Is humanism a product of religion?

Is humanism a rejection of religion?

There are those who say that humanism would not exist were it not for religion. Some claim it is a worldview defined in opposition to a religious way of life, rather than an independent body of thought.

Here Andrew Copson addresses the subject:

‘It would be foolish to deny that in many contexts – whether our own present day, the Britain of Hume, or the India of the Charvakas – humanist ideas have arisen in deliberate opposition to religious ideas and religious establishments that advanced these alternative views.

So is it fair to characterize humanism as merely a response to religion, parasitic on religion for its context? It is true that many (though not all) instances of humanism in the historical record lend themselves to being interpreted as reactions to religion. But the key ideas characterized as humanist have developed at different times and in different places not only in reaction to anti‐humanist religious or political ideas but also out of observation and experience, not as reactions but as independent and positive affirmations or commitments. This is especially important to emphasize in the West, where advocates of a living Christian tradition tend to exaggerate the role of their own tradition in the formulation of shared ideas (and even alternative ideas too).’

Andrew Copson, Handbook of Humanism

Is humanism the fulfillment of religion?

‘The thin universalism of secular humanism is the proper icing on the thick religious cake.’

Theo Hobson, God Created Humanism: The Christian Basis of Secular Values

Andrew Copson responds by highlighting that Hobson uses a minimal definition of secular humanism to mean, ‘the belief that all human lives matter and should flourish, and that part of such flourishing is the freedom to express one’s core beliefs.’ The definition held by most humanist writers and organisations today would include more than that: ‘a commitment to morality as a prudential enterprise, rooted in human nature and culture; the idea of meaning as something created by humans rather than something discovered; and the sole use of the human faculty of reason applied to evidence as a way to discover truths about external reality.’ It is less easy to see how these ideas find their roots in Christianity.

Copson also argues that Hobson ignores much of Greek and Roman philosophy and literature in his historical account and the influence they had on both humanist and Christian thought. Of course religious thinking will have had some influence on humanism, but the reverse is also true. AC Grayling argues that much of Christian ethics was borrowed from the concurrent humanist philosophy once it became apparent that the morality of the New Testament was unlivable. Instructions to avoid making plans, refuse to marry, and abandon all one’s possessions may have worked for those who believed the world was about to end, but they were untenable in the real world. Instead, therefore, much of classical Greek ethical thought was moulded to fit Christian theology.

Both humanism and religion have fed off each other.

Question: If religions had never existed, would humanism exist?