If you haven't seen it, the British Humanist Association have put out a rather nice little video of interview clips with a variety of famous humanists on why their faith is the best. Watching it, I had to giggle as early on esteemed philosopher A.C. Grayling claims that "humanism, of course, is not a religion," while the whole video exudes religious sentiment.

The video is a classic proselytising pitch (what those of us who study religion call an "apologetic"): Why our understanding of reality is right and all the (other) religions are wrong. (And recall that Jehovah's Witnesses too used to proclaim theirs is not a religion.)

Of course, it all depends on how you define religion. If you require a God and a scripture and a church to attend every Sunday, then no, humanism is not a religion. But for those of us interested in the science of religion and religious phenomena, that particular and narrow definition has long been discarded. "Religion" like "love," "art," "culture," "identity" or a whole host of human-related endeavours is something we feel we know intuitively, but when you put pen to paper, becomes very difficult to define.

Religion isn't necessarily about a relationship with god(s) - that would exclude great atheistic traditions such as Theravada Buddhism and Confucianism. It's not about going to heaven or hell - that would exclude most of the eastern reincarnation-based traditions, as well as Taoism and some forms of Judaism which do not make any claims about an afterlife. It is not about attending services and forming communities - that would exclude ascetics and anchorites who practice in solitude, or even plenty of non-church attending Christians, as well as regular Jews, Buddhists and New-Age practitioners for whom religion is a private affair.

But however you define religion, the interviewees in the video are acting just as religiously as a Southern Baptist Convention or a soap-box evangelist in Hyde Park. First, there is the attempt to persuade us - through firm conviction on the part of the interviewees - that their understanding of how reality works is the correct one and that other views are erroneous. In making their pitches for the superiority of humanism, derogatory references to competing world-views include:

that religion is "superstitious" and a "fantasy";

that eternity as a concept is "frightening";

that religious people are blase about looking after the planet because they think they can have do-overs in an afterlife;

that science is the only tool for knowing the facts of reality and truth;

that many religions are about "repressing sexuality and having very anti-female and homophobic perspectives," unlike humanism which is inclusive; and

that it is "no good getting on your knees begging for somebody else to do something" because making the world a better place is just up to us.

Just like a televangelist on early-morning television, our interviewees make snap-judgements about the worst of religious behaviour, or present a superficial view of what "religion" is all about, comparing it against the "best" of humanism. It hardly looks much different from the proselytising pitches of Pat Robertson for Christianity, Ahmed Deedat for Islam, or even Tom Cruise for Scientology.

Musician and stage-performer extraordinaire Tim Minchin says:

"I guess humanism is the beginning of a life of trying to live well and be good and the thought that you need some mistranslated oft-translated doctrine to tell you that that's a good way to live is not just surprising but slightly abhorrent to me, if you can have something that's slightly abhorrent."

Well, however much I might love Tim's music and comedy, how is this any different than a religious person claiming, "I find it slightly abhorrent that people think they can live moral lives without a scripture"?

Then there is the religious language. Polly Toynbee tells us that the world is "infinitely precious, and quite extraordinary, and almost miraculous." Author Phillip Pullman speaks eloquently about his gratitude for consciousness. Writer and journalist Zoe Margolis preaches a vision of love and doing good to others, fulfilling our dreams. Andrew Copson, who is the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, discusses imbuing individuals' lives with greater meaning. A.C. Grayling speaks of developing moral vision through reason. Tim views humanism as a way to live well and be good. Academic Rumy Hasan describes the world as "wondrous ... its astonishing, awe-inspiring, yes at times fearsome, but a humanist says, 'Well let's try and understand the world'."

These expansive views of life are wonderful, but they are perceptions of reality, not inherent attributes of physical phenomena. It takes human beings - who have a unique quality of consciousness that the religious among us call spiritual - to be able to view reality in such a way.

Strictly speaking, Darwinian survivalism is not about inclusive views of humanity and doing good to others; it is about the "selfish gene" attempting to win out over others in the race to propagate for posterity. Some philosophers, of course, argue that we make a social contract to be altruistic for our own good - in which case the non-religious attitudes towards living should be, "I'll do the minimum best for others that will allow me to maximally succeed." But this is not what we hear from our atheist humanists.

Instead, we heard about love, miracles, wonder, connection to the greater whole and humility before truth. And if that ain't religion, then I don't know what is!

Rachel Woodlock is a writer and academic based at Monash University.