Central Humanism puts you at the hub of your universe and gives you responsibility for your humanity nbsp;

CENTRAL HUMANISM HUB

...keeping a human perspective on life...

truth, integrity, realism, humanity, responsibility, compassion, secularism, a free & open society, moral absolutism, common sense and reason, pursuit of peace, survival & advancement of civilization, honest
& focused government, a broad, secular education for all children, creation of a social climate that promotes trust, progression of major global concerns such as population control, environment/sustainability & fighting poverty, corruption & corporation greed

with footnotes on tolerance, creationism, insurance company ethics, employers' rights, marriage, anti-humans, immigration policy, free trade, taxation, 'offensive' cartoons, whaling, Victorian bushfires, human potential, funny hats and many other topics

  "As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities"
(Voltaire)

It's time to dump superstition and political correctness and face up to reality

Initial draft posted 10/12/2002. Last updated 26/02/2010

Introduction

"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." (Bertrand Russell)

The following pages present an informal account of the ethical philosophy of "Central Humanism". Here you will find, amongst other things, support for a certain view of the chief principles that should guide our lives and the life of modern society, in particular Australian society. You will also find censure of various currently fashionable principles that should not guide our lives. A formal description of the Central Humanist outlook does not yet exist and these notes, which are largely unsupported by argument, are certainly no substitute for a fully reasoned discussion.

Let's be quite clear at the outset: the fundamental issues for the citizens of any relatively wealthy, liberated nation are (in very broad terms) health and security. In fact, these are arguably the chief concerns of every normal person on this planet. In the near future (10-50 years?) their importance is likely to increase dramatically as the effects of global warming set in, regional over-population hits critical limits and our leaders find themselves battling to contain the ensuing socio-economic disruption. Regardless of global realities, however, sudden economic catastrophe is possible - if not inevitable - at any time in the near future, due to the instability of the financial fairyland on which the world has become dependent. Compared with these concerns, much of what follows might seem academic, if not redundant.

(2009 - If I wrote these notes over again, I'd paint a broader canvas. It's difficult being a humanist in a world that's vastly over-populated with human beings, most of whom are too wrapped up in their own trivial affairs to bother about the poor condition of their home. DR.)

Background - Secular Humanism

Central Humanism has much in common with rationalism (in the modern, popular sense), "free-thought" philosophies, scepticism, naturalism and, especially, secular humanism (now often just called "humanism") - e.g. see Council for Secular Humanism - Affirmations. The key features of secular humanism are respect for the freedom and dignity of all human beings, a lack of belief in any divine intervention and a rational approach to life.

While secular humanism is definitely not a religion, its advocates invariably claim it is a "philosophy". Presumably they use this term in a weak sense, for in practice they find it difficult to give their creed any philosophical underpinning. As a result, the principles listed in their various manifestos often look uncannily like the commandments of a religion - indeed one Australian writer calls them "axioms", implying that they need no justification but must be held self-evident. Unfortunately many of them seem far from self-evident and one might therefore be inclined to think that secular humanism in its current form is to some extent a package of unfounded beliefs.

There are, however, three very important differences between the precepts contained in humanist manifestos and the central beliefs of every religion. Firstly, the precepts of humanism are all meaningful while many of the doctrines of religion are meaningless or nonsensical. Secondly, the precepts of humanism are intended to be logically consistent with one another, as well as with obvious truths about the real world, while many of the doctrines that characterise any given religion (in so far as they have any meaning at all) are either inconsistent with one another or with obvious facts of reality. Thirdly, the ideas of humanism are open-ended and freely held, while those of religion are closed, dogmatic and authoritarian. Another difference (of practice rather than doctrine) is that nearly all religions require their adherents to indulge in various degrees of seemingly useless ritualistic behaviour, while humanism makes no such demands.

Furthermore humanism, in so far as it is sceptical and atheistic, is not a system of beliefs at all, but a resolve to eliminate all groundless beliefs from one’s thinking. The atheist in the humanist is simply one of the manifestations of a sincere, enquiring frame of mind.

Central Humanism - some differences from mainstream humanism

"Central Humanism" is a convenience label, serving no other purpose than to signify the broad philosophy outlined in these pages. It does not name any organisation or discrete group of people, nor does it stand for any neat definition or fixed set of affirmations. Central Humanism is supposed to combine a love of truth, nature and humanity with a common-sense approach to ethics, but of course there is no guarantee that everyone will see it that way.

As might be expected, Central Humanism is broadly compatible with the principles outlined in the Council for Secular Humanism affirmations and the less clearly phrased American Humanist Association Manifesto III, and with some other affirmations of the humanist philosophy. In particular it concurs with the view that a civilized society is a humanist society, i.e. a secularised society that defends human moral values. However, it is not compatible with all statements of secular humanism, such as the International Manifesto for Atheistic Humanism - see Footnote 20. More importantly, it does not agree with the requirement of the International Humanist and Ethical Union that all humanists must accept the following "minimum statement":

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

This is woolly in the extreme, for the most part resembling a typical piece of theological jargon; the italicised sections, in particular, would surely be regarded by most thoughtful people as little more than gibberish. Because of the fundamental importance of meaningfulness in the Central Humanist philosophy, this "minimum statement" is unacceptable.
(For more useful links see Footnote 6.)

Regrettably Central Humanism - at least in the casual presentation of the topic on this website - may be destined to share the unwarranted stigma of "belief" with most other accounts of humanism. However, one of the in-house objectives of Central Humanism is to develop a sound philosophical basis for its agenda. A necessary prelude to this endeavour would be to clarify the differences between truth, myth and nonsense - because if we seek a sensible philosophy of life we must at least be rid of the last two. Thus our leading principle of thought and communication should be: let’s do our best to call a spade a spade and keep the goblins out. This principle calls for common sense, self-integrity and directness of thought and speech, but excludes the more radical belief of many humanists and rationalists that true knowledge can only be acquired systematically, using scientific method and logical analysis (see #6, paragraph 3).

While upholding the fundamental values of secular humanism, Central Humanism differs from the mainstream in several important respects, which are highlighted in the following notes. Perhaps the main difference is that it perceives humanism more subjectively - as dealing with life from a human standpoint - rather than as an aggrandizement of humanity or simply as an attempt to eradicate religion from public life. It places more emphasis on the human qualities of individuals, including their competence to live according to respectable criteria of truth and reality, and it shows a deeper concern for non-human life and for the future of the planet. Other differences include its commitment to the search for absolute values, its rejection of  "the scientific method" as the the only legitimate route to knowledge, its insistence that many morally provocative terms are meaningless, a stronger opposition to religious observance (which it considers to be profoundly immoral) and the various notions of "centralisation" from which the philosophy gets its name. In this way of thinking, nothing is taken to be self-evident. But if self-evident truths were possible, the following might well be included among them ("laws of disparity"):

[Note: Variety should not be equated either with chaos or with cultural diversity, if culture means inheriting your parents' hang-ups and superstitions - because for the inheritors this implies restricted access to life's diversity as well as to life's truths.]

The intention of these notes is to outline general principles and to clarify (or disown) various moral concepts rather than to discuss specific issues. However, certain issues do get limited airing because they serve to exemplify a general principle or a way of thinking. Because Central Humanism casts a broader net than most humanist agendas, there are a number of topics covered here that often receive little attention from other humanist organisations. Due to world-wide natural and societal changes, many former non-issues are becoming issues, and many of these are becoming moral issues. On the other hand, some former moral issues are running to the end of their life, either because solutions have been achieved or because of broadening attitudes. Compared to some other humanist sites, in these pages you might find differences in emphasis and opinion on topics such as gay rights, animal rights, religious rights, various kinds of discrimination, water conservation, carbon emissions, vegetarianism, drugs usage and so on.

Finally, the reader must be persuaded into believing/doing two impossible things:  (1) Art critics need not be artists:  those most qualified to criticise are often the ones who have made the most mess with their brushes.  (2) Please do not read or quote any of these notes out of fair context.