From Free Thought to Groupthink: How Humanism Lost Its Way

Shivam Gandhi advocates for humanism's' return to reason and accepting harsh truths about religion, especially religions that minorities may hold.

I have identified as an atheist since the age of 10. In my younger years, I was an angry, Christopher Hitchens-style anti-theist. As I’ve grown older, I’ve developed a more tempered worldview, one that is spiritual yet secular. Despite my resistance to organized religion, I’ve always longed for the sense of community that religion provides. This yearning led me to Harvard’s humanist group, hoping to find a meaning-making system within their ranks.

For those unfamiliar, Humanism is a non-religious philosophy emphasizing the potential of human beings to shape their own lives. However, its definition varies depending on whom you ask. For instance, secular Judaic humanism blends elements of religion with humanist principles.

My year with Harvard’s humanist community began on a positive note. I met introspective, kind individuals who welcomed discussions about life’s complexities. However, my interactions with the humanist chaplain ultimately soured the experience. The chaplain, an avowed progressive who championed causes like “racial justice and healing” and “masculinity from a feminist perspective,” also prominently supported political campaigns such as Kamala Harris’s 2024 bid. His overtly political stance was off-putting to me, and emblematic of a deeper issue within upper-middle-class humanist circles: the virtue signaling and elitism that seemed pervasive.

By virtue of being based at Harvard, the group attracted a privileged and insulated demographic. This lack of diversity in perspective was disheartening, particularly for someone from more humble roots. Ultimately, these dynamics—and the broader hubris within humanist institutions—led me to question my association with such organizations.

The Dawkins Controversy

Anyone familiar with atheism knows Richard Dawkins, a key figure who helped make atheism a viable public identity. In 1996, the American Humanist Association awarded him the title of Humanist of the Year. At the time, criticizing religion was akin to blasphemy, and Dawkins, along with other New Atheists, courageously challenged organized religions like Christianity and Islam.

Yet, in a shocking move, the American Humanist Association revoked Dawkins’s award—not for actions contradicting humanist values, but for a single tweet deemed controversial that questioned gender identity theory. While the tweet might be interpreted as insensitive, it hardly warrants the public rebuke Dawkins received. This capitulation to a narrow idea of “inclusivity” undermines the very freethinking and intellectual courage that has driven the atheism and humanism movement.

Freethought has never been about appeasement. Progress often involves challenging sacred cows, even at the risk of offending others. The silencing of dissenting voices in the name of political correctness betrays the foundational principles of atheism and humanism alike.

Double Standards on Religious Criticism

While humanist organizations are quick to critique the Christian Right, they often shy away from condemning oppression in the Islamic world. The fear of being labeled “Islamophobic” or “racist” has stifled necessary discourse about issues like apostasy, women’s rights, and LGBT persecution under Islamic theocracies.

This reluctance also extends to integrating immigrants from conservative religious backgrounds into Western societies. The potential cultural clash between Western values and fundamentalist religious practices—such as aspects of Sharia law—raises valid concerns. Yet humanists avoid addressing these topics, instead, often opting for weaponized accusations of bigotry to silence meaningful criticism.

The same progressive hypersensitivity prevents humanist leaders from taking strong stands on global antisemitism. For instance, after the October 7th attacks on Israel, humanist figures hesitated to unequivocally condemn the antisemitic nature of such acts, instead engaging in political equivocation. This lack of moral clarity alienates those seeking principled leadership.

In addition, ex-Muslims, who risk their lives to leave the religion of Islam at potentially life-threatening cost, often find themselves ostracized by progressive humanists. This betrayal leaves ex-Muslims without allies in their fight for freedom and safety and illustrates humanist organizations’ failure to support some of the world’s most vulnerable atheists.

The Sacrifice of Science at the Altar of Ideology

Atheism and freethinking are inherently tied to scientific inquiry. The American Humanist Association explicitly includes freethinking as one of its tenets. Yet, many humanist organizations abandon scientific rigor when it conflicts with progressive dogma.

For example, Harvard’s humanist chaplain invited physicist Dr Chanda Prescod-Weinstein to chair a discussion. While her scientific credentials are impressive, her paper Making Black Women Scientists Under White Empiricism undermines physics by framing it as a product of “white empiricism.” This perspective disregards the contributions of non-white physicists and misrepresents the inherently objective nature of scientific inquiry.

Parting Words

It is unfortunate that many humanists have come to treat progressivism as their new religion. I hope that atheists and secular minded individuals can reclaim the freethinking tradition of our group and push back against the excesses of progressive humanists. Until then, however, I will abstain from participating.

Shivam Gandhi is currently a PhD student at Harvard University studying systems biology and writes about viewpoint diversity and higher education.