Aesop’s Fables, ancient secular stories with strong moral (and practical) messages

Baggini, J., 2003. Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Very Short Introductions). Oxford: OUP.

Blackburn, S., 2002. Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics.Oxford: Oxford Paperback.

Blackburn, S., 2006. Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Penguin.

Cicero, (tr. Grant, M.), 1979. On the Good Life. London: Penguin Classics.

Condon, R.J., 1974. Our Pagan Christmas. London: National Secular Society.

Copson, A., Donnellan L.and Norman R., 2022. Understanding Humanism. London: Routledge

Copson, A. and Roberts A., 2020. The Little Book of Humanism London: Piatkus

Copson, A. and Roberts A., 2021. The Little Book of Humanist Weddings. London: Piatkus

Copson, A. and Roberts A., 2023. The Little Book of Humanist Funerals. London: Piatkus

Dawkins, R., 1998. Unweaving the Rainbow. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press.

Dawkins, R., 2006. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.

Fisher, R. 1996. Stories for Thinking. London: Nash Pollock Publishing.

Fisher, R. 1999. First Stories for Thinking. London, Nash Pollock Publishing.

Gould, S.J., 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. London: Ballantine Books.

Grayling, A.C., 2003. What is Good?. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

Herrick, J., 2005. Introduction to Humanism. London: Rationalist Association.

Hinde, R., 1997. Religion and Darwinism. London: British Humanist Association.

Hobson, A. & Jenkins, N., 2000. Modern Humanism – Living Without Religion. London: Rationalist Press Association.

Holloway, R., 2004. Godless Morality. London: Canongate.

Humanist Philosophers’ Group, 2002. What is Humanism?. London: British Humanist Association.

Humanist Philosophers’ Group, 2004. Thinking about Death. London: British Humanist Association

Humanist Philosophers’ Group, 2005. Humanist Perspectives 1. London: British Humanist Association.

Humanist Philosophers’ Group, 2005. Humanist Perspectives 2. London: British Humanist Association.

Humanist Philosophers’ Group, 2007. The Case for Secularism. London: British Humanist Association.

Inwood, B., & Gerson, L.P., (trans.), 1994. The Epicurus Reader. London: Hackett.

Knight, M. & Herrick, J. (eds.), 1961. Humanist Anthology. London: Rationalist Press Association.

Knight, M. & Herrick, J. (eds.), 2000. Humanist Anthology. London: Rationalist Press Association.

Law, S., 2007. The War for Children’s Minds. London: Routledge.

Lipman, M. & Stottlemeier, H., 1982. Discovery. London: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.

Midgley, M., 2007. Intelligent Design Theory and other ideological problems (Impact pamphlet no. 15). London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

Mill, J.S., 1863. Utiliarianism. London: Methuen.

Norman, R., 2004. On Humanism (Thinking in Action). London, Routledge.

Roberts A. and Copson A. 2020. The Little Book of Humanism. London: Piatkus

Rogers, B., (ed.), 2004. Is Nothing Sacred?. London: Routledcge.

Russell, B., 1927. Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. London: Routledge Classics. (See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian)

Sagan, C., 1997. Billions and Billions. London: Headline.

Taverne, D., 2007. Are Religion and Science Compatible?. London: British Humanist Association.

Walter, N., 1997. Humanism: What’s in the Word?. London: Rationalist Press Association.

Warburton, N. 2004. Philosophy: The Basics. London: Routledge Paperback.

Wilson, E.O., 2006. The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. London: W W Norton.

Wynne Willson, J. & Ashby, R., n.d. New Arrivals. London: British Humanist Association.

Wynne Willson, J., n.d. Funerals Without God. London: British Humanist Association.

Wynne Willson, J., n.d. Sharing the Future. London: British Humanist Association.

The family is just as important to humanists as it is to everyone else, though humanists may have a fairly liberal and inclusive idea of what constitutes a family. The humanist idea of a good family, like their idea of a good community, will be based on how members treat and care for each other, including the more vulnerable members, and how much good it does in the world.

Community is important to humanists as a source of friendship and support, and some humanists find these particularly within the humanist community. But many humanists do not restrict their idea of community to those who share their beliefs, and have a strong sense of the wider “human community”.

Humanist families may practise their beliefs by, for example, sending their children to an inclusive school (rather than a faith school), or in withdrawing their children from school worship or Religious Education (though the latter would be unusual and might depend on the local RE syllabus or a teacher’s interpretation of it; most humanists do not object to their children finding out what others in our society believe, though they also welcome the inclusion of their beliefs in RE).

More generally, humanist parents encourage their children to think for themselves and to become responsible adults.

Humanist families may choose humanist ceremonies such as baby-namings, weddings or funerals. In some countries, particularly those where most adolescents are confirmed, young humanists participate in alternative humanist summer camps or classes, leading to humanist coming-of-age ceremonies. For example, the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association runs a preparation course for “civil confirmation” taught by philosophers, which includes:

“ethics, human relations, human rights, equal rights, critical thinking, relations between the sexes, prevention of substance abuse, skepticism, protecting the environment, getting along with parents, being a teenager in a consumer society, and what it means to be an adult and take responsibility for your views and behaviour … There are 2 main rules in our course: 1) it is all right to be different, to dress differently, look different, and hold different views from the majority. And 2) One should be honest.”

The humanist community may practise its beliefs by developing courses and ceremonies for its members – and, usually, for anyone else who feels they are appropriate. It may come together in national organisations like the British Humanist Association, which “supports and represents” humanists and other non-religious people, or humanists may meet together locally.

Both of these are linked by the desire and need for humanists to live lives of integrity, according to their own beliefs. One impact on the wider community is the availability of a choice of ceremonies suited to the non-religious. Another is the greater visibility of humanists and a growing awareness that, for example, legislation on discrimination and freedom of belief protects humanists too.

The impact of belonging to a humanist family or community depends very much on time and place. In some societies it may be accepted as perfectly normal, while in others it once was or is still a source of tension or conflict with the wider community: there are countries where atheism is not accepted at all and where there is no visible humanist or atheist community, indeed such a thing would be dangerous.

In Britain today, to belong to a humanist family and / or community would be a confidence-building source of support, helpful in equipping one against some of the negative assumptions that still exist about atheism and humanism.

The humanist tradition entails trying to do some good in the world and a commitment to working with others for the common good; many humanists work alongside religious believers in, for example, education and the “caring professions”, and in projects, campaigns and charities which aim to improve the world in some way. In many of these settings whether one has religious belief or not is less important than the task itself and may not come up as an issue.

Humanists are fairly diverse, as humanist ideas have arisen independently in many places at many different times. There are humanist groups and organisations all over the world. As with religions, shared ideas, beliefs and values can create strong bonds across different nationalities and cultures.

Humanists sometimes worry that humanism lacks a clear “identity”. For the non-religious it is not always easy to find a group identity, but many humanists are satisfied by their belief in human solidarity and / or the concept of “multiple identities”, which may include family, profession, politics, hobbies and interests, neighbourhood, nationality and their humanist worldview. One humanist answered a child’s question “Who am I?” like this:

“You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil – you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself.” (Dan Barker in “Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist”)

Humanists will be divided, as are philosophers and scientists, on the “mind / body question”: Is the mind is simply another way of talking about the brain, or is the mind (or consciousness or “spirit” or “soul”) something separate and different? Whichever it is, humanists will look for a naturalistic explanation; it is inconceivable to a humanist that there is anything within us that could exist independently of the brain, or after death. For humanists the only possible survival after death is in the work, the memories, the children, that we leave behind, and in the fact that our remains will sooner or later become part of natural world.

There is some diversity within humanism about the merits of religion and of interfaith dialogue. Humanists are sometimes excluded from interfaith dialogue and networks on the grounds that humanism is not a religion, and thus do not always know what it involves. However, most humanists would prefer to see dialogue rather than religious conflict, and many would like to enter into dialogue with others, regardless of their worldviews, about common concerns such as climate change and world poverty.

Some humanists, like some religious believers, are very interested in what other people believe and would like to find out more in a neutral setting that does not compromise their own beliefs. Humanists do participate in some local interfaith groups and SACREs (Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education).

Increasing diversity during the past half-century has made the UK a much more interesting place to live, but humanists are often concerned that the freedoms associated with an open society may be threatened by too many concessions to religious groups. Humanists are not on the whole separatists, and do not seek their own schools, or youth or scout groups, or welfare services – and would prefer that pluralism was expressed in “reasonable accommodations” of religious and cultural needs within a framework of shared values and shared public and community institutions.

Whilst strongly believing in a democratic secular state that does not privilege religion in any way, humanists also have a clear commitment to human rights, including the rights to freedom of religion or belief, and freedom of expression. Humanist beliefs rarely, if ever, clash with the requirements of citizenship, at least in secular democracies, though, of course, humanists do not necessarily agree with everything that their governments do. Humanists believe that citizenship should be based on the acceptance of shared values and institutions, but should not demand abandonment of religious or cultural beliefs and practices, as long as they do no harm.

Humanists feel awe and wonder – at the natural world, for example – and concern, joy and sadness just like other human beings. When it comes to praise and thanks, humanists would thank and praise other people for the good things in life, not a deity, and they do not worship. One difficulty for humanists in discussing the “spiritual” is that all so many different feelings and concepts are encompassed in the word “spiritual”, some of which they share, and some of which they do not because they are essentially religious concepts. Humanist reservations reflect the fact that humanists share the normal range of human emotions (despite sometimes being written off as coldly rational), but do not believe in gods or souls/spirits or anything supernatural.

One impact of the above can be unease amongst humanists about the word “spiritual” and discussions about how far humanists can use the word to describe their emotional and aesthetic lives. Many would avoid the word altogether if it were not so prevalent, for example in education.

In practical ways, the assumption that everyone prays or worships can be an irritant to humanists, especially when it is coupled with assertions that those who do not worship a god must therefore worship possessions or football teams. Humanists usually make time for “private reflection” in their ceremonies, and have devised their own “graces”, for use in formal situations, such as:

“… First, let us think of the people we are with today, and make the most of the pleasure of sharing food and drink together. Then, let us think of the people who made the food and drink and brought it to us, who serve us and wait on us, and who clear up and clean up after us. Finally, let us think of all the people all over the world, members with us in the human family, who will not have a meal today.”(Nicolas Walter)

There is a close relationship between what people value and what they feel. Humanists value the natural world, human relationships and culture, and these are the sources of some of their deepest feelings. They may share the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “awe and wonder” at “the starry skies above and the moral law within”.

Humanists see religious experiences as entirely internal, subjective and personal, and as religious interpretations of ordinary human experiences, such as the feeling one might get watching a beautiful sunset or a baby being born. Humanists do not believe in miracles either, and see all these religious phenomena as explicable in naturalistic ways, by, for example, sciences such as psychology and medicine, wishful thinking or the placebo effect.

In this account of a humanist “spiritual experience”, Fenner Brockway (1888-1988), socialist MP and member of the Advisory Council of the British Humanist Association, described how it influenced his life:

“This spiritual experience came one evening as I stood looking over the green ocean towards the red sunset. A great calm came over me. I became lost in the beauty of the scene. My spirit reached out and became one with the spirit of the sea and sky. I was one with the universe beyond. I seemed to become one with all life … I have said that this experience is my religion, yet it leaves me an agnostic … I have no sense of a personal God. My philosophy is founded on the experience I described. I cannot be other than a world citizen, identifying with all peoples.”

Many humanists see such events more simply, as joyful aesthetic experiences, but this account shows how they can be interpreted, with profound effects on a humanist’s life.

The ‘ultimate questions’ for humanists are probably similar to those for religious believers. They are questions about purpose and existence: Why are we here? What happens to us when we die? Why is there so much suffering? Is there a god? How do we know what is right?

For a humanist, speaking of “the ultimate” can be problematic. Humanists ask this kind of question because they are reflective human beings, and because thinking about these questions is part of determining who they are and how they live. However, many “ultimate questions” do not seem very susceptible to the usual humanist thinking tools of evidence and reason; on the other hand, religious answers are utterly unconvincing to humanists.

Humanists have various options when they consider ultimate questions:

1. They can remain agnostic about them, acknowledging the human need to ask such questions and being prepared to explore them, but believing that we can never be certain of the answers.
2. They can adopt a rather dismissive attitude to them, perhaps best exemplified by A J Ayer in ‘Language Truth and Logic’ (1936) in which he categorises all statements that are not either true by definition or empirically verifiable as “nonsensical”, or by Bertrand Russell’s airy answer when asked how he would explain the existence of the universe, “I should say the universe is just there, and that is all.”
3. They can find their own answers. Some will look to science to provide answers. Richard Dawkins, for example, tends to do this, but he also finds a kind of transcendence in contemplating and exploring the natural world, as do many humanists. Humanists may also share the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “awe and wonder” at “the starry skies above and the moral law within”, or experience transcendence in creativity or the arts.

Questions of personal identity – “Who am I?” – tend to be answered by humanists in relatively pragmatic, empirical terms. Everyone is a unique blend of genetic influences (some immediate, from parents and family, and some very ancient, part of the shared human heritage) and environment (upbringing, culture, education – all the external influences on us). Humanists also think that we have a great deal in common because we are all human beings, living in human societies, and tend to look to psychology, social psychology, anthropology and evolutionary psychologists for answers to questions about human nature.

Humanists respond to experiences of transcendence by seeking rational explanations. Experiences such as joy, wonder, sudden clarity or understanding, forgetfulness of self, or love, often categorised as “spiritual” can also be seen as normal human emotions, often aesthetic or to do with relationships. To seek naturalistic explanations of these experiences and to deny that they are religious is not to belittle them; they mean a great deal to those that experience them. To explain things, to “unweave the rainbow” (as Keats’ expressed his criticism of “cold philosophy” in his narrative poem ‘Lamia’) is not necessarily or even usually destructive or reductive; it may even be life-enhancing and inspiring:

“… isn’t it sad to go to your grave without wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be part of it?” (Richard Dawkins ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’)

Suffering appears to be an inevitable aspect of the human condition: few of us have lives untouched by pain, loss or failure, and none of us can avoid death. How does a humanist respond to “the problem of evil”, the impossibility of reconciling suffering with an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent god? For humanists, this is not so much a problem as a powerful argument against belief in such a god. Humanists would not blame a deity or any abstract concept of evil for suffering; nor would they look to a deity for solutions or comfort. They find these in human action and solidarity, and in themselves and their relationships.

Humanists do not believe in any kind of supernaturally inspired end to human existence, or in the possibility of surviving death. But many, along with many religious believers, are becoming concerned about the prospects for humanity in a crowded, over-exploited world with dwindling resources and rising temperatures. They see this as a natural problem, to be solved, if it can be, by human effort, which will probably include changes in behaviour and technological developments.

If humanists find any meaning in death, it will be in reflecting on a life well lived and on transience: as Marcus Aurelius put it in his Meditations (121 – 80 CE), “Nature’s law is that everything changes and passes, so that, in due course, other things may come to exist.”

The main difference between the humanist attitude to death and that of most religious believers is in the absence of belief in life after death. The only way we can possibly live on, humanists believe, is in the achievements and memories and children we may leave behind us – an extra incentive to live a good life. Belief in death’s finality is not necessarily gloomy: “Death is nothing to us: for after our bodies have been dissolved by death they are without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us,” said Epicurus, in “Principal Doctrines”, c.300 BCE, and most humanists agree.

Humanists adopt a similarly rational attitude to life and death issues such as abortion and voluntary euthanasia. Life may be very precious but it is not “sacred” or “God-given” for a humanist and there can be good reasons to end it. Autonomy, the power to make decisions about one’s own life, is very important to humanists, and they do not, for example, believe in causing or prolonging suffering unnecessarily.

Humanists, in their ceremonies, are usually expressing a commitment to another person, as well as a public commitment to humanist beliefs and values.

Humanists think that the only reliable evidence for truth claims is empirical, and that scientific method is the only way of finding out how the world works. They accept that the findings of science are provisional, and that good theories may be superseded by better ones if new evidence appears, without being relativists. Many theories achieve the status of knowledge or truth because the evidence for them is so strong and no counter-evidence has been found. Humanists also accept that the vast explosion of knowledge in recent centuries means that it is no longer possible to know everything from first-hand experience; we have to take some knowledge on trust.

Many religious believers also trust in scientific method, empirical evidence and the experts for their beliefs about the world.

Humanists are not necessarily or usually relativists, people who think that there things can be “true for you, but not for me” or that there are special “religious” kinds of truth. Humanists do not think that simply believing things makes them true, or that metaphors should be treated as if they were literally true, or that individual subjective interpretation of experience is reliable. They would use the word “faith” for ideas which are not backed up by empirical evidence.

Humanists would not believe something to be true simply because an authority, religious or secular, says it is. The experts they trust are those who employ scientific method and are prepared to change their minds when new evidence appears, and who distinguish carefully between matters of personal taste or opinion and matters of fact.

Most humanists do not think that science and religion have much in common, even though they sometimes use similar language. Some agree with the idea, popularised by Stephen Jay Gould, of non-overlapping magisteria, that is, that science and religion deal with completely different areas of experience, science with the empirical realm and religion(though not only religion) deals with ultimate questions. Others, such as Richard Dawkins, take the claims about the world made by some religious believers as evidence that religion and science are in conflict over the same kinds of truth claim, and that science gets them right, because its methodology is good, and religion gets them wrong because its “evidence” comes from sacred texts and traditions.

Humanists would look to sciences such as psychology and anthropology for explanations for the appeal and ubiquity of religious faith. They would not take ubiquity as evidence of the truth of religion, but would see it as an expression of human needs: for explanation – particularly of existence and death – for certainty, for rules and sanctions, for tribal cohesion, for ritual.

The evidence is that it is clearly possible to be both a scientist and a person of faith (as many people are).

Humanists tend to point to the resistance of religious authorities to the many scientific discoveries that they have seen as challenges to faith, as evidence of a clash of worldviews. Examples include the Church’s opposition to Galileo’s observations about the Universe, which were seen as undermining Christian beliefs about the centrality of the Earth and humankind in God’s creation, and religious condemnation of the Darwinian theory of evolution, which contradicts the literal truth of many sacred texts and suggests a godless mechanism for the development of the vast array of life-forms on Earth.

Because empirical and religious language sometimes overlap, for example in the use of words like “reality”, “truth” and “knowledge”, it is easy to imagine they share the same meaning. But they may well not, as religious concepts and expression are often very different from scientific or empirical ones.

Many have been influenced by a humanist worldview to use their talents to try to make the world a better place. Some have been famous for their contributions to society, science, medicine and the arts, for example, Charles Bradlaugh, the first openly atheist MP, the Curies, Thomas Hardy and Percy Bysshe Shelley in the 19th century; and A J Ayer, Fenner Brockway, E M Forster , Sigmund Freud, Julian Huxley, Nehru , M N Roy, and Bertrand Russell in the 20th. Humanists Brock Chisholm, Peter Ritchie Calder and John Boyd Orr were instrumental in setting up the institutions of the United Nations in the mid-20th century. Today many distinguished and influential humanists continue to work to improve the world.

One of the founders of the British Ethical Society movement, Moncure Conway, quarrelled with his American family and was dismissed in 1856 from his Unitarian church ministry because he opposed slavery. Later, in London, he spoke for women’s suffrage. Britain’s first openly atheist MP Charles Bradlaugh (1833-91) had to fight to take up his seat in Parliament with a non-religious affirmation, and was sentenced to six months in prison in 1877 for publishing a pamphlet about family planning.

Humanist politician Fenner Brockway (1888-1988) devoted his life to world peace and racial equality. He too was imprisoned – for his opposition to the 1914-18 war. He played a leading role in bringing about the independence of Britain’s former colonies. He worked with the first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru (1889-1964), who, despite a peaceful campaign to establish independence, was sent to prison many times by the British government of India. Nehru observed how ignorance and religious dogma and traditions held back India and saw the need for secular democracy and social reforms.

Indian social reformer, Shri Goparaju Ramachandra Rao (also known as Gora) (1902-1975), motivated by atheism and despite his own high caste, strove to abolish the caste system with its ‘untouchables’, and the idea of ‘karma’ or divine fate.

After World War 2, Julian Huxley (1887-1975), an early supporter of humanist organisations, was appointed the first Director-General of UNESCO, where he promoted world-wide education, population control and conservation of nature.

Another early adviser to what was then known as the British Humanist Association, John Boyd Orr (1880-1971) put his belief that we should use our knowledge to eradicate hunger in the world into practice when he became the first Director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). He was followed at the WHO by humanist Brock Chisholm (1898-1967) who dedicated much of his life to awakening the world to its responsibility for the present and future welfare of humankind, and to the problems caused by over-population.

Peter Ritchie Calder (1906-82), was a humanist, journalist, British delegate to UNESCO and UN Famine Conference, and adviser to Oxfam. He helped to start the UN Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, as well as being active in the British Peace Council and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He believed that science, used properly, could help the world.

Not all humanists have achieved fame of course. As one distinguished freethinker of the 19th century, writer George Eliot suggested: “… the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

Humanists respond to contemporary ethical issues using the tools of reason and empathy. These do not, however, always lead to the same conclusions; for example, some humanists are pacifists while others would support a humanitarian war or a war of self-defence. But humanist responses are usually liberal and permissive on issues such as voluntary euthanasia, sexuality and abortion. They do not tend to believe that all human life from conception to death is “sacred” or inviolable, and set great store by personal autonomy on issues such as the expression of sexuality or the value of one’s own life and when to end it, as long as one’s actions do not harm others. Thus this apparent license is constrained by respect for others and the desire to do as much good and as little harm as possible.

Humanism and human rights have both been influenced by Enlightenment thinking which stressed the commonality of human beings, regardless of race, culture or religion, and therefore the universality of moral values, because they are based on shared human nature and needs. Social justice, the equal treatment of all citizens and the protection of citizens from abuse by powerful institutions all fall into the category of universal human needs. Humanists have championed “the open society“ (essentially liberal democracy), as the best way of securing personal freedom, happiness and fulfilment.

Humanists do not on the whole set up their own separate humanist organisations to work towards progress on these issues, preferring to work with others for the common good, to support some of the many excellent organisations already working in these fields, and not to discriminate amongst those who need help on grounds of belief.