Humanism

[Ben Davis]

Thought this would be an interesting topic of discussion.  Defining "humanism" is a little difficult so I thought I would start by using some words that the humanist society uses to describe themselves:

"Humanism is the view that we can make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values and that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious belief.  Humanists seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves.  We choose to take responsibility for our actions and work with other for the common good.  We think that other people for example are moral concerns, not because they are made in the image of something else, but because of who they are in themselves.  Humanism is a naturalistic worldview encompassing atheism.  We believe people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems so that the quality of life can be improve for everyone."

Humanism isn't difficult to define; it's significantly easier than any supernaturalist ideology. In fact, you've already been given 2 consistent definitions in addition to yours. Here's a third and my favourite:

A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters:

- a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.
- (among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centred on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the conditioned nature of the individual.

What I find interesting is that some atheists have the most penetrating critique of humanism.  In particular Professor John Gray.  What he argues is:

"Humanism is the new religion or new faith in a post-Christian Europe. It is the dominant worldview that informs everything else.

Post-Christian? Well, we live in hope
Anyway, I've never encountered a humanist who would accept that it's a religion. An ideology, yes; a philosophy, yes; a world-view, yes. Conflating the definitions of those with 'religion' is deliberate misrepresentation and makes me question the veracity of JG's analysis.

However, a truly secular view of the world is one that does not permit belief in or the hopes of humanism.  A truly naturalistic worldview is one that does not leave any room for secular hope."

Nonsense. If that were true, there would be no secular or naturalist humanists. In fact they make up the majority of those who identify as humanists. JG's deliberately misdefining words and muddying waters in order to make... what point? Humanism is 'bad'? Humanism doesn't really exist? Humanism offends him in some way?

His central argument in his book "The Silence of Animals" is:  "Humanism is essentially the Christian faith expressed in secular terms.

Ah... his point. He wants to tar humanism with the same brush as christianity. But he's wrong here. There are certain parallels which mainly result from the co-opting of enlightenment or humanitarian values by christianity over the last 100/150 years but the core tenets of humanism & christianity could not be more opposed.

In which we have replaced the idea of God's providence with a conviction of the nature of progress.

So 'faith in the existence & plan of a supernatural overlord' and 'conviction that humans can make naturalistic progress' are the same things? Since when.

Christians understood history as a story of sin and redemption. Humanism is the transformation of this Christian doctrine of salvation in to a project of universal emancipation.

So the promise of vicarious redemption and the potential of human effort to solve human problems are the same things? I'm confused. I thought JG was supposed to be showing us how humanism is 'christianity expressed in secular terms', not demonstrating, with each of his statements, how fundamentally different the underlying ideologies are?

The idea of progress rests on the belief that the growth of knowledge and the advance of the species go together, if not now then in the long run.

They can do and they may do. The humanist position is that it all depends on human effort and not on any surrender to the whims of fanciful divine intervention. Do we leave things to unfold as they may or do we try and use human intellect to take a modicum of control?

However, the biblical myth of the fall of man contains the forbidden truth, that knowledge does not make us free, it leaves as we have always been, prey to every kind of folly.

Nonsense. This is someone who's swallowed the whole 'knowledge is bad' meme of the abrahamic religions. Knowledge and its application has gone a long way towards freeing humans from a vast array of natural problems (e.g. famine, disease) and 'human' ones (e.g. human rights abuses, rows with the neighbours). It's another misrepresentation to try and make knowledge a black & white issue. We do the best we can with what we can do with what currently know and work on doing & knowing more so that we can do better in the future. Sometimes people abuse knowledge for selfish gain however 'knowledge' doesn't 'fail' simply because people can make mistakes or because we don't know everything now. That's simply childish.

To believe in progress is to believe that by using the new powers given to us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals.

Yes. In fact, we have already done so. Ever heard of the plague?

However, Darwin shows us that humans are like other animals.

No, he shows us the we are animals. There's no inference that 'animals are all the same', which is what JG's clearly implying.

Humanists claim they are not.

Which is true! Them's the facts! We're not like other animals. The human 'evolutionary niche' (big, pattern-recognising brains and tool-making) have clearly divorced human survival rates from many naturally selective influences.

Humanists insist that by using our knowledge we control our environment and flourish like never before.  In affirming this, they renew one of Christianity's most dubious promises, that salvation is open to all.  The humanists belief in progress is a secular version of this Christian faith.

Now there's a jump & a half! he misses out the main bit of the christian promise, the bit that makes it dubious: that salvation will be provided by a supernatural force. There's a marked difference between humanistic confidence in the application of human effort and christian faith in the power of god. Just because one can compare parts of one ideology to another does not make the two ideologies 'versions' of the same thing.

In the world shown to us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress.

Nonsense. At very least, there's the possibility of greater survival rates. That's progress in evolutionary terms.

The idea that humanity takes charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose and meaning to the human race...

There's no need to 'ascribe' it, we are conscious beings, capable of describing individual and group purpose. Does JG not know any real people?

...but Darwin's discovery was that species are only currents in the drift of genes.

Not 'only'. We are not automata. Is JG really denying the fact that we are conscious and purposeful beings?

The idea that humanity can shape its future assumes that it is exempt from this truth."

Which, as I've shown, is no truth at all.

Sorry this is so long, but I thought it was interesting enough to have a discussion.

It is interesting. I'd just offer you the advice that, based on the piece you've referenced here, you shouldn't listen to John Gray about anything related to humanism. He clearly has a vested interest in erroneous conflations of ideology and can't make a practical observation for toffee.