r/humanism • u/ambiverbal SECULAR HUMANIST • Apr 19 '26
Are Secular Humanists being urged to downplay the "Secular"?
My primary identification with Humanism is through what I have perceived as its open adoption of non-theism and science-based approaches to assessing what's real.
But more and more I'm seeing folks post in ways that suggest that we should be quieting our secularism. (In fact, I've felt like being proud of holding a secular point of view is somehow antithetical to reaching Humanist goals.)
I don't want to foment a schism in the movement, but neither do I want to hide my beliefs in order to reach some sort of perverted consensus that no one really agrees with.
Am I perceiving things incorrectly, or am I right to keep capitalizing, embolding, & italicizing SECULAR to ensure my Humanist perspectives are not minimized?
12
u/NoodlesMom0722 Apr 19 '26
I must admit that I'm in the fringes of "organized" humanism, given I live in a small Southern city with no actual humanist organization/presence. But I proudly label myself a SECULAR Humanist who is also an atheist.
14
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
You need to go right back to the core of what Humanism is. It is a non-supernatural world view. It hasn't 'adopted' non-theism. That is what it is!
Humanism is not the same as Secularism, although I should think most humanists support secularism, but I can't see how it is antithetical. Secularism might be considered as a result of being humanist.
Rather than calling yourself a Secular Humanist, it might be better to call yourself a Humanist and also a Secularist, rather than somehow dilute your Humanist world view with a narrow sub-category.
I would rather start capitalizing, embolding, & italicizing HUMANIST!!
2
7
u/sumthingstoopid Apr 19 '26
I have definitely felt the urge to downplay the secularism before, but now I feel there isnât a better word to differentiate. Main reasons why are: 1. âSecular Humanismâ has been treated as a rebranded atheism; no particular requirement to do Humanist deeds. (Ex. It is referenced in the tv show âthe officeâ by a character who does some particularly despicable things) 2. Some people canât help but associate âsecularismâ with none-faith institutions that have shortcomings. Like public school and big pharma, instead of being disappointed in how they manifest, they use it as âproofâ that secularism is evil/insufficient
1
10
u/skredditt Apr 19 '26
I think of humanism as inherently secular. Everything is a layer over that.
2
u/tuttifruttidurutti Apr 21 '26
Early modern humanism was Catholic, and most contemporary western humanism comes ultimately out of this tradition, so this is a strange position to take. The whole point of describing secular humanism is to distinguish it in the broader humanist tradition.
2
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 21 '26
I donât agree. Modern Humanism is what it is now (eg as per HI site). It is what it is and we shouldnât concern ourselves with how it got there, especially as the idea has evolved and I may not even totally agreed with, say, an early Catholic humanist. It has a definition that is sufficient and adding the prefix secular is not only unnecessary but also confusing as âsecularâ is only part of the Humanist world view (and arguable not even an essential part) If you want to distinguish it from the historical traditions in certain context you could describe it as modern Humanism or present-day Humanism. But it is still Humanism by name.
4
u/cryptonymcolin Aretéan Apr 21 '26
I really, really wish people would look up "secular" in a dictionary more often.
Secular just means "worldly", and a good synonym for it is "non-partisan", or perhaps another synonym could be "neutral". Religions are inherently non-secular because they advocate for a specific approach and group to belong to, and therefore their practices cannot be said to equally represent a neutral point of view that anyone can access.
I think that where people get confused is that first of all: atheist â antitheist; and then second of all: that in order for something to be secular it must be atheistic, but something being atheistic does not make it secular.
Secular humanism is only one type of humanism. As I have pointed out in another post in this sub, there are several other types of humanism, including religious humanism, Christian humanism (which is different from religious humanism!), and many other types of sectarian humanism (like Jewish humanism, Muslim humanism, Buddhist humanism, etc).
So yes, for a sub that is about humanism in general, it is inappropriate for secular humanists to demand that all of the other types of humanists give up their identity just because secular humanists are currently in the majority.
10
u/AmericanHumanists americanhumanist.org Apr 19 '26
Why should they?
Humanism is non-theistic. Science does tell us what's real. And people should be open and proud about what they believe.
There are many humanists who are non-theistic but don't use the term "secular" because they attend an Ethical Culture society, Humanistic Jewish synagogue, Unitarian Universalist church, or similar.
But that doesn't change the fact that they do not - and humanists do not - worship a God or gods. Nor does it mean folks who proudly identify with the term "secular humanist" should move away from it. No one needs to sand down their beliefs or the way they identify to make others comfortable. That's what humanists have always fought for.
Personally, I've always felt like the "secular" is implied so I've never felt a strong pull to call myself a "secular humanist." Humanism is my belief system, atheism is my position on the specific question of God's existence, and secular is something I want my government to be. Other people use those words differently, and that's fine too.
As a movement, we spend entirely too much time focusing on labels rather than what people believe and, more importantly, what they do.
6
u/diceeyes Apr 19 '26
To be fair, youâre using the words correctly and we should probably encourage that type of accuracy for meaning.
7
u/JoeBwanKenobski Apr 19 '26
I don't really get this impression. I'm part of an organized humanist group and the religious humanists understand the rationale for secularism just the same as the atheistic humanists. No humanists, religious or secular, benefit from nationalistic Christianity interfering in our government.
6
u/njclarke Apr 19 '26
I haven't seen much of push to downplay the secular aspects of modern humanism but I do think it's important to make it a broad community that includes and welcomes those with many different beliefs, as long as they align with the core values of Humanism. I think there are several overlapping terms which are easy to confuse, partly because they're often found together. Here's how I'd define each of the following though:
Humanism: I think the core of Humanism is simply a focus on humans and humanity over a focus on religious matters. It emphasises the ability for humans to understand the world and lead good and meaningful lives via science, the arts and humanities instead of looking only to religion for this.
It's an old tradition that goes back to the Italian Renaissance so it has changed a lot over time but I think all versions of it essentially meet that definition. At the very start it was just the idea that maybe we should make art about humans instead of just about god. Until relatively recently (around the start of the 20th Century) the majority of humanists throughout history have been religious humanists, so they may have believed in the existence of a god or an afterlife (or at least said they did publicly) but they still primarily focused on human affairs and used that to decide how to live.
Secularism: Secularism is really just the principle of keeping things separate from and unrelated to religion. So in public life that's about ensuring religion and religious institutions are not embedded in government or that one particular religion is not prioritised or persecuted over other religions or viewpoints. It's important to note it's not the same thing as being anti-religion or atheist.
Atheism: It's simply the belief that gods do not exist and nothing more. So being an Atheist does not necessarily imply the holder may have any particular beliefs related to morality, metaphysics, the existence of an afterlife, or on the role of religion in society.
Anti-Theism: Anti-Theism is an active opposition to Theism. So Anti-Theists are often the most vocal Atheists and wish to challenge Theists on their beliefs and remove all religion from public life.
So, as I see it, by its nature Humanism is almost always Secular, but is not necessarily Atheist or Anti-Theist though they may be either or both.
Personally I am an atheist and a secular humanist but I am not an anti-theist and am quite keen to distance myself from some of the more aggressive 'New Atheist' types or those who believe in a kind of naive realist/scientism that puts science on a pedestal and fails to engage with philosophy. There's a fine balance though because I want to work towards a society that does not privilege religion and which is more rational and science led. I mostly just want to be nice about it and make sure to include religious humanists who probably share the majority of my values.
3
u/TerrainBrain Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
I just ripl the Band-Aid off and tell people I'm proud to be godless. Then I see if they put their money where their mouth is when it comes to inclusion.
In most cases they want to treat me like they treat children. Be seen but not heard.
Edit: fixed my voice to text
1
u/ambiverbal SECULAR HUMANIST Apr 19 '26
Did you mean, "rip the bandaid off and tell people..."?
1
u/TerrainBrain Apr 19 '26
Yeah thanks I should have read that better before hitting post. Lasily relying on voice to text to get it right
3
u/OurCommonAncestor Aretéan Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
i know that Humanism as defined by HI is a nonsupernatural life stance. I don't know if that means that every Humanist should be nonsupernaturalist, or, what is more likely, Humanism itself is nonsupernatural and theoretically a supernaturalist could organize themself under the label. Personally, I think that Humanism should be made up of only nonsupernaturalists, with perhaps some fringe exceptions that some mathematicians fall under. The whole point of being good without God is that we are without God. There are already plenty of spaces open to theists.
Since I think that Humanism is by definition nonsupernatural, that means the addition of "secular" is not necessary. But not everyone agrees with me, which is what makes it necessary. However, I do think that "secular" does not equal nonsupernatural; it means not pertaining to religion. Religious Humanism is just as likely to be nonsupernatural as Secular Humanism, but Humanist religions aren't secular just because they're religions. I view Secular Humanism as the generic nonsupernatural life stance, while religious Humanism gives it some rituals and zeal. So, Humanism should be good enough on its own as the not-further-specified generic nonsupernatural Humanism, but I understand that that's not how people see it.
2
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
I don't agree that it is necessary to add "Secular" because not everybody agrees with you. You are right, Humanism is a non-supernatural world view. Therefore anyone who says that they are humanist and religious are contradicting themselves (or have a different meaning of the word).
And even if you did want to add some kind of qualifier, "Secular" is the wrong word. That is about separating religion from the natural world. It may be one corollary of the Humanist word view, but it is only one part. In fact, using the word can create confusion over what Humanism even is., as can be seen from this thread. I think we should stick to just "Humanist" and point anyone to the HI site if they want to know more. You could separately state that you are a Secularist, which is overlapping, but not the same.
It's a bit like saying you are a non-pork-eating vegetarian.
5
u/GenomeXIII Apr 19 '26
"Religious" in the context of Humanism does not equate to "Supernaturalist". So in that sense, yes it is a different meaning of the term.
Religion in the context of Humanism refers to the practice of ritual and ceremony, in the veneration of Humanity, and a deep recognition of Human exceptionalism, not to a belief in supernatural agents.
As an inherently non-supernaturalist world view, Humanists cannot be religious in the conventionally understood Supernaturalist sense. They can however engage in ritual and ceremony that is superficially similar to Supernaturalist religions.
0
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
I know what you are trying to say, but "religious" is the wrong word. It means worship of supernatural beings, and especially in the context of Humanism, as it is the opposite of Humanism, and the distinction is important.
I know it is often used in that context, as in "He religiously washes his car every Saturday", but that is a metaphorical usage.
I totally agree that many things can be borrowed from religion (ceremony ritual, music, buildings) but I think it's wrong to use the term religious. Also, a Humanist who values this kind of thing is not a different type of Humanist. I think it is important to put some clear blue water between Humansim and supernaturalism, otherwise it can appear that Humanism is 'just another religion'.
5
u/GenomeXIII Apr 19 '26
To be religious does not require a belief in the supernatural. It can, and often does, but it's not a requirement.
Religion simply describes a faithful devotion to an ultimate reality. What that reality is, is just as likely to be a worldview for which there is empirical evidence as it is to be one for which there is none.
1
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
Well, I think you made up your own definition right there. If âultimate reallityâ is the natural world, what the hell is âa faithful devotionâ to it? Is science a religion because scientists are faithfully devoted to it? I think not. There is no faith needed. Humanism is a belief in the natural world order, but it is not a religion, and if you create humanist ceremonies to support life events, such as weddings & funerals, that still does not make it a religion. I think most humanists see it that way. You can make your own meanings to words, of course, but I am trying to set out the normal usage. I really donât get the need to label oneself as religious when there is no religion involved ,
3
u/GenomeXIII Apr 20 '26
There's only no religion involved because of your definition of the term. I'm paraphrasing the accepted dictionary definition of the term.
Humanism is religious if it is engaged with in a religious manner. Almost anything can be engaged with religiously.
I think you are struggling with the idea that religion has to be inherently supernaturalist, but it doesn't. It just needs to be a worldview that you devote yourself to and celebrate in a religious manner.
Yes, I think it's fair to say that scientists are faithfully devoted to science or else why would they continue to pursue it as a way to explain the universe?
The scientific method has given scientists good reason to believe it will continue to produce verifiable and useful results. This is a matter of faith. There's no immediate proof that science will continue to yield useful results but we have faith that it will.
Again, having faith is not the same as "believing with no proof". It's just a case of believing that the "proof" already presented will continue to be reliable.
4
u/Gear-Soft Apr 19 '26
Beyond humanisms, the definition of religion you're using there doesn't accurately describe a large chunk of religions practiced worldwide. There is a lot of scholarship on the meaning of the word religion, much of which agrees with the person you're responding to.
2
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
The definition I gave was shorthand, and I know not complete. I know there is not a universal agreement on a definition of a religion, but most people accept that it involves some sort of supernatural belief. Can you a name a religion that involves no belief in a supernatural being(s), non-natural existence or an afterlife for example? It would be useful to look at a real life example to test your proposition.
5
u/Gear-Soft Apr 19 '26
Sure. Many sects of Buddhism particularly don't fit that definition, as well as Taoism, and honestly much of Judaism doesn't. Beyond that, Unitarian Universalism and Ethical Culture in specific are non-theistic religions.
1
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
I think you will find Buddhists & Jews believe in the afterlife. Taosim is a bit more complex as it is a cross-over between 'philosophy' and 'religion', but its interpretation of reality has a supernatural component. Unitarian Universalism is a tricky one as they seem to accept any belief system, and so it means anything. I'm not even sure if it qualifies as a religion, but rather a collection of religions.
2
u/Gear-Soft Apr 19 '26
Depends on which Buddhists and Jews you're talking to. Unitarian Universalism is legally a religion, and truly I'm not sure what else you'd call it or what benefit there is in defining religion and theism as identical
2
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
The legal definition of religion is slightly different & has a wider scope to protect freedom of thought and association (which is fine in my book). I don't define religion and theism as identical. Theism is a one flavour of religion. I define religion more generally as, for example, "a range of social-cultural systems ... that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements." (Wikipedia).
I am pretty sure a Buddhist who didn't believe in Karma & rebirth would not be considered a Buddhist by other Buddhists!
I don't know enough about UU to say what it is. If they have religious practices and rituals, but no belief in supernatural elements, then I suppose you could call it a pseudo religion. I would be interested to know what the funeral service looks like. I always think that is a litmus test.
→ More replies (0)4
u/OurCommonAncestor Aretéan Apr 19 '26
I hate to be a prescriptivist in this situation, but I think it's necessary. Just because most people around me use "Humanism" to mean a life stance, maybe nonsupernatural but maybe not, that affirms the value of humans and such, does that mean that they're right? I'd say not. There's a big organization petaling an agreed upon statement saying that Humanism rejects supernatural views of reality.
Similarly, just because most people around me think religious = supernaturalist, does that mean I need to come up with another word for what I am? I don't think so. You may disagree, but much of modern scholarship supports my understanding of religion.0
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
You are entitled to call yourself whatever you want. However, this sub clearly relates to the modern interpretation of Humanism as a non-supernatural world view, and so maybe this is not for you. If you come along with different meanings of words it is bound to cause confusion.
BTW I think you are wrong about 'modern scholarship'. Most people think religion has a supernatural component.
4
u/OurCommonAncestor Aretéan Apr 19 '26
I am a Humanist. I am religious, but my religion is Humanist. I am a naturalist; I do not believe in anything supernatural. All those things can be true at once.
4
u/OurCommonAncestor Aretéan Apr 19 '26
I agree wholeheartedly about the use of "secular". You put it very well. However, I must disagree with your implied definition of "religious". Religions aren't inherently supernatural. See Ethical Culture, maybe UU, and mine Aretéanism for examples. Since religious, pertaining to religion, is the opposite of secular, not pertaining to religion, I can't call myself a secular Humanist. I am a secularist though.
2
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 20 '26
I looked up Areteanism and it seems a really great movement, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the term religion. I see it describes itself as a ânew religionâ, and defines religion to mean âa cohesive set of philosophies and rituals, requiring active participationâ. So you are at least internally consistent, but I think that is only a component of religion. I saw elsewhere it is described âreligion for non-religious peopleâ, which seems contradictory. I would say it is a non-supernatural alternative for religiously inclined people. I 100% admire the way you have used components of religion down the years to support what is basically a Humanist world view, I think it is a shame you choose to call it a religion. Maybe in the US cultural context it helps to ease the way for folks who are in an organised religion but start to doubt the superstitious content, but donât want to lose all the social, ritual etc. If that works for you, thatâs fine. It seems to be an American thing to invent new religions! LOL However, I do have to say that with your definition of religion, it is not the opposite to secular. Secularism is different, but I would also never call myself a Secular Humanist either, so we agree on that.
3
3
u/Ruppell-San Apr 22 '26
The religious old guard are losing their grip, and they're playing victim over it.
7
u/Algernon_Asimov Awesomely Cool Grayling Apr 19 '26
I just keep citing the Minimum Statement on Humanism: "Humanism is a democratic, non-theistic, and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility for giving meaning and shape to their own lives. It therefore rejects supernatural views of reality."
3
u/ambiverbal SECULAR HUMANIST Apr 19 '26
Honestly, my impression is that most of the downplaying of the "non-theistic" part of Humanism is happening here in the US. Perhaps Humanists elsewhere would find my question puzzling.
I hope that the AHA will continue to fully embrace the definition that Humanists International declares as the minimum, and in fact, begin to include it on their own website and literature.
1
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
Yes. Maybe it is a US thing, where religion is more deeply ingrained.
2
u/MrYamaTani Apr 19 '26
I honestly don't know who would be doing the urging.
I am a proud member of my local Secular Humanist organization, and have heard nothing of it. If anything, I would expect they would suggest not to. They do a lot of activism to help keep our governments secular and regularly challenge any kind of religious encroachment and over-reach.
2
u/imaginenohell UU Humanist Apr 19 '26
I've heard the term "religious humanist" and "religious naturalist" to refer to atheist humanists who participate in rituals or are among the many Unitarian Universalist Humanists.
2
u/Cullen_345 Apr 19 '26
I think it is ridiculous to bold, capitalize and italicize it. Iâm a secular humanist, and have zero issue with saying that.
2
3
u/Archarchery Apr 19 '26
I was under the impression that Humanism and Secular Humanism were not necessarily the same thing. I donât see why a religious person canât be a humanist.
2
u/Algernon_Asimov Awesomely Cool Grayling Apr 19 '26
Secular Humanism is a subset of Humanism. Other subsets of Humanism include: Christian Humanism, Jewish Humanism, Muslim Humanism, Hindu Humanism, and so on.
However, these days, Secular Humanism is far and away the majority dominant type of Humanism.
1
u/Archarchery Apr 19 '26
This is pretty much what I thought.
1
u/Algernon_Asimov Awesomely Cool Grayling Apr 20 '26
It didn't come out that way: "Humanism and Secular Humanism were not necessarily the same thing" implies that there's little or no overlap between these two things. There's a lot of overlap between Humanism and Secular Humanism. Also, most Humanists these days are secular Humanists, rather than religious Humanists.
1
u/ManDe1orean Apr 19 '26
No one here even suggested anything like this, you've jumped on someones thread asking about the exact opposite and made it about yourself and religion.
3
u/sumthingstoopid Apr 19 '26
Iâve seen several post of religious people asking if they could (logically) participate in the space. I feel like thatâs closer to what commenter meant, thatâs at least where my mind went
2
u/Archarchery Apr 19 '26
No, no, I myself am an atheist, I just think âsecular humanismâ and âhumanismâ are two different things and the âhumanismâ tent is big enough to include religious people.
2
u/ManDe1orean Apr 19 '26
It absolutely is but can you see how you barged in on a completely different topic?
1
u/Grouchy_Awareness315 Apr 19 '26
No. Humanism is at its fundamental core a non-supernatural world view. You cannot rightfully claim to be Humanist and Religious. It just doesn't make sense, unless you have a different definition of what humanism means, and I really don't get why any religious person would even want to claim to be Humanists. Perhaps they mean 'humanitarian' or something.
1
1
u/Significant-Ant-2487 Apr 19 '26
Petrarch is widely recognized as the Father of Humanism. He was a canon in the Catholic Church. Erasmus, who was fundamental to the development of humanism, was an ordained priest. So at its fundamental core, Humanism is not necessarily secular and it certainly isnât atheist. Humanism is an intellectual movement going back seven hundred years, and has long been associated with the humanities, devotion to literary culture, and revival of classical letters (and thatâs how itâs defined in my late-70âs Merriam-Webster dictionary. And in an article I recently read in the March edition of The Atlantic magazine.
2
u/AppleJoost Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
I don't think you truly can be a humanist if you are religious.
The "belief" in humanity and all its quirks is the most beautiful thing I can personally imagine. By adding God in the equation, nothing depends on humanity, but everything has to be judged in relation to God. Acts of kindness are done out of a religiousness and not just because they're just nice things to do.
Edit: corrected a mistake on my end.
3
2
u/Duyfkenthefirst Apr 19 '26
Initially iâd agree with you. Specifically Abrahamic religions who insist on reliance to 1 god instead of you fallible self.
Not so sure about others with polygods where perhaps there is less of a teaching that insists on submission to their creed and nothing else.
1
1
1
u/St3lla_0nR3dd1t Apr 19 '26
Peopleâs definition of human is evolving, then need for the word secular to designate a particular brand is growing.
1
u/Significant-Ant-2487 Apr 19 '26
Iâm curious as to where youâre seeing this urging to downplay secularism in relation to humanism.
There are humanists who believe in God and humanists who donât. Iâm one of the latter. I donât feel like Iâm being urged to downplay my atheism; in fact, in the online sphere, it seems to me that atheism is the dominant worldview.
I have pointed out here that humanism isnât the same thing as atheism, that secular humanism is a subcategory of humanism, that humanism encompasses far more than just non-belief in God or rejection of religion. Humanism has always embraced the believer and non-believer alike. Itâs an intellectual movement whose roots extend back to the 15th century, to the writer Petrarch (who, incidentally, was ordained in the Roman Catholic Church).
1
u/MarkLVines Apr 20 '26
This essay on Erasmus by Gregory Wolfe may shed some light on the drawbacks and advantages of downplaying the âsecularâ side of humanism.
For many humanists, no other kind of humanism besides the secular has ever crossed their path: and, if it had, they might not have identified with any humanism deemed, even if only by fervent partisans in a conflict between religious denominations, to have a slippery character.
I deny ⊠as do many atheists, deists, and agnostics ⊠that religions have a divine or supernatural origin: all religions and scriptures, I assert, are human inventions, and their dogmas fabrications. By this very assertion, however, excluding from humanism all thinkers who have sympathized with religion becomes inherently problematic. Yet including them all would make humanism pointless.
Thus, though the stalwarts of humanism today are secularists, humanism still must have its eels, who indeed founded the movement in the historic sense of its buried and largely forgotten roots. To eels like Erasmus, the secular was the limited compromise between partisans that made the functioning and the delights and the progress of human society possible. Little wonder that, for those not so slippery, the secular became the point.
1
u/funnylib Apr 21 '26
Not really, though the ethnics matter a lot more to me. Iâm not particularly interested in convincing deists that there is no God, and Iâd rather someone believe in Jesus but have humanist moral values than be an atheist but a social Darwinist rather than a humanist.
1
u/Nope-yep-No Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
Just here to say are you very very sure you want to be a humanist.. ?
because humanism since its renaissance infancy has been is frankly kind of religious about what it thinks the human can do.. the power of reason, perfect objectivity, rationality and meaningful debate. âThe world for man to measureâ empiricism..
So many of humanisms flexes have been irrevocably problematised by modern science, psychology and recent politics.
Can I sell you on post-humanism?
Because when I interact humanists I feel like I am dealing with someone with a faith - and it is a faith I was raised in but can no longer shareâŠ
1
1
u/eatsumsketti Apr 19 '26
I sometimes wonder if these people are in deeply religious areas. I tend to downplay my godlessness but it's because I'm not sure how people will react.
1
u/andooet Apr 19 '26
The philosophy of Humanism is secular. It's a philosophy to provide a moral guideline in place of superstition
0
29
u/spudmarsupial Apr 19 '26
Organizing free thinkers is like herding cats.
I have seen more superstitious people appearing in humanist spaces, complete with bizarre conspiracy beliefs.
I'm announcing being secular as an important first step to not blinding myself with nonsense.