Over the past dozen years, the term “New Atheism” has come into vogue, often understood as a label for a more assertive brand of nonbelief in God. In some forms it includes attempting to literally disprove God’s existence and/or aggressively criticize nearly all of religion’s influence on individuals and society.

The concept has been excoriated by conservative religious believers, as would be expected. Less expected is seeing it criticized by folks politically more moderate and liberal who see this highly visible atheism as being insufficiently concerned with social justice issues like women’s rights, racial equality, and the environment. So does atheism in general not care about such issues?

To pose the question that broadly is to overlook the diversity that marks nonbelief. Atheism is not a monolithic brand. When people declare themselves to be “atheists,” that alone simply says they don’t believe in any gods; it doesn’t naturally imply a commitment to any particular social contract. By contrast, to declare oneself a “humanist” means not only rejecting supernatural beliefs but also affirming certain things we do believe. The American Humanist Association defines humanism as a philosophy that includes a responsibility to lead ethical lives that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Like atheists in general, humanists make decisions without gods, relying instead on rationality and scientific research, while adding empathy and social commitment. So for example, we choose science-based sex education as proven to be more effective than abstinence-based sex education. We believe a strong middle class is best for a stable, resilient economy, and healthcare for all extends quality of life and strengthens society. We want the civil rights of all protected rather than constrained by dictates in Bronze Age holy books. As humanists we support such progressive values because we see positive results and understand cause and effect. We believe individuals can lead meaningful, ethical lives without gods while having the power—and duty—to change the world for the better. We believe in every person’s right to self-actualization and dignity.

So atheism and humanism share some traits but are not synonymous or interchangeable terms. This is not to say that declared “humanists” are better people than “atheists” or that atheists in general are not committed to good works. Indeed, at least three distinct atheist groups in the Pikes Peak area engage in activities of community betterment. Untold numbers of atheists are similarly engaged on an individual basis.

It’s worth noting that just as most humanists are atheistic, the majority of atheists hold humanist values even if they don’t use that word to self-identify. But atheism in and of itself is not aligned with a defined ethical system to guide behavior. Some nonbelievers have not moved beyond their simple rejection of gods to actively embrace interpersonal and societal responsibilities, as humanists formally commit to. (It’s equally true, of course, that many theists also eschew such responsibilities; belief in God is no panacea for such indifference.)

Though humanism and the New Atheism are distinct, the latter provides humanism a useful service by calling religious belief into question, criticizing irrational thinking, and debunking outrageous claims. Because such things impair efforts to promote a free, just, and egalitarian society. Which is a goal virtually all humanists and atheists share, whatever other differences we might have.

By Rebecca Hale

Published May 25, 2016 with quotation below:

“Gods can’t create values. Humans can, and so we must do so wisely.”
                                     --- Greg M. Epstein, Humanist Chaplain