There being no standard definition of Secular Humanism (or rather, several dozen, none of which is "canonical"), I guess I will post my own definition, which I believe to be not in any major conflict with those of others.
Secular Humanism is a movement of people who, having rejected supernaturalism as a viable worldview, wish to effect social progress in harmony with human needs, instead of numinous edicts. It is related to the atheism and freethought movements, but goes a step beyond. Whereas atheism is a statement of what one does not believe, Secular Humanism is a statement of what one DOES believe. It attempts to answer the question, "OK, so there's no God, NOW what?"
The term "Secular Humanism" has evolved through several permutations, re-inventions, interpretations, mis-interpretations, re-interpretations, to the point that it is often conflated with similar movements from the past. There is, for instance, Religious Humanism, which seems to be an oxymoron. There was a humanism movement during the Enlightenment; and during the 1930s, there was a secular humanism movement that was closely associated with communism. The current incarnation, represented by two groups, the American Humanist Association and the Council For Secular Humanism, are very distant outgrowths of that last. (There is no conceptual relationship between Secular Humanism and communism!)
And then, of course, there is what some conservative Christians believe about Secular Humanism, that it is a movement to remove religion from daily life, that it worships man in place of God, that Secular Humanists eat their young, etc. It is often conflated by them with "secularism," which in the political sphere is the effort to enforce the separation of church and state, and more generally the effort to keep religion out of places where it is inappropriate. Though assuredly all Secular Humanists support secularism in this context, religious people of all stripes make up the bulk of secularists.
I had written a whole lot more, but I have found a more "official" definition that I can live with, this one from the AHA:
My personal "take" on Secular Humanism is this: I consider it to be the best hope for the future of mankind. It provides a whole new framework within which to paint a picture of what the world will be like - or could be like, if we acknowledge that we are solely responsible for "how it all turns out." The lack of a cosmic guiding force is at once invigorating and frightening - it means we are free to steer the ship ourselves, but it also means that no one is going to help us keep it afloat in troubled waters.The AHA wrote:Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.
Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility.
It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.
Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values--be they religious, ethical, social, or political--have their source in human experience and culture.
Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.
In a nutshell, Secular Humanists are socially concerned atheists. We see the lack of a deity as both a liberating transformation, and a call for renewed social responsibility on the part of individuals, nations, and human society. Far from allowing our atheism to devolve into self-serving "hedonism," we place perhaps even greater emphasis on moral values than the average theist - perhaps because, lacking a divinely-inspired instruction manual on which to rely, we actually have to think about it.
Comments and questions invited.
