, 131)

Fellowship and re-assurance . . . now that’s an interesting concept! But, that doesn’t seem to be what we offer here at the Humanist Association of Orange County, and presumably that’s not what is offered elsewhere at the local Humanist chapter level. Of course, it can’t be offered at the national level on a regular basis. You can’t get much fellowship from people living in Washington, D.C. if you live here on the West Coast.

Besides, our motto here at HAOC seems to be: “If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.”

But, wait! We do offer a minimal level of fellowship. We offer the opportunity to get together once a month in our no-affection zone and interact, somewhat aloofly, with people of like mind, or similar mind, or who have something in common with us, although we never know in each case what that is. And we do offer some re-assurance. Or, at least we can assure people that on any given third Sunday of the month, if they feel like listening to reasonably intelligent people disagree (sometimes respectfully and sometimes not) about topics like, determinism, ethics, game theory, dying with dignity and world government, while eating sugar snacks, this is the place to be! Now, how attractive is that? Only the marketplace for that sort of minimal fellowship and re-assurance can tell us.

Humanist Objectives

In any case, I started my journey through the fog by reading Corliss Lamont’s classic book The Philosophy of Humanism. After all, it was recommended by the American Humanist Association and it was free! At least, it was included for the price of AHA membership.

So, I’d first like to attempt to provide what I call a supportive but questioning appraisal of the expectations, aspirations and/or goals for Humanism, as specifically set forth by one of our most revered Humanist thinkers, philosophy professor Corliss Lamont in The Philosophy of Humanism, which I assume many of you have read at one time or another.

In his book, first appearing in 1949, Professor Lamont encouraged “ . . . humankind’s eventual achievement of a truly Humanist order.” (85) He saw Humanism as “ . . . a design for a secular society on a planetary scale.” (318) He even noted Sir Julian Huxley’s use of the phrase, “The Humanist breakthrough” suggesting that some day Humanism “will spread throughout the globe to create a higher civilization of world dimensions.” (309)

Back in the real world, we’ve not come close to achieving a “truly Humanist order” for humankind, or a secular society around the world. We’re struggling at this very moment to avoid an Islamic society being imposed on the recently liberated people of Iraq. And, surely in our own country we are still struggling along in that “lower” form of civilization.

In a bit of self-directed criticism aimed at his own chosen field – that of philosophy -- Professor Lamont stated that, “One of the chief troubles with philosophy has been that most of the works on the subject have been written by professional philosophers for professional philosophers or have been addressed to an intellectual elite.” (10) This may be another part of the explanation why the Humanist movement has not grown any more than it has in the last 55 years. In other words (and I know this criticism is not entirely new), but Humanism essentially appears to be a philosophy of life or world view created with limited appeal, limited primarily to an intellectual elite.

It seems fair to assume from his statements, that Mr. Lamont believed that his own philosophy of Humanism should not limit itself to an “intellectual elite” but that it should seek to appeal to a much broader and more general population. He goes on to make that objective quite clear.

Professor Lamont expressed the hope “ . . . that a majority of this planet’s population could come to see the truth of . . . (the) underlying principles . . .” of Humanism, and a “majority” would, of course, take Humanism well beyond any “narrow intellectual elite”. (308) On the other hand, no one could possibly peg current estimates of the level of adherence to Humanist views at anywhere close to a majority of the population here in the U.S., or anywhere else. The American Humanist Association’s Roy Speckhardt, as an example, rather proudly reports that AHA membership is currently about 6,000, which, in all fairness, is actually the same high point for AHA membership cited by Professor Lamont in his book written 55 years ago. (xiv)

Professor Lamont stated that “Only if the channels of opinion are kept open can the Humanist viewpoint hope to win a majority in the nation and the world.” (286) Thus again, he clearly indicated that he believed one of the objectives of Humanism is to “win a majority in the nation and the world”, but he also implied that the “channels of opinion” have not been kept open for the Humanist viewpoint, even here in one of the most open societies ever conceived by humankind. Of course, the only people responsible for failing to keep the channels of opinion open for Humanism are we Humanists.

These and the other broad goals or objectives for Humanism set forth in various places in Professor Lamont’s classic work are worthwhile objectives. Although we can’t cover all of them this afternoon, I’ve provided the full list of 17 such goals or objectives as a handout for you to consider. As I’ve stated, his book was written more than fifty-five years ago, but unfortunately none of these goals have been achieved.

Whether he intended to or not, Professor Lamont, set out the basic dilemma for Humanism: how can we achieve our ambitious and worthwhile goals that are ultimately directed toward saving our planet and the human species while limiting our appeal to a narrow intellectual elite? The answer is: we cannot.

Interestingly, in the same book that points out the risk of limiting Humanism’s appeal to an intellectual elite and sets out these lofty, worldwide objectives, Professor Lamont goes on to state that “Humanism in general is not a way of thinking merely for professional philosophers, but is also a credo for average men and women seeking to lead happy and useful lives.” (13) Thus, he knew and wrote more than half a century ago that Humanism really should be for everyone. Humanism should provide a set of guiding principles for “average men and women seeking to lead happy and useful lives.”

Some progress may have been made in that direction, but no one could truthfully claim today that the Humanist movement has effectively communicated a set of guiding principles to “average men and women” around the world, or that such principles are helping a significant segment of our population “live happy and useful lives”. We’re just not there yet!

Perhaps hinting at one possible and partial solution to our dilemma, Professor Lamont points out elsewhere in the same book that “ . . . religious convictions . . . for the masses . . . (are) closely bound up with colorful rituals that appeal more to the emotions than to the mind.” (143) Now, most Humanists I’ve met adamantly and sometimes “emotionally” reject “colorful rituals that appeal more to the emotions than to the mind”. And, of course, that may be another one of the reasons why Humanism’s appeal is limited to an intellectual elite – too many highly rational people refusing to allow a place for human emotions in an appeal to the masses.

Maybe Humanism ought to face up to the real human need for an occasional appeal to the emotions. We only have to drive around a bit in our own communities to confirm that, sure enough, religious groups meeting in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and store front sanctuaries have captured the imagination, allegiance and wallets of millions by at least partly appealing to their emotions, and even more amazing without benefit of verifiable truth statements on their side.

Ironically, we Humanists do not seem to be abiding by our own standard for quickly assimilating the findings of science and being willing to accept change. Apparently we’re not changing our attitudes toward emotion as fast as the developing science on the subject. According to the American entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, “(b)rain scientists have vindicated the evolutionary view of mind . . . (by establishing) that passion is inseverably linked to reason. Emotion is not a perturbation of reason . . . “ Wilson said, “ but a vital part of it.” Edward O. Wilson (1929 - ) American entomologist, sociobiologist and author; Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Random House of Canada, 1998, 106

In addition, Neuroscientist Antonio R. Damasio reports that “ . . . healthy emotional responding plays a critical role in guiding reasoning processes and in connecting deliberation to action.” Antonio R. Damasio, neuroscientist; Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, G.P. Putnam, 1994

Neural researcher David C. Noelle adds that “ . . . Emotional systems allow conclusions to be reached in a timely manner, and they give conviction to our thoughts. Thus . . . emotion appears to be critical for executive control.” David C. Noelle, research associate at the Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition; “Exorcising the Homunculus – There’s No One Behind The Curtain”, Free Inquiry magazine, Vol. 21, No. 2

Our own former AHA President, Edd Doerr reminds us that “Just because science has led us to understand emotions as natural phenomena doesn’t lessen the experience of them?” Edd Doerr, “Humanism Unmodified”, Humanist, Nov/Dec 2002

Furthermore, we only have to look as far as the Unitarians, about half of whose approximate 200,000 members supposedly profess Humanism, to realize that whatever rituals, meeting format and/or emotional appeals they have devised, have attracted more than 33 times as many members to their organization as our national association of Humanists. Maybe there are some lessons to be learned from our cousins the Unitarians.

But, alas, it seems that many Humanists are satisfied with merely creating a system that limits its appeal to a narrow intellectual elite, thus the broad goals as outlined by Professor Lamont himself are not possible for us to achieve. Or, are they?

We Humanists must decide what we really want. Are we satisfied in merely providing, at the local level, a number of small, debate and discussion societies, situated across the country and otherwise not making much of an impact on our world -- or as Professor Lamont suggests, should we be doing everything that we can to achieve the broad objectives he outlined? And even if our national organization is doing some good work, is it enough?

Professor Lamont made it quite clear, saying: “We cannot act as if religion were poetry while the greater part of it still functions in its ancient guise of illicit science and backward morals; we cannot smile upon religion as mere metaphor when the most powerful sections of it still teach the metaphor as dogma; we cannot nonchalantly assume that supernaturalism is a dead issue when it is still one of the predominant influences in the United States and most countries of the globe.” (142)

In point of fact, we Humanists are all still “ . . . second-class citizens” (291) in our own country. Not only does our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag still require us to say “under God”, (295 & 296) and the currency we spend everyday still proclaims that we trust in a God we don’t even know exists, but many of our legislative sessions begin with prayers to this same unknowable god, and our own Supreme Court opens its sessions with “God save the United States and this honorable court”.

These are not just offensive national eccentricities, they tell us clearly that we are outsiders in our own country, and the believers in a mythical supernatural being are the insiders. As a consequence, we often can’t associate socially at some levels with many in the religious majority because they often have substantially different and quite emotional beliefs about highly speculative and unverifiable matters.

Further, we can only rarely reveal our true feelings and beliefs about such matters in a professional or any setting without suffering some form of discrimination. As AHA President Mel Lipman pointed out as he spoke to our own chapter just two months ago, we are probably the most “discriminated-against” group of people in the U.S. today. To make matters even worse, our government is threatening to take some of our tax dollars for use by so-called “faith-based” institutions to pursue their interests here on this earth.

Professor Lamont made the statement that “ . . . the worldwide Humanist movement continues as a powerful force with a vital message.” (xii) I don’t question how vital the Humanist message is (although it gets a bit jumbled at times). I still believe that the message of Humanism may represent one of the few remaining hopes for the survival of the human species. But, I submit that if Humanists cannot get our secular government to eliminate things like “In God We Trust” from our currency and “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, we really don’t have much power. Even so, this language of Professor Lamont makes it clear that he felt making the . . . “Humanist movement . . . a powerful force . . . “ was an important objective.

In an effort to do a little followup research on this question of “to whom is the Humanist message directed”, I recently undertook a limited survey of Humanist book titles.

Publishing Trends–My analysis of trends solely relating to the number of books published for the 730 Humanist titles I found, reveals a significant amount of research and writing relating to Humanist topics has been ongoing, at least for the last several decades, and the publication of such books appears to be steadily increasing each decade. That’s the good news!

General Topics Addressed–The bad news is that the overwhelming majority of these book titles written by 698 authors or author groups over a 94 year period, could be fairly characterized as academic, that is, they focus on a very narrow subject, are intended for a limited audience (mostly our friends the intellectual elite) and are typically published by a university or other academic press. More than 92% of the titles listed in this survey could be fairly characterized as academic books.

Thus, it appears that the overwhelming majority of this writing (books with “Humanism” or “Humanist” in the titles) has been directed toward a very narrow audience whose members could be fairly described as intellectual elites.

After reviewing this snapshot of Humanist publishing, it may be fair to offer the judgment that the results of this research are unfortunate for the committed Humanists like Corliss Lamont and others who recognize that in order for Humanism to achieve its dual long-term objectives of survival of the human species and world peace, it is absolutely essential that the number of people throughout the world who hold themselves out as Humanists must experience significant growth. In order to stimulate that growth, Humanists must, among other things, write for and effectively communicate to a much broader audience.

Considering analysis of this informal survey of Humanist writing and Professor Lamont’s selected views, the failure of Humanism to date seems to be that it has limited its appeal to a narrow intellectual elite, which is really just another way of saying: it has failed to effectively communicate its system of fundamental beliefs to a broad audience.

Next in my journey toward a comprehensive Humanist world view, I attended, along with some of you, last June’s inaugural event of the Center For Inquiry in their new building on Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. There we heard talks by Paul Kurtz, Ann Druyan, Elizabeth Loftus, Jere Lipps, Eddie Tabash, Kendrick Frazier and Tom Flynn, among others. Today, I’ll limit my comments to four of those speakers.

As most of you know, Kendrick Frazier is the editor of Skeptical Inquirer and he discussed several studies that had been published in the magazine. He is principally an advocate of science and skepticism. However, you also recognize that Humanism is much more than that. Humanism is a philosophy of life or world view that recognizes the natural as opposed to the supernatural, that humans are part of a continuously evolving nature, that the scientific method is the best way to develop knowledge about our natural world and universe, and that our ethical and moral values are based on the accumulated experience of humankind.

Skepticism, on the other hand, is primarily a reaction to what others are saying and believing, so even though a lot of good work is being done through the skeptical approach, it does not offer the more integrated and positive world view and philosophy of life that Humanism offers.

I was actually day-dreaming during most of Ann Druyan’s presentation, like some of you now, but the one thing that caught my attention was her mention that she and her associates were preparing to make presentations relating to the awe and wonder of the universe at a planetarium. That made me think, gee -- a planetarium would be a wonderful place for Humanists to meet, or at least visit. So maybe we should schedule a group visit to a planetarium once or twice a year; or some day off in the future, create a planetarium-like structure in which to conduct our meetings. Of course, we would need a lot more people to do things like that.

In any case, what struck me was that she was trying to create an environment where Humanists could experience the wonder of nature. And it is that broader concept that I think we ought to consider as part of our meetings -- some way to communicate the wonder of nature to our members at our gatherings. Of course, it would help if we controlled our own meeting environment, but again that is something we cannot do without a much larger group and the financial wherewithal that comes with those greater numbers. So it all comes back to growth at the local chapter level.

Another of the secular Humanists I met at the Hollywood opening of the Center for Inquiry was Eddie Tabash. I saw him again debating the existence of God, on the campus at UCI last month. He’s a successful trial attorney from Beverly Hills who is very active in the secular Humanist world. With his financial and other support the Center for Inquiry conducted a so-called “Debater’s Toolbox” seminar last summer at the New York center. It was designed to help sharpen the debating skills of anyone interested in confronting, in formal oral debates, religious spokespersons, theologians, Christian-nation mythologists or others of similar mindset. So it was an effort to train Humanists to more effectively and directly confront religious believers. Of course, what would we expect from a trial lawyer? Being confrontational is his way of life.

I’m not convinced, however, that the direct confrontation of believers is that effective in changing people’s minds. Although, I recognize that at any given debate, there may be a few people in the audience that might be influenced toward a Humanistic way of thinking through such efforts. It seems to me, that providing the more positive framework and re-assuring fellowship of a local Humanist group would be more effective in the long-term in attracting people who have begun to question traditional religious beliefs. So, again for me, it’s the nature of the local Humanist group’s meetings that hold out the most promise for the future growth of Humanism.

Reasoning from the recognition that the Humanist belief system is made up of more than what Free Inquiry Editor Tom Flynn called “assertional beliefs”, (that is, beliefs that do not require or call for any action based on those beliefs), but instead, that the Humanist belief system consists of “motivational beliefs” (those which naturally lead to or call for action or human behavior), it follows that such beliefs create a duty on all Humanists to engage in that action and behavior. In other words, it appears that Humanists have a duty to do more than debate and discuss philosophy.

Some of you may disagree about the existence of a “Humanist duty”, and take the position that Humanism is for individuals to experience pretty much on their own . . . but let’s see what others have said about this so-called Humanist duty:

Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume tell us in a more general sense that “ . . . the end of all philosophical speculation must be to clarify for humankind their moral duty.” David Hume (Road to Reason, 56) Thus, if the philosophy of Humanism does not clarify the moral duties of humankind, we have not achieved the ultimate purpose for our philosophy, according to David Hume.

Former AHA President Lloyd Morain and his wife Mary (social worker, teacher and reformer), pointed out in their b ook Humanism As the Next Step that:

“We ourselves must take responsibility for making the world a better place in which to live, as there is no being or power, called by whatever name, to whom we can shift this task. We have the means to improve the world through effective use of our human abilities.” Lloyd and Mary Morain, Humanism As The Next Step, Humanist Press, 1998, 74

Canadian sociologist Pat Duffy Hutcheon adds, that “ . . . the philosophy of humanism, with its naturalistic and atheistic ontology, its epistemology of agnosticism, and its powerful ethic of human responsibility for the future, is more important than ever before. It only remains for humanists to articulate this perspective clearly and communicate it widely, along with the necessity for the kind of moral wisdom and measured, scientific approach to human affairs that our rapidly expanding knowledge has now made critical to the very survival of our species and other forms of life on earth.” (Road to Reason, 165)

Now, when I read Hutcheon’s statement and think about what seems to be happening at the local Humanist chapter level “right here in river city”, I see three problems: (1) many of our members do not seem to be responding to what Hutcheon called the “powerful ethic of human responsibility for the future” – in other words, there is little apparent concern, acceptance of responsibility and/or activity being expressed here at the local chapter level for the future of humankind; (2) it is fairly obvious that the Humanist community in general has failed to “articulate” the Humanist “perspective clearly”; and (3) the Humanist community generally has failed to “communicate” that Humanist perspective “widely”.

Again, with respect to this concept of a Humanist duty – our own current AHA President Mel Lipman, told us two months ago, that “The future of Humanism is now, always has been, and forever shall be—whatever we make of it.” He continued, saying: “It’s our responsibility to keep the world in which we live, headed toward the world in which we would like to live.”

In his writings, Paul Kurtz agrees, saying: “ . . . we have an extended obligation to the community of all human beings, past, present, and future . . . to care for the future of the human species . . .”

Thus, if we accept this “extended obligation to the community . . . to care for the future of the human species . . . “ and we agree that the Humanist belief system may represent one of the only hopes for humanity, we must do whatever is necessary to see that the number of those who hold themselves out as Humanists is extended far beyond the present. After all, getting more people involved as Humanists may be the only way we will have a chance of insuring the future of the human species.

Being even more specific about this so-called Humanist duty and the challenge that faces us, Sir Julian Huxley, stated:

“ . . . humans . . . must accept responsibility not only for the kind of culture transmitted to following generations, but for the health of the gene pool bequeathed as well . . . (since) our new technologies (are) . . . providing us with formidable tools for interfering with the process of natural selection which (has) . . . given our species its current adaptive capacities. . . . “ Julian Huxley (Road to Reason, 92)

Huxley continues, saying: “ . . . a high level of technical expertise in the hands of people still mired in a world view rooted in mysticism and superstition (makes) . . . for a dangerous situation.” Julian Huxley (Road to Reason, 92)

Thus, Julian Huxley provided us with a clear warning and a challenge. If we hope to survive the “dangerous situation” he described we have a duty to do more than associate for the purpose of stimulating conversation.

Science fiction writer and futurist Isaac Asimov provided a similar warning, saying:

“ . . . one of the greatest dangers facing humankind (is) . . . the growth of scientific illiteracy in the population at large, and the resulting cultural dominance of pre-scientific world views. . . . the scientific approach to knowing (is) . . . still foreign to the general world culture . . . science (is) seldom applied to the social realm and ha(s) . . . scarcely dented the world views of most human beings. . . . the majority of Earth’s people inhabit a world defined by Bronze Age tribalism.” Isaac Asimov (Road to Reason, 111)

That being the case, if Humanists believe that life is worth living and our human culture is worth passing along to future generations, then it is our duty to do everything that we can to prevent the potential disaster of people combining technology such as weapons of mass destruction with motivating beliefs based on Bronze Age tribalism. We do that by trying to significantly expand the number of people throughout the world who use Humanist thought as their motivating beliefs, not the belief systems based on superstition and the supernatural.

Asimov went on to say that:

“ . . . the pattern of (human) history for . . . twenty centuries . . . is the story of an ‘evolutionary arms race’ (spurred on by population pressures) that generated invention after invention – each providing a temporary resting place for the more innovative civilization. Ultimately, in every case, the ‘barbarians without’ would co-opt the technology and use it against the settled group. . . . “ This sounds familiar doesn’t it.

“(Great) . . . danger (is) posed . . . “ he said, “ . . . for dominant cultures by a transfer of the power to wreak untold damage into the hands of the ‘barbarians without’.” Isaac Asimov (Road to Reason, 113 & 114)

It’s one thing for our present-day government to use our powerful military and its superior technology to protect us from the “barbarians without”. However, in the long term we have to try something other than brute force. We must alter the course of our cultural and genetic evolution so that the broader interests of humanity replace the instinctive interests of tribalism. In effect, we must eventually persuade the vast majority of humankind and many of the “barbarians” that there is a better way. We think that better way is the way of Humanism. I can’t tell you whether we still have time to make this happen, but I can assure you that it won’t happen unless we try.

In sum, we see a considerable amount of promising rhetoric from Humanist thinkers and writers, but we have yet to see the kind of action that effectively helps preserve the future of humanity, or the effective organizational strength and Humanist growth that will clearly be needed to engage in that action. Once again, in their book, Humanism As The Next Step, Lloyd and Mary Morain posed the same concept with this question: “When there are sufficient numbers of humanists in the world isn’t it reasonable to assume there will be positive changes?

Maybe, our local chapter members feel that the leadership for this sort of growth and organization must come from the national association in Washington, D.C. I believe just the opposite. It appears to me that the key to the future success of the Humanist movement worldwide rests solidly with the role of the local unit of organization, and that any such local group, including our own Orange County chapter, is perfectly capable of experimenting with and developing a new and effective model for organization, growth and activity that can then be replicated all over the world, for the ultimate benefit of all humankind.

Again, the key to the successful spread of Humanist thought around the world is in the local Humanist organization. That’s where the growth must occur. It must happen on a human to human basis.

So, let’s do what Humanists are supposed to do. Let’s apply the scientific method to our situation. Let’s be open to trying different approaches and observe the consequences, retaining that which works.

To the extent that we are not now doing these things, we must act as an organization that is eager to have others join us. We must first believe that our cause is just. We must welcome every visitor to our meetings. We must thank them for coming. We must invite them to return. We must give them some basic and understandable information about our world view and offer to answer any questions they may have.

At least one form of our regular local chapter meetings must be made to appeal to a much broader segment of the population. We can always retain our beloved “debate and discussion” or “lecture and discussion” component to meet the needs of those Humanists who feel compelled to participate in a fully interactive debate and discussion of some important and some not so important issues.

But we must recognize that “debate and discussion” amongst many voices, and the accompanying confusion it often brings, is not what most people are searching for. They are more likely to be searching for an institutional setting that at least offers a sense of belonging to a dynamic group of Humanists who are striving to make a difference. As secular Humanists, we must actively oppose the efforts of those who would define religion so broadly as to discourage other Humanists from engaging in any number of purely secular activities that benefit our members or meet ordinary human needs.

Our objective should not only be to make our local chapter meetings broader in their appeal, but to have our local chapter meetings serve as a new model for local Humanist groups everywhere.

In my view, there is no reason why Humanism cannot help to meet that “ . . . human need for fellowship and for re-assurance . . .” that Carl Sagan talked about. But for most people, that does not mean presenting Humanism as merely a forum featuring the uncertainty and confusion associated with vigorous debate and discussion.

I suppose some of you would reject the objectives set out in Corliss Lamont’s book as impossible. But if we took that position, we ought to, at least, quit giving out his “silly” book to impressionable new members like me. If we choose to try to help achieve some or all of these objectives and to make the necessary transition from a narrow appeal to a broad appeal, a core group of us right here in our local chapter must be committed to do so. If we can determine that we have such a core group that is interested in growth, I suggest we take three preliminary steps:

1. Conduct a Religious Group Survey–We ask our own local chapter members to go out and attend the services of Unitarian and other religious or similar organizations and to make notes relating to how often they meet and what kinds of rituals or other activities they utilize in creating an appealing presentation; that we then assemble those notes into a report that can be brought back to our local chapter for consideration of the types of purely secular activities we might adopt in order to emulate the most effective models for what we are attempting to achieve, that is, a local chapter meeting or service that will appeal to and attract “average men and women”, and keep them coming back.

2. Conduct a Local Chapter Survey–A selected member or members of our local chapter should conduct a campaign of e-mail correspondence with all other local Humanist chapters around the country, seeking to collect from them, many of their best ideas about how they have made their meetings more appealing (if they have) and how they have attracted and held onto new members. Then, again, we should combine that information into a single report and make it available to our local chapter for consideration. Of course, this is exactly the kind of activity that should be undertaken by our national association staff, but if they are not doing it, we could, and then make it available to them. We might even be selected as “Chapter of the Year” for our efforts.

3. Local Chapter Brain-Storming–We must, of course, continue to conduct brain-storming sessions amongst our own local members to develop more creative ideas on how to make our local meetings more appealing to a broader cross section of the community. To help promote that process, I’ve prepared and included in your handouts a collection of ideas from numerous sources, that we may want to consider.

Hopefully, out of this set of activities and with the approval and guidance of our own Board of Directors, we can develop a new or alternative format for our meetings that will appeal to a broader audience, provide some meaningful and appropriate Humanist rituals with a bit of emotional appeal and a new impetus for growth that can be shared with other chapters around the country, so that we may all grow and prosper in the spirit of Humanism. There is no reason why our Orange Country chapter cannot show the way.

We as Humanists need to recognize we are in a momentous competition in the marketplace of ideas that may determine the very survival of the human species and our planet. We are competing for the hearts and minds of millions. Without the millions, we will never have a sufficient number of fellow Humanists, the financial resources that those numbers can help provide and the accompanying power to win that important competition.

We should not be discouraged by the prospects for success. Keep in mind the words of Thomas Huxley who said: “The great end of life is not knowledge but action.” Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895) English surgeon, biologist, author, lecturer, advocate of evolution and popularizer of science who coined the word “agnosticism”

And, the words of American clergyman Edward Everett Hale (yes, even religious leaders can and often do provide us with worthwhile secular thoughts). He said:

I am only one,
But still I am one,
I cannot do everything,
But still I can do something,
And because I cannot do everything,

I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. Edward Everett Hale (1822 - 1909) American clergyman and author

And finally, allow yourself to be inspired by the words of futurist and author Willis Harman who said:

“Throughout history, the real fundamental changes in societies have come about not from the dictates of governments or the results of battles but through vast numbers of people changing their minds -- sometimes only a little bit!” Willis Harman, futurist thinker and author of Global Mind Change

So, I simply ask that together we begin anew, that we refocus our energies toward the creation of a new model for a local Humanist chapter meeting, in addition to the debate and discussion model (if necessary), to demonstrate that another approach can work, and then communicate that new approach to other Humanists all across the globe.

Thank you for allowing me to share my journey to this point and my vision for the future of Humanism. I’d now be happy to respond to your questions.