A hypocrite wears a halo but hides mockery in his heart. Ambrose Bierce defines hypocrisy as “one who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises”. I suggest humanism has been hijacked by atheism and is pretending to believe in something it does not really believe in. “We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side” says Bertrand Russell, “one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach.”
Humanism is a philosophical worldview and humanist morals are inspired by humans but are neither explicitly atheistic nor theistic. It is not the objective of humanism to reject personal individual beliefs, and critical thinking does not presuppose we all arrive at the same conclusions. In a free humanist society, personal belief, or religious belief should be, and can be, a private and personal matter. Government and education should be and can be completely free of religion. In an ideal world maybe everyone will lose their theisms and religious rituals. But as long as individual beliefs aren’t intrusive, there is no point in trying to rip the carpet from under people’s feet.
As R. Joseph Hoffmann recently said, “There is no reason to vilify God and religion, historically understood, for excesses that, as humanists, we slowly recognized as human excesses and finally learned to combat.” He advocates combating the excesses but only the excesses. He is not suggesting the excesses have been combated, but that we as humanists are combating them. It is not the objective to demolish all personal religious belief. However humanism needs to create an alternative humanistic worldview. I think only humanistic education in the sciences and logic as well as the arts including histories of atheism, humanism and religious beliefs, can encourage people to adopt reason and find spiritual, or life fulfillment in things like nature, the arts, and human relationships. In a humanist society, I don’t think individual private beliefs need matter so much and education in a humanist state will probably eventually dissolve them.
Nevertheless in today’s world torn apart by pollution, greed, climate change, fundamentalism and war all over the globe, when peace and unity are so vitally needed, and humanist organisations spring up to bring humanity forward promising humanist values, they seem consistently to miss the point. Instead of finding common values, they seem to be imposing an atheistic model as prerequisite to success. They promise to work with religious people but in the next breath make parodies of religious texts (such as Anthony Grayling’s The Good Book: A Secular Bible), and presuppose that all religious people hold fundamentalist views. Instead of building bridges and constructing new roads, they invest in slogans and rants rejecting all religious symbols, language and metaphors, and forget the historical contribution to the arts, philosophy, music and literature.
Humanist organisations promise to work with religious people but attack scientists with vast and varied theistic beliefs, as intellectually inferior. As Juliet despaired, “O serpent heart, hid with a flow’ring face! Did ever dragon keep so fair a cave,” I have never had a religious label, so it has never been necessary to identify with a negative label to contradict something I never believed. However in any case, I don’t identify as ‘atheist’ because of the baggage … I’m beginning to shy away from ‘humanist’ too. Humanism seems to be collecting a lot of atheist laundry.
It is important to distinguish between the multiplicity and variety of faiths with the horrors of fundamentalisms. This is something that does not seem to be clarified in education. Encouraged by a predominantly fundamentalist religious environment with religiously saturated politics, the paradigm of religion used by many American atheists is extreme Islam and illiterate fundamentalist Christianity. Perhaps that is why American atheism strikes the “foreigner” as especially angry and vitriolic, and naïve. The history of religions is sadly not understood.
Some atheists claim they can distinguish between fundamentalist and liberal religion, but their caricatures of religious people does not demonstrate this. Many religious people do not hold biblical views of God. Many religious people do not recognise the Bible as literally true. Many religious people understand the idea of ancient story telling in history, and pseudepigrapha. They do not however, anachronistically describe the Bible as full of “lies and forgeries” as Bart Ehrman does. Millions of religious people all over the world merely follow selective teachings attributed to Jesus, which would fit into a humanist view. These of course include basic maxims like ‘love your neighbour’, ‘heal the sick’, and ‘give to the poor’. Many religious people all over the world believe in a secular government and social justice. A fellow pacifist, who is also an Anglican priest, epitomised a lot of the theistic feeling recognised by religious people. He does not accept “the widespread opposition between ‘existence’ and/or ‘non-existence’ as being relevant to any serious contemporary understanding of ‘God’”.
Honorary “saint” perhaps, of Nottingham, D.H. Lawrence’s beautifully optimistic and hopeful zest for life: “What man most passionately wants is his living wholeness and his living unison, not his own isolated salvation of his ‘soul.’ Man wants his physical fulfillment first and foremost, since now, once and once only, he is in the flesh and potent. For man, the vast marvel is to be alive. For man, as for flower and beast and bird, the supreme triumph is to be most vividly, most perfectly alive. Whatever the unborn and the dead may know, they cannot know the beauty, the marvel of being alive in the flesh. The dead may look after the afterwards. But the magnificent here and now of life in the flesh is ours, and ours alone, and ours only for a time. We ought to dance with rapture that we should be alive and in the flesh, and part of the living, incarnate cosmos. I am part of the sun as my eye is part of me. That I am part of the earth my feet know perfectly, and my blood is part of the sea. My soul knows that I am part of the human race, my soul is an organic part of the great human soul, as my spirit is part of my nation. In my own very self, I am part of my family. There is nothing of me that is alone and absolute except my mind, and we shall find that the mind has no existence by itself, it is only the glitter of the sun on the surface of the waters.” (Apocalypse 1930)
Humanist institutions need to unite their promises with their practise and build a better future for humankind and the planet. They need to focus on secular education and government. They need to teach and practise honesty, kindness, compassion, altruism, social justice and all those fundamentalist human values that we share regardless of personal beliefs, even if they are religious.
Interesting post. I worry that the term “Atheism” is left ambiguous in your peace. Atheism is not a homogenous whole, as I am sure you are aware, and many people who do not believe in God simply consider themselves, agnostic, skeptic, naturalist, etc. Simply put: I would be wary of painting atheism, along with religion, in such broad strokes. What atheists are you referring to?
Thank you Kile. I am really talking about the atheistic model taken over by many organisations which identify as humanists. I think it is probably mainly American New Atheists who are muddling humanism with atheism. I’ve never considered myself in any way an atheist although I’ve never believed. I don’t find it necessary to paint myself with a negative to contradict something I never believed anyway. It never became necessary (I left it blank in the last census). I am inspired by a inclusive humanistic worldview. I don’t consider agnostics, skeptic or naturalists to be atheists unless they choose to identify with the term. I know many Christians who identify as Christian but are agnostic by faith and other Christians who don’t believe in a biblical god or any god at all. The existence or non existence of God isn’t relevant to any serious conversation for them. American New Atheism appears to be something that generally rejects religion as a homogenous whole and denies that it has any value. However I know people in other parts of the world, who if questioned, might say they’re atheist, but they do not entertain an anti religious worldview in the way other atheists, like American New Atheists, do.
Regarding atheist reactions to inferior”/illiterate fundamentalist Christianity.” As a former fundie, and currently for lack of better descriptors – an Empathetic atheist/secular humanist – I constantly find myself defending the intelligence of the Christian Right. I have yet to meet a fundagelical who is illiterate. Perhaps they don’t interpret scripture as literature as the more liberal Christians do, but to think of a very literate and intelligent group of people “illiterate” is a bit dangerous.
I went to a Lutheran College that occasionally taught the Bible as myth/literature instead of something to be taken literally – per my background. This still failed to acknowledge the spiritual experience, community and love people of faith have. Telling someone like the former me that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally did NOTHING to help the my deeply entrenched in the spiritual comfort zone. The reason why I started the support group for Former Fundamentalists was because I couldn’t find an atheist who understood what it meant to Believe – body and “soul.” I agree – atheists have a long way to go as far as gaining respect within the humanist community – but also – I can’t cast the first stone. Sometimes “mocking”/satirizing religious texts is therapeutic and even necessary. For me, creating satire of something that once was a life and death matter is part of the healing process.
I am suggesting there is more of an illiteracy about history, and the history and development of tradition, ancient writing, etc. I don’t mean they are literally illiterate. On fundagelicals, I’ve heard that term in reference to some atheists, who like fundamentalists, reject argument and evidence and are effectively batting for the other side. Evangelical atheists, I think it’s meant to imply.
The parody I am referring to I actually find a bit insulting, and not because it’s mocking the Bible. It is mainly a collection of rewritten plagiarisms without references and presented in the form of a Bible. It is presented as an alternative to the Bible. I don’t believe we need another ‘Book’. We have much great literature from which to be inspired, and I’d rather read the original thinkers than what is almost a mockery of authentic philosophical writings. As Bassanio says, “In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow, Will bless it, and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?” (MV 3.2) But it is not productive to ‘mock’ the Bible, and I think it is constructive to teach it as literature written in history.
Yes – have often heard the evangelical/fundamentalist atheist reference – and while it may be apropos for some atheists, it often is used to dismiss ALL atheists… much like how fundagelical Christianity is used to dismiss ALL aspects of Christianity – by some. There is room for a discussion on whether or not the term translates to atheists who don’t share a common community group think or text as well-established as the Bible/Church.
As for historic illiteracy – there again, many Christians are extremely well-versed about Church & Biblical history… the problem being that regardless of whether the history lines up with secular historical perspectives, FAITH conquers all discrepancies of historic fact.
To be honest – I’m not familiar with the specific book you speak of – yet – but if the texts they reference are in the Public Domain – more power to them!! Of course any good book’s value is greatly increased if a person can be directed to original texts – but if the original texts referenced are not under copyright – then have at it. Intellectual Property Rights is a whole different debate if the book draws from copyrighted works. Ironically, many spiritual texts are not honest of how extremely they borrow from long-dead oral traditions that were suppressed and destroyed and revised to suit the written texts we know. “Plagiarism” seems to be par for the course when creating new spiritual tomes. However, I can’t speak to whether this text was meant as a parody as James Croft and you do below.
I agree with a lot of this piece, but I think I disagree with more than I agree. To begin with, I don’t think this is right: “as long as individual beliefs aren’t intrusive, there is no point in trying to rip the carpet from under people’s feet.”
As an educator I want to see people’s beliefs founded on solid ground. That involves encouraging people to continually question and re-justify their positions, a constant process of carpet-tugging until the carpet is extremely hard to move. In my view this will necessarily favor naturalistic positions and atheism.
I was also extremely disappointed to see you label Anthony Grayling’s ‘The Good Book: A Secular Bible’ as a “parody” of a religious text. It is clearly nothing of the sort. It is an honest and generous attempt to collect sources of Humanist wisdom. Having spoken at length with Grayling I can assure you there isn’t a hint of parody in the thing, at least not the sort of parody that you are suggesting. It’s a shame you should criticize that work, as it is one of the most positive Humanist works I can think of, and is not in the slightest anti-religious. This gives your piece the unfortunate impression of a lack of even-handedness. The idea that it is “plagiarized” is so absurd that it doesn’t warrant response.
But this I entirely agree with:
“Humanist institutions need to unite their promises with their practise and build a better future for humankind and the planet. They need to focus on secular education and government. They need to teach and practise honesty, kindness, compassion, altruism, social justice and all those fundamentalist human values that we share regardless of personal beliefs, even if they are religious.”
Except for one small point – some people don’t. This is precisely the point of critiquing the dangers of religion, pseudoscience and other bad ideas.
That you don’t see the necessity of forthright atheism may be because, like me before living here, you don’t see the extraordinarily pernicious affect of repressive forms religion on American life. It destroys people, and in turn it needs to be destroyed.
Thank you for your reply. I’m disappointed we disagree so much James, and I’m disappointed you accept Grayling’s book so uncritically. I don’t see the value of borrowing fragments of the ‘masters’, and rewriting them without proper attribution. It is not at all clear it isn’t a parody of the Bible and it is presented in a similar style. I’m in the area of education too, and I’m concerned that people need original work more than snippets bundled together in a lookalike Bible.
As for the rest of the disagreements, I hoped I had clarified the difference between unintrusive personal belief and fundamentalist religion. I’m not suggesting we don’t continue to combat fundamentalism through education, but our human conscience should demand we distinguish the difference. The creator god idea may disappear with proper education and history, but theistic ideas are not necessarily going to dissolve. The main point of contention is fundamentalist religion which is harmful whereas liberal private belief doesn’t intrude into the government and education of society. I am sorry you think I don’t understand how bad it is in America. I am however well aware of the statistics, but it is still no justification for an agenda to destroy religious belief and theism altogether. Humanism is not about belief or non belief – they are personal things. Humanism is inclusive. That’s the sort of humanism I’m interested in to create a better future. It is all about education – and THAT is the priority, not beating up religious people. Outside America the Christians I know do not believe in a biblical god or the literal truth of the Bible, and they do advocate gay equal rights, social justice and peace. I know a few in America too. There is no need to combat their religious ideas. For many religious people existence is a human experience and the question of the god idea existing or not existing is irrelevant. I don’t think non believers should be offended by that.
I don’t know why you don’t see the value in a collection of humanistic wisdom from across the ages. Having been reading the book daily since its publication I find it extremely valuable and uplifting.
The question of attribution is a non-issue: the main sources are credited in the back of the book, and the decision not to fill the thing with citations and footnotes was a wise one, in my view. As Grayling suggests, the material’s value lies not in who wrote it but in the words themselves, and we tend to get our interpretation of a work clouded if we see fist who wrote it and when. In my teaching I will often remove attribution material from a poem or piece of writing to ensure students look at the text, not just who wrote it. I think it was a brave decision.
As for the “difference between unintrusive personal belief and fundamentalist religion”, I articulated my problem. It’s not that I don’t see the difference, but that I think that there is a) no such thing as “unintrusive personal belief” and b) all beliefs should be as well-justified as possible and practical. I think that is our responsibility to each other – to help each other critique our beliefs and improve them – even those that don’t have many obvious effects.
As for the American atheist experience, it’s not so much about statistics. It’s about the fact you can’t hope to be elected to high office as a nonreligious person; the hurdles that seem to magically appear when a high school student wants to establish a secular society; the people who hide from the camera at their Humanist meetups because they worry they will lose their job if they are seen attending; the kids in school who have to sit through a pledge of allegiance that insists that belief in God is a central part of love of their country; and the uncritical deference to religious arguments which make people like me, and women, and many others, into second-class citizens, stripped of the rights others enjoy.
You say “Humanism is not about belief or non belief”, but what justification do you have for this? My feeling is that a robust Humanism relies on a naturalistic worldview, and I think that understanding places me more in-line with how the term is used today both in the US and the UK (I can’t speak for elsewhere). This does not make it necessarily any more “exclusive” than any other set of beliefs – it is simply what we believe, take it or leave it.
Humanism is never going to be a lifestance inclusive of all human beings unless we empty it entirely of any significant moral content. Our stance, in favor of human emancipation from oppression, is one that an awful lot of people do not share. And that’s OK by me – let’s convince them to join, or leave them out, and pursue our own goals.
The last thing I’ll say is that you often conflate the criticism of religious ideas (which is entirely legitimate) with a form of attack on religious PEOPLE (which is less easy to justify). Please don’t do that, unless you have a very good reason for doing so, because it suggests that Humanists are mean and out to get PEOPLE. I’m out to get bad IDEAS, and it’s part of being an adult that we try to separate the beliefs we hold from our conception of ourselves, and be open to critique regarding the former.
James: I paid for the book and find it frustrating, not uplifting. I have never found anthologies helpful. They are insubstantial, lack continuity and can’t have a coherent argument. I have always sought original works to provide comprehensive and honest insight into the authors. I don’t think it is helpful to call anyone’s serious opinion “absurd”. The question of proper referencing is indeed an issue as without them, it is not possible to follow up quotations for their full context. In your teaching I hope at least you provide attribution after the work has been read.
Many people don’t wear labels on their sleeves and their religious views are personal. You wouldn’t know what they thought until you ask them. I’m surprised you can’t see the difference. Our responsibility is to provide proper education, not to manipulate these sorts of people into sharing your own convictions.
Demanding justification for my ideas is not helpful. These are my ideas expressed as a result of conversation with discussion with humanists, even playing and listening to music and inspiration from art and reading histories. But naturally these ideas are inspired by broader reading, from the Greek philosophers, Renaissance thinkers, and more writers such as Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, Matthew Arnold, Julian Huxley, William James, George Eliot, David H Lawrence, Katherine Mansfield – poetry, literature and philosophy.
Naturally I recognise that your views illustrate the views of the humanist organisations today which have prescribed atheism, and which inspired the writing of this post. Naturalist isn’t a term I would use in connection with humanism, and I think the users apply it to atheist humanism and then slur religions. Superatual, isn’t a term used today and it isn’t appropriate in serious conversation about religion for anyone other than American atheists as far as I know. As far as ‘attacking’ religion, it is people you are trying to convince, not religion.
Please excuse all the typos above and sorry, that last bit was a muddle – I meant to say Naturalist isn’t a term I would use in connection with humanism, and I think the users apply it to atheist humanism and then slur religions as ‘supernatural’. Supernatural, isn’t a term used today and it isn’t appropriate in serious conversation about religion for anyone other than American atheists as far as I know.
I make typos all the time! Naturalism is, at least to me, a pillar of Humanist thought. It is an explicit commitment in the third Humanist Manifesto and on the website of the British Humanist Association. I don’t think “supernatural” is necessarily a slur or an unreasonable word to use regarding certain forms of religious belief. Many people claim to believe in things for which “supernatural”, I think, is an apt description.
You say it “isn’t a term used today” – this is patently false. It’s used all the time, in common parlance and in the general culture. Perhaps you mean that it isn’t used in certain highly-rarefied theological discussions, but frankly I find those sorts of discussions entirely useless when trying to engage the broader culture.
As for the distinction between ideas and people, of course it is people that hold ideas, but we should still be able to engage in a discussion of ideas without being accused of attacking people. Do you think that by disagreeing with your ideas here I am engaged in a personal attack against you as a person? (This is not a rhetorical question – the answer could be highly illuminating.)
But perhaps I should ask you another question, because there’s something I don’t think I understand. In your posts here and elsewhere you seem to have a real animus against the term “atheism”, and I do not know what gives rise to that. Would you agree with my characterization, and can you shed some light on it?
Naturalism is an explicit commitment in the third Humanist Manifesto which is explicitly atheistic. It is this view which has come to saturate humanist organisations and it is this view of humanism I do not subscribe to.
It is not “patently false” James. The term ‘supernaturalism’ comes out of eighteenth century philosophy. Some naturalist philosophers still refer to supernaturalism, eg Gregory W Dawes from Otago, New Zealand, “In Defence of Naturalism” which I was reading earlier today. However in history and the social sciences it is avoided. These terms, ‘naturalism’ and ‘supernaturalism’, have been adopted by atheists and of course naturalism is the norm expressed in the third Humanist Manifesto. Supernaturalism is inappropriate for a lot of religious people because a god who influences the natural order of things is not their view. It may be a term you feel comfortable with in your atheist circles but it is not a term respected elsewhere.
As I have said not everybody wears a label. Christians often self identify without defining what sort of Christian they are. However in my experience in the UK and NZ, non believers are more likely to say they don’t believe in anything than identify as agnostic or atheist. I am not an atheist and if I was I wouldn’t identify as such. The term today implies drastic hostility to religious people and religion which I don’t share. Even when the well known New Testament scholar, Michael Goulder, lost his faith, he carefully defined himself as a “non-aggressive atheist”. This qualification reflects the hostility towards religion expressed by atheists in the UK several decades ago. But I have never believed so have no need to define a non belief. I am a humanist, but one from the Renaissance, not a twentieth century humanist manifesto.
Humanist Manifesto 1 is explicitly naturalistic and atheistic, and explicitly repudiates the supernatural, using that term:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought”.
Humanist Manifesto 2i s explicitly naturalistic and atheistic, and explicitly repudiates the supernatural, using that term:
“We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.”
Humanist Manifesto 2i s explicitly naturalistic and atheistic, and explicitly repudiates the supernatural, using that term:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
I’m not sure then how you can claim both that naturalism isn’t a core component of Humanism and that the use of the term “supernatural” is unusual and should be avoided. You have so far supported this claim with precisely no evidence. This is why I continue to disagree. I reject argument by assertion.
I had overlooked this but really – Evidence? Manifestos? I don’t see the point of quoting manifestos from the twentieth century which I have read many times. I don’t subscribe to manifestos. I know many humanists who do not subscribe to manifestos even genuine humanists in humanist organisations. Religion by the way is not synonymous with ‘supernaturalism’ as I have already explained. Paul Kurtz does not have an agenda to eliminate personal religious belief. And I don’t think you quite understand that many religious people do not believe in a god which influences the natural order of things or which contradicts science. As for atheists claiming scientists with religious beliefs are intellectually inferior, I suggest you look at recent internet discussion on key peoples’ blogs and websites such as Richard Dawkins’, inspired by the Templeton award recently received by Martin Rees. Some of the things written have made me very sad. As for atheists assuming religious people have fundamentalist or biblically literal beliefs, have a look at some recent articles on the CFI website for example. The caricatures of religious people do not allow for the simple personal beliefs of some which I described in my post. The ‘evidence’ is all around you James. I have gleaned much from reading and written a blog post, not a thesis.
I do recognize that the Humanism of the Renaissance was very different, but we tend to refer to that as “Renaissance Humanism” precisely to distinguish it from what the term “Humanism” on its own means in today’s parlance. If you are suggesting that we should instead mean “Renaissance Humanism” when we say “Humanism”, then I am yet to be convinced as to why. What does it buy us, linguistically speaking, to make that shift?
I understand that both you ad Prof. Hoffman dislike the term “atheist” (for no good reason I can determine) and prefer a conception of Humanism that isn’t aggressively religious. Well, being a naturalist and an atheist does not ENTAIL or REQUIRE aggression toward religion. So the term should not exclude you in that way.
It’s the idea of “hijacking” which I find problematic, because it suggests that the current meaning of the term Humanism is illegitimate and violently enforced, when what I think we see instead is a natural evolution from the Renaissance conception to the modern one. I’m very deeply committed of the modern form of Humanism, which is why I find the critique of it, when unjustified, very frustrating.
You say that “Demanding justification for my ideas is not helpful”. I would suggest rather that presenting opinions which dismiss the work and ideas of others (like distinguished philosopher AC Grayling) and then refusing to justify those ideas is more than unhelpful: it is unkind.
I am trying to understand your critique, but currently I don’t get it, and that upsets me.
I don’t subscribe to modern atheistic humanism. Humanism from the Renaissance still is the humanism valued by many humanists today and it does not prescribe an atheistic worldview. The first manifesto was written by a unitarian and the second by Paul Kurtz. Scholarship is critiqued all the time. It is not unkind. I am sure you have criticised the work of ‘distinguished professors’. I am not an ‘atheist’ and I have already explained why. I have also explained that the term is widely recognised as implying hostility which is why the highly distinguished Professor Michael Goulder qualified the term when he lost his faith, as ‘non-aggressive’. I think it is clear which organisations espouse an atheist form of humanism. Thank you for your opinions, but we clearly have different views.
“[W]e clearly have different views.”
We do. I just regret you seem unwilling to support yours or to respond to the points I have made. It makes me wonder why I spent so much time making them.
Perhaps it would help, now I’m thinking about this more deeply, to give examples of some of the problems you see Humanist organizations having. Which Humanist organizations “promise to work with religious people but attack scientists with vast and varied theistic beliefs, as intellectually inferior”? When did they do so?
Which Humanist organizations “presuppose that all religious people hold fundamentalist views”? What evidence is there for this claim?
Which Humanist organizations, “Instead of building bridges and constructing new roads, …invest in slogans and rants rejecting all religious symbols, language and metaphors, and forget the historical contribution to the arts, philosophy, music and literature.”
Perhaps if I were clearer on where the hypocrisy you see lies, I would find your argument more compelling.
I have replied to your questions and replied to questions you have repeated. The problem is you don’t agree and you are unwilling to accept that I will not share you views. This is not fruitful dialogue.
Before reading all the comments so far, I just want to say how much I strongly agree with this post. I think “Humanism” deserves to be a much much larger term than atheism– not just a hiding-place for atheists. To believe that human good is determined by human need and interest (and to believe most of the Humanist Manifesto), one does not need to be an atheist. Religious Humanism is real, although it has yet to truly thrive under that label. SO many people I know are religious and humanist… in fact Humanism is for them a key component of their belief in God. If they felt that God did not respect human valuing, they would most likely abandon that God.
I’m personally an atheist, but my cause is Humanism. The two should not be conflated (as, to get political, I believe they are when the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy chooses to honor Seth MacFarlane).
Absolutely agree Matthew. I think you hit the nail on the head there.
This reminder reminds me of the oxymoronic awarding by the American Humanist Association (in 2009?) to PZ Myers!!! the title of Humanist of the Year.
I look forward to our future discussion on this topic, Nathan!
And Steph – even I raised an eyebrow at that one 😉
Steph, I just want to say that I find it wonderful that you have written a piece like this. I completely agree with what you are saying and am also looking forward to a readjustment within Humanism so that the true goals – human unity and a peaceful world – become firmly rooted. The fact that Secular Humanists in the Anglo-Saxon world are stuck in the hangover from Enlightenment thought is only clouding the field and making actual unity less likely.
Thank you Nathan 🙂
Steph are you on FB?
yes – stephanie louise fisher born in Napier New Zealand (and would rather be back there than here!!)
I like your post very much, and its associated comments from extremely thoughtful readers. All of that prompts me to ask if any of you fellow religious humanists have any comments about this definition of God, one that seeks to accomodate many views: God is a term which can be used to refer to a unique and universal template of change & homeostasis that accounts for (and in that metaphorical sense governs, dictates, describes…) both states and changes of state?
I’m sorry. I’m not aware I have ever been or identified myself as a religious humanist.
Sorry, Steph, for labeling you a religious humanist, rather than perhaps a Renaissance Humanist? My error was due to the fact (am I correct?) that Erasmus and those who soon followed him were religious in some ways. If so, can you help me better understand why in the above context you do not see yourself as some sort of modern day religious humanist?
ALSO, I greatly appreciate your splendid St. D. H. Lawrence quot. I plan to use it in a book that I am writing, of course with attributions to both him and you! TW, I also plan to use this quote of Gregory Bateson…
“…I find myself still between the Scylla of established materialism, with its quantitative thinking, applied science, and ‘controlled’ experiments on the one side, and the Charybdis of romantic supernaturalism on the other. My task is to explore whether there is a sane and valid place for religion somewhere between these two nightmares of nonsense. Whether, if neither muddleheadedness nor hypocrisy is necessary to religion,
there might be found in knowledge and in art the basis to support an affirmation of the sacred that would celebrate natural unity.”
That being said, I am asking all of you still following this splendid thread (which includes much thoughtful feedback and pushback) to perhaps give me your most unfettered thoughts about what sort of new religion, one in conformance with modern science and maybe renaissance humanism as well, would have and not have? At least for the alternate reality world I am writing about the aforementioned forthcoming book of mine, a tall tale with a Mobius twist kind of ending and beginning; the working title of which is Messiahs, Inc. (Resurrected): How Jeremiah L Hermastone Starts a Church-in-Reverse, Patents god, Beats the IRS and Has more Sex Than Rush Limbaugh, But Less Than JFK and BJ Clintin?
Warmest regards to you all!!!
On second thought due to doing some googling about D. H. Lawrence, I might not use that lyrical quote written at the end of his life. Because of what he seems to have believed and written during his earlier years… Critic Terry Eagleton situates Lawrence on the radical right wing,as hostile to democracy, liberalism, socialism, and egalitarianism, though never formally embracing fascism, [15] as he died before it reached its zenith. Lawrence’s opinion of the masses is discussed in detail by Professor John Carey in The Intellectuals and the Masses (1992), and he quotes a 1908 letter from Lawrence to Blanche Jennings:
More of Lawrence’s political ideas can be seen in his letters to Bertrand Russell around the year 1915, where he voices his opposition to enfranchising the working class and his hostility to the burgeoning labour movements, and disparages the French Revolution, referring to “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” as the “three-fanged serpent”. Rather than a republic, Lawrence called for an absolute Dictator and equivalent Dictatrix to lord over the lower peoples. [17] Earlier, Harrison [18] had drawn attention to the vein of sadism that runs through Lawrence’s writing.
Would anyone know of any specific details about some actual kind of spiritual revelation that would have transmuted DHL in a positive, humanist way?