Inclusive Humanism
Sep 20th, 2008 | By admin | Category: Humanism News
The accepted history of Humanism is largely a tale of free thinkers battling orthodox Christianity over the past five centuries, and that battle has effectively been won. With the Bush era concluded in America, we can expect to see fundamentalism fade from influence in much the same way that it has in Europe. So the issue for us becomes: whither Humanism as we know it?
It is often said that organizing Humanists is like herding cats, so any initiative toward collectivizing them at first seems ill-advised. Humanists today largely associate themselves with free thought, which is the virtual opposite of anything organized, and that free thinking is usually centered on a proud atheism or agnosticism. With a few encomiums to be compassionate and to enjoy our one life appended – this mini-philosophy is pretty much all that Humanism currently offers up.
It’s not enough, and if we leave it there, we’ll just remain a small sect of social-climbing god-baiters.
If Humanism is to live up to its greater promise and become a credo that unites our species, it must see its avowed Human attributes brought forward, acknowledging that:
1) Atheism is Tired in the West. Humanism can be expanded conceptually to be seen as the philosophy of our species, Homo sapiens. It begs for new parameters beyond strident atheism – which by itself is obvious and banal to the young – why embrace a counter-religion?
2) Atheism is Not Tired in the developing world. Large obstacles remain in India, the Arab world, Africa, Indonesia and parts of Asia and South America to displacing religions with secular education, science and compassionate human rights. This is the theatre where free-thinking individual Humanism must continue to be championed.
3) Species Governance Humanism will assume new stature if it incorporates an attitude of responsibility toward human affairs that is astute, constructive and visionary.
Who speaks out now on behalf of the United Nations and disarmament? Who decries corruption in the Third World? Who rescues women, children and the aged as they get bypassed or run over by fundamentalism, globalization and heroic consumerism?
Many small agencies and NGO’s do try, yes – but these are matters for Humanity as a whole to gain formal control of, as its legal infrastructure. The issue is responsible species governance, and it’s a mantle that’s there for Humanists to assume, if we can augment our tenets to demonstrate a wider perspective.
Where to Start? It is evident that individual Humanism still faces a struggle outside the western world, and requires our continuing support. Nonetheless, militarism and greed threaten to impoverish or compromise every sector of our society, and those are problems on our home front.
The United States, for example, with just 4% of the global population, wastes more on military spending than the rest of the world combined, and not because it fears invasion or attack. It is incumbent on American Humanists to move beyond debating fundamentalists and to begin bringing their attention to a war machine that is out of control and the prime source of discord globally. Is our weapons “culture” an appropriate matter for Humanists to address? If not, we must explain for children why we condone specters like nuclear submarines, each of which can each lay ruin to entire countries. This matter is an insult to every living human being, our great species cancer, and it is the job of Humanists to become identified with its termination. Every war weapon is a sad monument to Human failure.
Humanism will find wider support when it addresses world affairs and represents our species per se – we must recast it into a larger envelope and mandate. Bringing forth an inclusive Humanism around an expanded array of principles, with a proactive agenda, is where our generation will succeed or flounder as architects of a Humanist civilization.
The IHEU has specified that Humanism no longer be prefaced with an adjective, such as “secular Humanism” is. That said, we can still speak of an “inclusive Humanism” and simply be referring to a larger numerical constituency and distribution, not another philosophical variant.
Vision and Destiny The appropriate public face of Humanism must be that it is inclusionary. A common observation among Humanists is that we often envy the community and fellowship that many religious people enjoy via their churches; they find companionship, a sense of belonging and peer comfort within their congregations and rituals.
A rapprochement with religion is not inconceivable. It has occurred to some Humanists that we might put together our own hymnary e.g. That speaks of human love and loss, to be shared by our membership, if we might permit ourselves. The Internet has displaced the need for buildings and congregations, while affording us the opportunity to share our thoughts and beliefs within forums and online communities that have their own advantages.
These attributes of conventional religion have much to teach us about our own movement. They are invaluable assets to theists and we lose more people for not having them than any other reason. Our numbers languish while fundamentalism booms around the world because the major religions comment and advise on inter-human issues and individual destiny, and we Humanists do not.
An example: the motto of the British Humanist Association is “For the one life we have.” Not only is it depressing, with its focus on mortality, it’s admonishing us for thinking evil thoughts like having an afterlife. Meanwhile the fundamentalists continue to sell seats in heaven (not realizing they already live there), while our best minds are employed writing dystopian plots for video war games.
Let’s put those young people back to work on healthy Human projects. Let them examine just where and how we can get to a point where our species can anticipate the coming centuries as a golden age of co-operative celebration. Make that a few millennia – our sun is patient, time’s canyons are wide and if we reduce our numbers the Earth might reward us with a languid and verdant glory that we have never dared dream of.
Humanism is a Major Philosophy While Humanism has become associated with its roots as an atheist rearguard action, it is important to take the concept into our own hands, roll it over, and examine it more closely.
Notice how the word Human makes up most of its structure, as it’s ostensibly about Humans, not gods. Ask yourself what this has truly come to mean. Is modern Humanism about Humanity, or is it being miniaturized conceptually, hijacked and abused as fancy packaging for atheism? Should we care?
Care indeed, because ideas such as Humanism are very rare within our species, and we need these ideas to gain traction, lest competing nations kindle more wars or the planet be lost to dissonance. No other term can identify a credo that is as free of other motives and agendae as ‘Humanism’ does.
The religions and NGO’s overseas aid programs usually include their own provisos along with their plans for peace and prosperity. None stands cleanly alone like Humanism, to represent Humans per se, not to be embedded with other homilies and beliefs.
Recognizing our station as a responsible species, first and foremost, is a fresh concept that begs for this name, regardless of its historical usage. If it must be morphed toward that connotation, so be it. As Napoleon commented “Men are like sheep and must be driven to the pasture.”
What’s New Here? Is inclusive Humanism a novel concept? Are there other grand ideas that center on the species, rather than the individual, that perceive our existence as a distinct franchise with its own responsibilities and promise? Some will say science does, and while science achieves many things, it is really an intellectual method that Humans adopt; science does not define us or speak for us.
Historians may view the Renaissance as Humanism’s high point, but that was more accurately a salient of emerging intellectual awareness, our coming-out party. It trumpeted new freedoms and was a voice of optimism for mankind, but the Renaissance’s rediscovery of Greek and Roman classicism did not emphasize social responsibility and environmental stewardship. Nor did it proscribe species violence or worry about pollution; it was all about me, an awakening that heralded the apogee of first-generation individual Humanism.
In the 19th century the French sociologist Auguste Comte championed ‘social feeling’ as the successor to ‘selfish feeling’, to create a ‘collective consciousness’. This was Humanism being born as a species-wide idea. Of course, Marx and Hitler would later exploit this pan-Human expansion to include classes or nations, their tribal jingoism writ large, and these societies were seen to be emerging from or struggling with other Human groups. That will never be Humanism.
Humanism affirms all of Humanity as its membership, and whether this seems facile or not, like a mother’s love for her child – Humanism is not conditional. And the child’s inalienable responsibilities to her are not conditional either. Like it or not, all Humans are inclusionary of each other.
Humanism remains a pure notion that is centered on Humanity alone and cannot be diverted to some collateral consideration like a disbelief in the supernatural. It is critical that it not be missed, dismissed or ignored, the way a youth may lazily wave off his family or elders, because as a species we are not going to get an indefinite number of opportunities to coalesce and realize the gifts of life, this planet and our potential together. We cannot continue to direct our economies toward improbable wars and unbridled consumerism, then wake up one fateful day and find that critical resources and our once-virgin planet are irretrievable.
For this reason Humanism must become our species advocate and defender, warts and all, as its responsible watchdog and final arbiter. Once it becomes evident that Humanism is unifying our societies, institutions and activities within a sustainable environment, its credibility will be unquestioned – we are Humans and not ashamed of the fact.
Until then, it is incumbent on us to recognize this Faberge egg for what it is, hold it with both hands, and re-enroll it into a nobler cause than its outdated identification and obsession with simple atheism.
Dwight Jones studied Physics (McGill), Engineering (Laval) Biosciences (UC Berkeley) and Philosophy (B.A., Simon Fraser) and is currently an author of speculative fiction.
Loading ...
Humanists, secularists and rationalists everywhere are becoming increasingly concerned – even alarmed – at the role being played by traditional religions the world over in promoting instability and violence. Not long ago traditional religions seemed like an anachronism that would fade away with the growth of science and rationality. That has not happened. Science, as knowledge of the physical world, has hardly had any effect on the mindsets of millions of ordinary people. On the other hand technology, spawned by science, has had a profound effect on the way every individual on this planet lives. Among other things, technology has put enormous destructive power in the hands of individuals and small groups. Now a small group of fanatics – even an individual – can cause more death and destruction than a whole army could even a hundred years ago. With the tensions created by increasing migrations and interpenetration of cultures, such groups can pop up anywhere. In societies which are at the receiving end of these transitions there is an understandable sense of insecurity. Traditional religion is seen as an evil that has to be combated.
The International Humanist Movement came into being with the express aim of providing an alternative to “traditional religions which claim to be based on revelation on the one hand and totalitarian systems on the other.” Religion was not seen as an unmitigated evil, but perhaps as a necessary stage in the evolution of human society which now had to be outgrown. As Narsingh Narain said: “…an analysis is necessary for a proper understanding of the complex phenomena which have been grouped under the name ‘religion’, so that we can build our own organisation on solid foundations and also be able to have a sympathetic understanding of the faiths of other groups.” Over the last few years it has become increasingly clear that the objective of providing an alternative to traditional religions has lost its salience for the Humanist Movement. Other issues and causes, undoubtedly worthy in themselves, have caused attention to be diverted from the main aim. To the extent to which it does engage with traditional religions, Humanism has mainly adopted an attitude of rejection and ridicule. The “sympathetic understanding” is missing. If the vast masses of people have to be weaned off their dependence on the myths and divisive dogmas of traditional religions, this sympathetic understanding is indispensable. Humanism has to see itself as a successor to traditional religions, not as an enemy.
Your last sentence Vir, sums it up precisely, and indeed ” Humanism has mainly adopted an attitude of rejection and ridicule. The “sympathetic understanding” is missing.”
I offer one possibility that we may not have fully considered – that there really are no Humanists, just atheists representing themselves as Humanists because they are intellectual social climbers. My recommendation for anybody seeking to understand what Humanism really stands for to simply look up “Humanism” in the online Encyclopedia Britannica, and the summary there written by Robert Grudin.
There is hardly a word about atheism in its origins and history, instead it speaks to Man's awareness of his own role in Life and our Universe, outside the envelope of orthodox religion, for or against, and its revival of the Greek and Roman classics in support of this new understanding.
It is very evident that Humanism must be re-invented once more, because we are poor descendants of the men who rescued it in the first place (the 14th to 16th centuries).
Your comments are much appreciated, Vir.
Dear Dwight
Encouraged by your response I copy below my article 'Humanists and the Trap of Atheism' which drew a great deal of flak from humanists. An edited version was published in the Humanist Network News of 15 Aug 2007.
Regards Vir
Humanists and the Trap of Atheism
It is perhaps not surprising that the worldwide rise in religious antipathies – particularly among the Abrahamic religions: Zionism and evangelical Christianity versus radical Islam – is now being reflected in a growing stridency in the West among atheists and rationalists. On 5 November 2006, what is regarded as the first New Atheist conference, 'Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival', was held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California. In April 2007, possibly as a counterpoint to the conference in California, a New Humanism Conference was held at Harvard. According to Doug Muder, who reported on the conference (Does humanism need to be new?, UU World Magazine, 6 Apr 2007), New Humanism sought to project itself as different from the new atheism: “Positive. Friendlier. Less threatening.” “New atheism, of course, is its own new product.” he says ” It rejects the meekness and tolerance of old atheism, which was content to let the advance of science whittle God down to size. Having witnessed the rise of fundamentalism, new atheists see religion as a dragon to be slain, not a senile giant they can allow to die in peace. In old atheist books, the quintessence of religion was the superstitious peasant or the charlatan cleric. In new atheist books it's the suicide bomber.” Writers like Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion”), Daniel Dennett of Tufts University (“Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”), and Sam Harris (“The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation”) are popularising a provocative and militant form of anti-theism and potraying religion as an unmitigated evil.
Humanist position on atheism
Although it is perhaps true that a large proportion of humanists would describe themselves as atheists, the Humanist movement has never considered atheism (construed as a rejection of all concepts of God) as a necessary part of the humanist outlook. According to the Minimum Statement adopted by the IHEU: “Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape tho their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free enquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic. It does not accept a supernatural view of reality.” The sentence “It is not theistic.” needs elaboration, and it has been suggested that it should be recast thus: “It is not theistic, in the sense that it ignores the various claims about the existence of God as having no relevance to the practical conduct of human affairs, except that it categorically rejects the idea of a rewarding and punishing God who intervenes in human affairs.” In other words, the Humanist movement, as such, rejects the God of the moralists, while it ignores the God of of the philosophers as having no relevance to the conduct of human affairs. As declared in the Manifesto of the Indian Humanist Union in 1966, “Belief in an anthropomorphic God, who listens to prayers, grants boons and gives rewards and punishments; and belief in revelation, prophets and incarnations are inconsistent with the Humanist outlook. Theism not accompanied by such beliefs, as well as atheism and agnosticism, are consistent with Humanism.”
Hermann Bondi's advice
In an interview in 2002, Bondi cautioned against making atheism a: central issue: “I think in this country we are too impressed by the concept of God. Many religions, like Buddhism and Confucianism, don't have a God at all. On the other hand, Communism in its heyday had a 'sacred text' which were the writings of Marx and Lenin, and you justified an argument by referring to these writings. So it seems to me that the important thing is not the concept of God – indeed we cannot quarrel with an undefined God, for how can we disagree with a concept that is undefined. No, what makes a religion is a “revelation”. And it is the belief in a revealed truth that is the source of religious problems – that the Koran is the word of God, or the Holy Bible is the judge of everything. So in arguments with Christians, when you come to the word God you have already lost the battle. You must stress the revelation, that's where the real disagreement lies, because if you are driven to a position where you have to deny the existence of an undefined quantity you are in a logical absurdity.” (Sir Hermann Bondi, talking to BHA News in Spring 2002. Emphasis added.) Surprisingly this sensible advice has largely been ignored.
Some advocates of atheism have devised elaborate arguments and definitions to avoid (perhaps not deliberately) falling into the trap mentioned by Bondi. For example, Ramendra quotes Hiorth as saying : “Atheism is characterized by a deliberate (that is, chosen) absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists go further, and believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position. Believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism”. ” (See page 263) The distinction here is clearly between the absence of belief and the denial (or rejection) of a belief. There can be no question of a logical inconsistency where the absence of belief is involved; and what has been described as 'weak atheism' is better described as non-theism. The so-called 'strong atheism' which involves the proposition: “I do not know, or care, what your concept of God is, I hold it to be false.”, apart from getting into the logical absurdity against which Bondi had warned us, smacks of a dogmatism quite alien to the humanist ethos. As Williams wrote in Wired magazine: “Unfortunately, the New Atheism seems to illustrate the adage that we are in danger of becoming what we hate, with an attention-grabbing rhetorical superstructure that far outstrips the scholarship and philosophical substance of its intellectual foundations.” This can perhaps best be described as aggressive atheism.
Pragmatic approach
It is perhaps true that the most influential thinkers in the Humanist movement are also modernist philosophers; making it difficult for them not to take issue with the God of the philosophers. There is an element of truth in Roger Scruton's observation: “Modern people are frequently puzzled by the idea of God; and for the modernist this puzzlement becomes a god. (Hence the barely-concealed passion of the modernist when he addresses those questions which were once pre-empted by religion. It is this cryptoreligious passion that draws people to modernism: let us at least believe in our unbelief!)”
Pragmatic Humanism is concerned with only those beliefs and attitudes which have a bearing on the conduct of human affairs. Belief in the existence of an anthropomorphic God who rewards and punishes, and responds to prayers, strikes at the very roots of the Humanist worldview, which is based on the autonomous nature of morality. The God of Spinoza, Whitehead or Einstein is of no interest to Humanists qua humanists. A total rejection of all concepts of God, being advocated so fervently by the 'new atheists', is not only logically untenable, but also unnecessary – and essentially counter-productive – from the humanist point of view.
“Rejecting rejection and denouncing denunciation are necessary steps, but will something bloom in this freshly plowed garden?” asks Doug Muder as he eloquently closes his report on the Harvard Conference. “Inside the encrustations of hostilit
y, pride, and other generic human weaknesses, humanism's positive core presents the same challenge as ever: to combine sophisticated reason with naïve goodness, to celebrate the world as it stands before us, and to (gently and lovingly) coax it to be better than it ever has been. The what of humanism isn't new and doesn't need to be. But the how is something we have never gotten right. How do we unite communities without enemies? How do we organize without coercion? How do we love what is and yet strive for what can be? How do we dream without giving our loyalty to fantasy worlds and betraying the only world we can live in? And if a few people here or there manage to answer those questions in their own lives, how do we capture those answers in words and stories and images that anyone can understand? Maybe soon we'll start seeing new answers to those questions. That would really be a new humanism.”
But Humanism is not a matter of fluctuating fashions. Perhaps what we need is to go back to the large and tolerant vision of its founders.
Vir Narain