Meet the latest critics of the new atheists: the old humanists. It is not enough, they say, to take a stand against religion—we must stand up something in its place. Humanists are right to think that there is more to life than atheism, but wrong to think that they are the ones to provide it. It is not the job of religion’s critics to organize a replacement.
Just to show you how serious I am, I’ve christened a new fallacy to give a name to this mistake in thinking: I call it the fallacy of decomposition. The fallacy of decomposition is the mistake of supposing that as the estate of religion collapses, there must be a single new institution that to arises to serve the same social functions it served—that the social space vacated by religion must be filled by a religion-shaped object. Instead, it could be that in the lot once occupied by faith there springs up a variegated garden, a patchwork of independent institutions, each of which fulfills one of those functions. Out of one, many.
Thus, for our education, we attend the university; for cosmological clarity, we visit the planetarium; for therapy, the therapist; for beauty, the museum, the concert hall. Good stories? We read the Good Book, sure, but also the good books.
After all, it was something like this phenomenon that characterized the secularization of Western Europe. The dramatic drop in regular church attendance in Europe was not accompanied by a dramatic spike in the membership of organized atheism or humanism, which remains marginal. For post-religious Europeans, the point was to not show up anywhere once a week to seek absolution, but to stay out late on Saturday nights and sleep in late on Sunday mornings.
When you think about it, organized humanism is a hard sell. Do you like paying dues and making forced pleasantries over post-service coffee cake, but can’t stand beautiful architecture and professionally trained musicians? If so, organized humanism may be for you. Greg Epstein (the “humanist chaplain” at Harvard and the author of Good Without God) is a lovely person, but I’ve heard him sing, and I think I’ll stick to Bach, Arvo Pärt, and Kirk Franklin for my spiritual uplift. Do we really need an institution for people who find Reform Judaism and Unitarian Universalism too rigid? Yes. It’s called the weekend.
Let me be clear. I am not criticizing humanists for getting together to fight for the ideals of a secular, open society. For the better part of a decade, I proudly worked for an organization (the Center for Inquiry, publisher of Free Inquiry magazine) that does just that. But even there, I encountered tension between those of us who saw the Center primarily as a think tank and advocate addressing the general public in the marketplace of ideas, and those who saw it primarily as a congregation whose purpose is to gather up all the self-identifying refugees of traditional religion and offer them a secular alternative to everything it did for them. Compare: you might support Médecins Sans Frontières because you believe in their work, but you wouldn’t expect them to officiate your wedding. I always maintained that the point should be to make the mainstream culture more secular and humanistic, not to create a new secular humanist subculture.
Neither am I arguing against disorganized secular humanism, of which I am both perpetual student and ardent lover. For disorganized secular humanism is practically identical to the ethos of modern, liberal democracy. Here lies the real embarrassment of the fallacy of decomposition. When humanism is equated with organized humanism, an entire civilization is reduced to a fringe group of dyspeptic rationalists who gather once a year in hotel ballrooms (as Sam Harris observed a few years ago before a group of dyspeptic rationalists gathered in a hotel ballroom). According to this impoverished self-concept, humanist “literature” does not embrace the better part of all letters but instead only the relatively few writers like Kurt Vonnegut or Isaac Asimov who have turned up at conferences of the American Humanist Association to accept awards.
Apparently, in thinking about what might come after religion, it is hard for humanists to see beyond a kind of telecom model, in which a conglomerate bundles together all of these services, so that the same people who put us in touch with metaphysical truth also provide us with community and morality.
It is all the more ironic that this model itself is an invention of religion, a sort of meta-dogma. It is a vestige of the contingent historical fact that after giving up its dreams of theocratic control, Western Christianity contented itself with claiming for its territory everything that fell outside of the civil sphere of government and politics and the commercial sphere of market activity. Why else would learning, art, food, sex, and the meaning of life all be handled by the same religious monopoly?
The promise and the peril of the open, liberal democratic society lies precisely in the possibility of a civility and a solidarity untethered from any unitary philosophy or community—it doesn’t all have to hang together. The secular house has many mansions.
Tags: atheism, greg epstein, humanism, responses, sam harris, secular humanists
Science and Religion: Is there a conflict ?
Or maybe:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
/ Albert Einstein. /
#
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
/ Albert Einstein. /
=== .
Science and Religion: Is there a conflict?
Or maybe there isn’t any conflict between them.
===== .
Where and Who is God ? / My opinion./
-- .
By idea the God ( HE / SHE / IT ) must be :
1.
Something Infinity Absolute it means to be in every place
2.
And something Absolute Concrete/ Limited it means
to be exactly in the concrete place.
Question:
Can God create our World without physics laws and formulas ?
The answer is: No !
Question:
Have physicists found these two Absolute parameters
in the Universe ?
My answer is: Yes !
One Infinity Absolute Parameter is Vacuum: T=0K.
Second Absolute Concrete/ Limited Parameter is speed of
Quantum of Light in Vacuum: c=1.
Using these two Absolute Parameters I explain
the creation of the Universe step by step.
And therefore I say: The secret of the conception ' God ‘
is hidden in the ‘ Theory of Vacuum & Quantum of Light ‘.
== .
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
/ ...the more a subject is understood,
the more briefly it may be explained. /
Einstein said:
/ You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother. /
I think everybody can understand my theory.
==== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
Apparently I am not your grandmother.
America is the leader of the free world, and the world at large. We have the most wealth, the most military spending, and a virtual monopoly on 21st century weapons design. We are also the leader in being most religious, we have the strongest traditions, and we have also invented almost all of the new religions starting up in the last couple centuries. If we are to become secularized, we need an American secularization. This means we have no choice but to become more secular than Western Europe so that we can get back out in front and start leading the way for them again.
... and therein lies a problem as I see it.
So many secular organizations and all their web pages and multiple requests for donations.
I would like to see a centralized organizational effort that I as a Secular Humanist can relate to for information and
a single show of financial support.
Like The community United Fund a single site for donation of financial support with all of the current divisions of Humanist effort (ie.effort to support legal actions; effort to Lobby; effort to educate ,etc.)
gaining their financial support from the centralized organization.
Also re.: "the social space vacated by religion must be filled by a religion-shaped object".
That statement is certainly not a valid consideration of mine. I conceed that IMO
Religions have a deffinite social function that they provide for. Indeed, some churchs for example seem to me to be like country clubs for their parishioners.
If religion is to totally obliterate ( and I neither pimp for that nor do I see it as being realistic )there already exist all sorts of community organizations that provide a meeting site, social activity, and
community service functions and are not considered as being religious. Many even have rituals that can serve for those persons who have some desperate need in life for such ritual behavior.
I think what these secularists/humanists/atheists thoughts fail to consider is that people are religious - in the same way that they like to breathe and drink and eat. I'm not a fan of essentialism, but on the other hand....
You don't have to replace religion with a religion-shaped object because people will create religion for you. The void will fill. Perhaps it won't look like it did, but it will fill in. It always has. You may not like the word "God" or think you are above all that, but a God called "Reason" or "Science" or "Compassion" is still God.
I also think that we in the "western world" greatly exaggerate the demise of religion. The fact is that religion is alive and well in this world, and 95% of the time the world is better for it. I wish we could just embrace the fullness of human experience, celebrate the good bits, try to reform the troubling bits, and allow our differences to become sources of dialogue, growth and mutual strength for the good of all. That is what religions at its best does.
Although I don't agree with everything you've said, I do relate to this sentiment. Sometimes, I think I tend to dismiss a great deal of this chatter because I work in the non-profit sector, where we're trying to keep folks fed, clothed, sheltered, etc.
I always find myself saying after reading yet another argument about who's right, "Yeah, but do you have any real problems?"
I know some folks dedicate their lives to these kinds of inquiries (the who's right? I'm right! inquiry), and I don't want to dismiss their work as irrelevant. But, sadly, I do. It's like watching a dog chase his tail.
This is the right way! No, this is the right way! You're wrong. No, you're wrong! Round and round he goes, while the rest try to put out fires.
Although I'm all for inquiry, questioning, discussing and sussing it out, at what point does the "who's right?" banter just become irrelevant?
That would be after we jump start end times battles, or something that looks like it, and find out whether or not Jesus will actually return and rapture some of us.
The representation of the so-called "old humanists" as advocating that which is described in the Fallacy of Decomposition is itself a fallacy. There is nothing in Pinn's article which suggests this position, nor is this the position argued by the "old humanist" criticism of the new atheists. Atheism is not a philosophy, ideology or a worldview, it is a position statement. What follows, or does not follow, from the position statement is what seems to be at stake in the discussion and criticism of the new atheists by the "old humanists". If "religion" is the enemy that the new atheists are fighting, then they are still fighting over a position and ignoring the aspects of "religion" that follow from that position.
"Religion" has traditionally provided worldview as well as cosmological, existential and metaphysical orientation. I take Pinn to be arguing that simply objecting to the theistic position, no matter how strenuously, is not going to get anywhere with respect to either commonality or community. Put more simply, don't be the "party of no!" with respect to the theist/atheist debate.
What Pinn and the "old humanists" recognize is not that people should be going to a science symposium or the Church of Reason on Sunday morning as opposed to the Baptist church, but rather that atheists or humanists need to offer something more to the world than disbelief. It is not about creating a "religion-shaped object" but rather about recognizing that people come to "religion" or stay in "religion" for reasons beyond the simple belief or faith in the existence of something. Whether that seeker is looking for a worldview or answers to questions about cosmological, existential or metaphysical concerns, a vibrant and viable alternative to "religion" must be on offer, not as a single institution, but as something more than definitional atheism. Thus, the university, the planetarium, the therapist, the museum, the concert hall and the bookstore can all be a part of a larger humanist worldview that alternatively serves the wants and needs of people. To suggest that "religion" is the sole proprietor of ideology and anything that seeks the same ends is religion in sheep's clothing feels like it gives "religion" and religious institutions too much power and not nearly enough to humans.
Thank you finaly someone fully understands the issue.
The problem is when we are critical of Christianity, we have always been told we are being against things, and not for anything. This has been drilled into us from a young age. How can we get to the point where we can see value in just being negative, just for the sake of truth?
When I was growing up, professing atheists were a tiny minority, way less than 1%. I was a believer back then, like everyone. Back then we knew atheists were mostly violent criminals. I think things changed when Christianity became conservative. Now criminals are professing Christians, probably at an even higher percentage than the population as a whole. This could be because Christianity offers so much to the criminal. Crime can be forgiven, sometimes for no penalty. Plenty of enemies are defined in case you need targets. As a last resort, professing belief might even be the only way to get you off of death row. From a crime perspective, criminals now know being an atheist has no advantage, and professinng belief in Christianity carries potential rewards with no downside. This may be one of the ways Christianity is unique in the world of religions. That plus the doctrine of the necessity of destruction of the world, hopefully in our lifetime, and suffering for all non-believers.
"That plus the doctrine of the necessity of destruction of the world, hopefully in our lifetime, and suffering for all non-believers." Dude, seriously? Were you raised in a born-again, hell-fire-and-damnation nightmare or something? 'Cuz really? That's just a fragment of the spectrum of belief and using it to paint the whole picture is...well, kinda creepy. And inaccurate.
I know lots of folks have limited experience with religion and thanks to mainstream infotainment, a largely negative experience with Christianity. But what I don't understand is how we bristle over damaging stereotypes in other arenas (namely, race), but don't think to question or expand experience when it comes to religion. (My personal theory is that folks have been wounded and therefore aren't interested in learning anything outside of their own painful experience. Which is completely understandable, if limiting.)
If I could make any suggestion for folks trying to understand Christianity it's this--there ain't any one way to play that game and we've got to get comfortable with diversity in religion (and atheism and humanism), just like we have to tolerate it in other forms. There is no universal doctrine, regardless of what that doofus Hagee has to say. The spectrum couldn't exist if it there was one defining doctrine.
Alright. I'm just chasing my tail here. Time to do something productive.
Demandra,
Thanks for your critique. But what about the Left Behind series of rapture novels, and the childrens series of those books? This and the other books it is inspiring seem to be the best selling section at books-a-million. I think in American Christianity these books are highly respected, and probably regarded as pretty close to being inspired by God. You may think my painting the picture is creepy, but I think it is creepy the way Christianity is eating this stuff up. I think it is creepy that those Christians not involved are not speaking out against this line of books. These books are just reinforcing the Christian doctrine that the world needs to be destroyed, hopefully in our lifetime, and everyone else needs to suffer. As one of the good Christians, can you do something to warn the bookstores and the other Christians how dangerous it is to be involved in this stuff? And the video stores need to be warned too.
With respect to the following: " I think it is creepy that those Christians not involved are not speaking out against this line of books."
It might be worth noting that I have been a member of three different congregations since this book series first started to come out (two ELCA congregations and one UCC congregation). In all three, sermons were delivered in which the theology of the Left Behind series was scathingly critiqued.
That said, I agree that the more progressive Christian voices can and should do more to express their concern in more public venues.
Eric,
Thanks for the update on what you have seen. Progressive Christian voices are speaking out. Perhaps they could do more. But the thing that scares me is it seems unlikely anyone could do enough to make much difference no matter what they do. The overall national picture is just way too far out of kilter. I just try to be as sarcastic as possible and hope in some small way it might be helping a tiny bit.
Dacy seems to ignore the fact that Humanist does not simply mean Secular Humanist. If secular humanist is meant, the word secular is needed. Leaving it out is sloppy.
Humanism began as a Christian development, not an atheist one. And today, while secular humanism is strong, there are still many humanists within mainstream religion and many more within smaller religious movements. Unitarian Universalism, for example, has religious humanism as its largest constituent philosophy.
The unmodified word humanism should be used only in ways that logically include both secular and religious humanism.
Unitarian Universalists welcome all different religions, in fact I guess they actually are composed of all different religions plus some atheists. I think this puts that church in a special place. I get the feeling the regular Christian churches look down on them more than any others. Individual Christians might not look down on them, but they wouldn't want to be seen associating with Unitarian Universalists because they know what their other Christian friends would say behind their backs. Perhaps the Unitarians are providing Christianity an effecient way to reject a whole bunch of other religions all in one shot. Or maybe it just seems that way to me because I live in a conservative part of the country.
Just to clarify, there are Christians who are Unitarian Universalist, there are Unitarian Universalist Christians, there are Unitarian Christians who are Unitarian Universalist, and there are Christian Universalists who are Unitarian Universalist, but Unitarian Universalism, while Christian in its roots and historical origins, is not a (specifically or definitionally) Christian religion. Some call it post-Christian, but that is probably an over-simplification.
Most self-identifying Unitarian Universalist Humanists would not self-identify as Christian in any way. Some Unitarian Universalist Humanists are atheists or agnostics, yet not all are. But as members of and participants in a church who work out their humanism in a religious context, they are religious humanists not secular humanists.
My impression is Unitarian Universalist Christians are Christian, but other Christians are not so sure since they associate with and are accepting of all kinds of other groups, even atheists and Wiccans.
Ah, well, when we start talking about how other people define one, then all bets are off. :)
Many mainstream Christian groups and individuals insist that Mormons are no Christians, despite the self-definition of Mormons as Christians. Some Christians believe you have to believe just like them to be Christian. Others believe you can be as different as you want so long as you accept the beliefs of the Nicene Creed. Etc.
Back when Unitarianism considered itself unequivocally Christian (as Unitarians still do in Hungary, Romania, and Scandinavia), they did not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus. That made them heretics, so far as Christian orthodoxy was concerned.
Universalism emerged with one primary heretical belief: a just God doesn't send anyone to eternal punishment. Trinity: OK. Hell: not OK.
Both groups self-identified as Christian even though the orthodox establishments saw them as heretics.
But by the mid-20th century when the American incarnations of these denominations merged, they were far more humanist on a heretical, free-thinking Christian base than they were Christian, as a group, as self-understood.
But in the mix there have always continued to be Christians of one heresy or another or none. If outsiders require that the organization be Christian for the individual to be, then they won't accept the self-identification of the various types of Christians within Unitarian Universalism.
I tend to go with the self-identification rather than out-group rules and regs...
poakley,
I am sure there are various types of Christians within Unitarian Universalism, and that is all good, but from a wider perspective the entire Universalism concept is a threat. Mormons and Evangelicals each think the other is wrong in God's eyes, but they can get along on many issues like politics, and they don't worry about the other one being a threat. They still have their basic belief that they are God's favorite, and they can respect each other for that and work together even if they suspect the other might be headed for hell. But the Universalists accept everyone, and even worship with everyone. That is just not compatible with mainstream Christianity. The Universalists must be confined before they have a chance to influence mainstream Christian children. Mormons and Evangelicals can poison their children against joining the other, but that same strategy might not work against the Unitarians who are so accepting of everyone. A stronger strategy might be required here.
And perhaps the author will forgive my typo.
Apologies.
The whole ballgame (knowledge and understanding) is about to go through a major expansion: understanding a brand new (and traditional) view of our worlds. For doubters, it is a scientific approach, taking a theory and checking phenomena to see if that theory makes them more understandable.
How important it is to keep an open-mind, especially when new and logical views appear that change our understanding of reality.
I challenge atheists who say we just don't have our brains in gear: 166 years ago Abbott' s 'Flatland' showed that contiguous geometrical worlds explain where God is and why we can't see him. So we wrote 'Techie Worlds' for mechanical people and did the scientific thing: we looked at Christian teachings like the Trinity, like resurrection, judgment, the idea of a soul. In contiguous geometrical worlds these things are logical and understandable, even though to 'this-world-only' atheists they are ridiculous imaginings.
We see a lot of belief in devils, in miracles, in good and evil spirits. Just talk with your friendly Wiccas and Satanists. Their recognition of spirit worlds makes it more probable that our view (the view of love) of the world is correct. Besides, there is Pascal's wager, pointing out that Christian belief can reward while atheism surely leads to death. The labels: Thinking, Logical, Reasonable, Rational really belong to Christians more than to those proudly acclaimed agnostics. Get a copy of 'Techie Worlds' from amazon.com and see the reasonableness of Abbott's explanation.
GeorgeRic
If there are groups of humanists who want to form their own religious experience then good for them.
There is something about religion/spirituality that is important to many of us. As an atheist I find that connection through my local Unitarian Universalist congregation; I used to get it through being a Mormon, but the internal conflict was just too much. Others might find their spiritual connection through a humanist group.
It's much different that getting connected to music or education.
I think you set up a straw man, looking for a monolithic atheistic movement. Once God is gone ethics can be self centered or society based. They might be Marxist, democratic or any number of other ideas of ideal societies. The best exposition of these assumptions and the evidence that might be used with them is in Book 4 of the very popular free ebook series "In Search of Utopia" (http://andgulliverreturns.info) While the series spotlights overpopulation, book 4 deals with values. Well worth a read.
This article ignores the split in Humanism between those whose stance challenges Religion on grounds such as rationality and feel that to see Humanism as in any way religious is to tarnish it - and those who see Humanism as offering a framework to both the individual and the community through which they can live their lives better. Personally, I prefer to talk of Spiritual Humanism - that which is good or bad for the human spirit. Yet I must qualify the word spirit as non supernatural and that I use it only because there is no better alternative to describe all those aspects of a person which are more than their physical body - personality, mind, presence, humanity.
I see many in the Christian church trying also to ignore the religious side of humanism and emphasizing and attacking only secularism as if it is some vast conspiracy against religion. The facile illustration at the top of the article implying that a secular Sunday morning is a good lie in is typical of this sort of attack. Its true there are many people who don't go to church any more and if they "worship" anything it is Mammon in the church of the Shopping Mall but these are not secularists - dangerously, they are the people who have drifted away from any coherent ethical stance in favour of self-interest. So yes, Humanists do try to offer an alternative rationale for ethical values to the God given tablets. Poakley, above, suggests that "Humanism began as a Christian development" but it was around long before Christ. The Greeks may have been the first to write down identifiable humanist philosophy, but humanist ideas are so woven into our culture today that its hard to see the wood for the trees. Christianity poached humanism and the Secular Humanists are just trying to reclaim it! But being "anti" is not a basis for living and working with fellow humans to the full benefit of the spirit so even if I have to be labelled "Religious" Humanist, I stand on that side of humanism's divide.
Lastly, in defense of Kurt Vonnegut addressing groups "of dyspeptic rationalists gathered in a hotel ballroom" - he once said that he was asked by a soon to be released convict, what humanism could offer him. Vonnegut suggested a church might offer more. Vonnegut, though Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, recognized that Humanism does not have the congregational succour of the church - yet.
As people fall away from churches, or equally dangerous, fall back into them from despair with the material world, it is all the more important that Humanism presents a more unified offering - rationality and spirituality combined.
A nicely written, thoughtful, intellegent persuasive article.
However, if each metion of humanism, atheism was replaced wih religion, christianity, judaism et.al. the arguments against religion would be just as nicely written, thoughtful, intellegent and persuasive, without changing one other word.
For some of us, humanist communities are very fulfilling. It's not for everyone, but it doesn't have to be.
I think you raise a series of interesting issues in the article - the question of whether a single institution is required to replace religious institutions is a powerful one.
However, you seem to confuse the Humanist "movement" with a single (or series of cloned)"institutions". Many of us advocating for what you call "organized Humanism" seek precisely the infusion of Humanist values into multiple institutions you seem to desire, but we recognize that to achieve this will require effort and struggle. Hence the organized movement - it won't just happen.
Also, there is value to specifically Humanist places and organizations. Very few secular institutions offer a place in which people can discuss what might broadly be termed "existential" issues - none of the institutions you list has this specific purpose, for example. This is a space organized Humanism can fill.
James Croft
Assistant Editor
TheNewHumanism.org
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.