12/19/98: I received this yesterday on the messageboard: "Hi, I was just wondering if someone could explain (compare and contrast) the terms humanism and rationalism. Thanks in advance for anyone who is able to help."    ...David Reinhard

Thanks, David, for the impetus for this article. I'll give it a go, but I'd like to quote one of my favorite philosophers, Dennis Miller, who always ends his weekly rants with "Remember, it's only my opinion. I could be wrong."

First, let's look at some dictionary definitions:

Humanism......a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially, a philosophy that rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's human dignity, worth, and capacity for self-realization through reason.

Rationalism..... the view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems......

And another related term without which must be included in any discussion of the first two:

Freethought (Freethinker)...the practice of forming opinions on the basis of reason, independently of authority; especially, one who doubts or denies religious dogma.

Taking them in reverse order, Freethought seems to be the most general of the three terms---the most all-inclusive. A Freethinker is a person who thinks for himself, who makes his own decisions. He does not allow his mind to be controlled by others in authority. He questions, he doubts, he searches for his own truths.

A Freethinker does not need the false sense of security generated by the act of submission to a higher power. He doesn't need the approval of the majority, the priest, or a god, because he has come to his own conclusions concerning 'socially acceptable superstition.' He does not believe in the supernatural because he does not 'believe.' He cannot 'believe' in anything for which there is no evidence, though he can and will 'accept' anything for which evidence can be presented.

He can accept the fact that the sun does not rise or set, though his limited senses tell him it does, because he has evidence to the contrary. He can accept the fact that earth is round because he has evidence that it is, though it doesn't appear that way at all. He can accept the fact he is descended from other more primitive life forms stretching back in time to the beginning of life itself, because he has evidence that this is so, though many of his species insist on deluding themselves that they were 'specially created.'

He can accept anything and everything that can be backed up by scientific evidence......but he cannot 'believe.' He cannot 'believe' because he has a driving desire to 'know.' He now knows that the earth is over four-billion years old; so he can't 'believe' in a book which implies a six-thousand year old earth.
He now has genetic evidence that his closest living relative is a somewhat hairier primate, so he can't 'believe' that he is some sort of special creation of a god for whom no evidence exists outside that same questionable book---a book which he questions because he is a freethinker.

A 'Rationalist' is a freethinker who knows that problems are solved by the use of human reason and human experience, through observation and the scientific method; not through prayer, animal or human sacrifice, or any of the other countless superstitious rituals mankind has devised. The Rationalist knows only of the existence of the natural world; there is no supernatural except in the deluded mind of man. Early man's attempts to explain his world were not scientific; they were not rational. For modern man to continue to hold on to this ancient, irrational, superstitious nonsense is a disgrace to the potential powers of the human mind.

Irrational beliefs, no matter how comforting they may be, no matter how tenacious their hold on the youthfully indoctrinated mind, are still irrational beliefs. The Rationalist recognizes this and attains intellectual integrity by
outgrowing Santa Claus and all other myths. Acquiring knowledge, not amassing superstition, is his lifelong goal.

As stated at the beginning of the H.A.T. page, 'Humanism' is a secular, ethical philosophy which values people, emphasizes reason, and focuses on the world in which we live. Up to this point the two terms, freethought and rationalism, could be considered somewhat interchangeable.
Obviously, they are all very closely related. The use of one as a subgroup
of the other is a matter of personal preference, and could be logically argued. Rationalism could be seen as a division of freethought, or vice versa.

However, the term 'Humanism' adds a new and very important element to our study......the human being. Humanism "values people", not gods; and stresses
the individual's human dignity, worth, and capacity for self-realization through reason. There is no dignity in bowing and scraping before some imaginary god who was conjured up by a primitive, superstitious mind. There is no dignity in the blind, unquestioning acceptance of religious dogma. There is no dignity in turning away from the real issues of humanitarianism (the people) to squander time, energy, and money on the lavish appeasement of non-existent deities.

Humanism requires that we care more about this world and the people in it, while religion requires allegiance to an imaginary 'next world.' Think what could have been accomplished in terms of humanity by now if all the time, effort and money funneled into all the religions throughout the ages had
been used instead to care for and to educate the people of this world.
It boggles the mind to contemplate where we might be today.

Instead, humanity is still serving its various gods, people are still killing each other in the names of these gods , and the world continues to suffer.