The Irrationality of Atheist Opposition to Atheism
The New Oxonian has a new guest post by Stephanie L. Fisher, who quotes from D.H. Lawrence words that I have repeated again and again over the years. I choose the words that still resonate with me, fifty years after I first read them (especially the words in italics):
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. [my italics]
Of course, for Lawrence, the word ‘man’ refers almost entirely to the male sex, and for him woman is, in a very real sense, as St. Paul held, the glory of man. But even allowing the word ‘man’ to range over women as well, the words are still powerful. They point out the importance of humanity and human vitality, and the beauty and wonder that at least some of those who live will know. Sadly, this wonder will not be known by all who live, and for all who live it is known, as Lawrence knew, only for a time.
But Stephanie Fisher quotes these words as a standing indictment of those who have adopted a rigorously atheistic posture towards the world, as a criticism of those who, on the basis of rejecting religious belief, in her belief, ought to adopt a purely humanistic stance towards human life and social and political organisation, without attaching to it a criticism or rejection of religious belief. This criticism is becoming a long, unrelenting litany of reproach of all those who have adopted atheism and its implied criticism of religion.
As is appropriate for a guest post at The New Oxonian, Stephanie Fisher, an acknowledged expert, we are told, on the gospel source “Q”, quotes from R. Joseph Hoffmann, to this effect:
R. Joseph Hoffmann has 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.”
I am not altogether sure what this means, but at least it means this much, that ideas of god and religion are purely human creations, and, as such, have a legitimate place in a reasonable humanism. We should, therefore, no longer criticise religion, or religious beliefs, because these are understood, now, as they should be, as an integral part of being human. Recognising them as such, we can now continue to carry out the humanist project, which is to celebrate the human, whether this is theistic or atheistic, for it is all a part of the rich human tapestry — as those who appreciate the history of humanity would recognise, if they were at all sensitive to what is truly human.
Eventually, Ms. Fisher suggests, religious beliefs may simply wither and disappear, but, in the meantime, she says,
… you cannot realistically demolish all these without replacing them with something. I think only secular (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 fulfilment in things like nature, the arts, and human relationships.
In other words, the atheist goal of obliterating religion is simply quixotic, and atheists should simply cease and desist with the radical critique of religion. We should be content merely to offer education in science and logic and let people’s beliefs fall where they may. In the meantime, we should respect religion as a human project:
In a truly humanist society, [Fisher writes] individual private beliefs will matter less and less, and education in a secular humanist state will probably eventually dissolve them. But that is a goal for education – not for coercion by unbelievers, who have no more right to urge their point of view than a believer has to encourage that America “rediscover” its Christian past.
But believers do have a right to encourage Americans to “rediscover” its Christian past. It is simply absurd to contend otherwise. Even though it is untrue, and the American republic is founded on basic Enlightenment principles, which accept no more than an attenuated deism, at the very most, there is nothing which says that American fundamentalists should not encourage Americans to discover its Christian past. The absurdity of Fisher’s claim is patent. Just as American fundamentalists have every right to urge Americans to rediscover what they think is their Christian past, even though the American republic was not founded on Christian principles, American atheists have every right to urge Americans to accept the belief that there is no god, and that religious principles do not, and indeed should not, undergird the American constitution or American law.
But more than that, atheists do not, as a rule, claim that religious believers are not entitled to their beliefs. They would not even claim, I suggest, that there is no room for religious believers in humanist associations. Indeed, the Humanist of the Year award was granted in 1974 by the American Humanist Association to Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal priest, and the originator of what came to be known as Situation Ethics or the New Morality. While it is true that what is called the New Atheism is much more overt and declarative than the old implicit atheism championed by Joseph Hoffmann, it is untrue that this atheism wants to establish explicitly atheist forms of governance. What the New Atheists propose is precisely forms of secular (humanist) governance recommended by Stephanie Fisher in her New Oxonian guest post.
However, at the same time that this is so, the New Atheism also holds, with good reason, that there are serious dangers of a new theocracy. Extreme forms of Islam (whether these are, or are not, canonical forms of Islam), and a resurgent form of theocratic Roman Catholicism, as well as theocratic fundamentalist forms of American Protestantism, whether these are human creations or not, are clear dangers to the kind of secularist humanism that Stephanie Fisher defends in her article. To ignore the dangers that these forms of religion pose to the project of secular democracy in the world today is to ignore too much, and therefore, to pillory atheists for taking a definite stand regarding the truth claims of the religions is not only uncalled for, but is to fly in the face of the role that religion plays in the world today. The continued opposition of religious believers to a growing atheist movement in the world is understandable and expected. The continuing opposition of atheists to atheist argumentation against the truth of religious beliefs is becoming almost surreal in its absurdity. What on earth can explain this persisting irrationality?
Posted on 28 April 2011, in Danger of Religion, New Atheism. Bookmark the permalink. 57 Comments.
Whence cometh the implied incompatibility between humanistic education, and strong criticism of religion? Surely we can (and should, and are) do both? Irrationality, indeed.
The continuing opposition of atheists to atheist argumentation against the truth of religious beliefs is becoming almost surreal in its absurdity. What on earth can explain this persisting irrationality?
It’s only a gut feeling, but I think that many of the atheists speaking out, often quite vociferously against the Gnu’s, are disturbed by the confrontational style more than the actual content of the Gnu’s assertions. The resulting argument and controversy has the potential to dislodge these oh-so polite atheists (who have found a quiet sort of homeostatic truce with their theist friends and academic overlords) from their comfortable and ambiguous positions. Having compromised their principles, they wish to remain apart from the outspoken Gnu’s lest they get caught in the cross-fire. Maintaining the notion of Non-overlapping Magisteria, makes for friendlier happy hours at the pub but it does nothing in fostering a public or collective pursuit of truth.
-evan
My take on it, Eric, is Stockholm Syndrome. Religion still own their minds in the end, and until they relinquish the authority and privilege of their kidnappers, they will simply do their bidding in exchange for their lives.
A guest post by Steph?! Oh that’s hilarious.
amos has filled up the comments thread on the earlier post with self-important stuff about just exactly why he is so worried/anxious/sad/dismayed/afraid/perturbed/upset/concerned about the gnu atheists.
I bet Joe is just thrilled by the new stable he’s collecting. Hahahahahaha – sorry, that’s unkind.
Sycophantic Steph wrote an article?
Yes, she did and I read it: silly me.
I agree with maryhelena, who in her first comment says, “Steph, what utter nonsense you have written!”
At the very least, she has finally succeeded in writing a post all on her own rather than ‘liking’ everything Hoffman thinks or speaks. Commendable indeed!
Godwin in six…
Why should God and religion get a free pass? Utter, utter bollocks.
Thinking about this in the context of some of your earlier posts, Eric, I think religion deserves to be vilified for wilfully preventing people from being authentically human and humane.
Poor amos – he’s so terrified.
“I see the intolerance and belligerence of the online New Atheists as a symptom of that exalted will to power, a will to power that frightens me all the more since it is unconscious of itself and fueled by infinite self-righteousness.”
He may be the most obsessed of any of the gnu-haters – maybe because he doesn’t have a forum of his own on which to release his obsession and thus get some freedom from it. So he desperately posts hither and yon seeking a place to say yet again, “Oh oh ow, the belligerent New Atheists with their will to power and their uncanny resemblance to Ayn Rand, oh oh ow.” People keep deserting him – they stop posting, or they post only once a week and sound slightly bored when they answer him, or they disappear completely. He’s obviously thrilled that he’s found Joe, but what he doesn’t realize is that Joe’s allegiances can shift rather abruptly. But maybe Steph will adopt him. They’d make a great pair.
“The continuing opposition of atheists to atheist argumentation against the truth of religious beliefs is becoming almost surreal in its absurdity. What on earth can explain this persisting irrationality?”
I don’t know. I keep wondering and wondering. Maybe partly just fashion? Wanting to join the party?
But that just raises another puzzle: why would anyone want to join that party? It’s so shabby, so dull, so hindered by stale pretzels and flat beer and smelly upholstery. It’s no fun. The guests are all either self-righteous and boring or childish and boring. They all repeat each other’s stories and “jokes.” It’s the nightmare party of all time. Why the stampede to attend?
Ophelia Benson
Who is amos?
Really? We’ve learned to combat those human excesses?
Then 9/11 was what, then? Nonreligious, humanist excess?
The current practice of the Taliban of bombing schools and maiming children for the unspeakable crime of wanting to be educated while female? We recognize this as a “human” excess, with no religious component whatsoever?
The slaughter of a Christian politician in Pakistan for daring to suggest that the death penalty for blasphemy might be anti-civil? And those who threw roses in the path of the murderer? Did they recognize this as a “human” excess, devoid of religious content?
The vile, pathetic, anti-human stance of William Lame Craig that excuses genocide, rape, and slavery done in “god’s” name? THIS WEEK?!
Honestly…do you actually think about the shit you write? How can your fingers actually flow over the typewriter with that little of your brain engaged in the activity?
And anyone who actually uses Hoffmann to support their position is an even lesser intellect. Because it’s clear that she didn’t understand the implications of what is being said, either.
What they’re desperately looking for, is a leader to unite them. They’re becoming self-conscious as a group, and since they’re not running on reason, they need a charismatic leader. I think they may have found one with Chris Stedman.
Veronica – he’s basically who I said – a commenter who keeps getting abandoned by the places he likes to comment, and an obsessive hater of gnu atheists. He changed his handle to “s wallerstein” recently (sometimes “s wallerstein ex-amos); he comments under that handle at Hoffmann’s. He latched onto Hoffmann when Hoffmann got serious about bashing gnus – which he must have found out about because he monitors me. He’s one of the many tone police who monitor me for tone heresy. In other words nobody really, but his sustained malice and spite are kind of interesting.
Hmm. I think Joe has ambitions to be the charismatic leader. Which is ironic if true, since Paul Kurtz is the hidden motivation behind most if not all of his gnu-loathing. The Clash of the Charismatic Leaders.
Ophelia.
I should have remembered the connection.
I commented here under “Strawman”on Wallerstein’s praise for Hoffman’s “Did Religion Give Us Doubt?” and you pointed out that wallerstein is “amos.”
Thank you for reminding me.
Hahahaha – funny you should mention it. Joe once said something about that ‘liking’ everything to me, and it wasn’t very complimentary.
Well, color me surprised!
Hoffmann has removed Stephanie Fisher’s post from his site. The most recent post available is “Moral Landscapes or Human Values?” April 25, 2011.
Yup. He took it down yesterday, seconds after I mentioned what he’d called Eric, in a discussion on Facebook.
My interest is piqued! What did he call me? (I still haven’t figured out how to use Facebook. Perhaps I’m just too old or too busy with other things.)
There are four comments in sequence about you, so I’ll provide them all.
——-
steph | April 29, 2011 at 11:22 am
Eric MacDonald has taken exception to my post. He has also completely misunderstood Joe. Joe wrote “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.” Joe was not advocating fundamentalism and he was advocating combatting these evils. MacDonald cannot understand that many religious people are just as opposed to excesses as we are. MacDonald hasn’t acknowledged the difference between fundamentalist belief and personal unintrusive belief. I think I made this distinction explicitly in my post. He cannot understand that liberal believers are just as opposed to the evils of fundamentalism and terrorism as we are. The Rantana church for example, is a blend of Islam, Christianity and Maori spirituality, and they are in no danger of supporting the evils of fundamentalism and are actively involved in social justice issues opposing it. I am not interesting in fighting all forms of theism to death. I am more interested in constructing a humanist world and an alternative worldview. He also misrepresents me as an ‘Atheist’ which isn’t a necessary label to identify my non belief. I have never believed and have therefore never required a label to identify a negative. I am a humanist.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann | April 29, 2011 at 11:29
am I am sorry to say this but MacDonald is not worth engaging; he is either hopelessly thick or deliberately malignant in his comments but in either event is just trying to get attention for his flatulent remarks that usually bear no resemblance to what anyone says, means, or argues. All I know about him is that he like to trow straw around ad then claim it came from the other direction.
Reply
steph | April 29, 2011 at 11:38 am
Well he didn’t seem to have read the post because he completely misrepresented what I said – but he couldn’t even understand what you said. Down in NZ we would say he’s ‘packed a sad’ and we’d say ‘naff off, take a tiki tour drongo’. But I wouldn’t say that here.
rjosephhoffmann | April 29, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Donkey, thick as two planks, daffydumb, all hat and no cattle (TX of course), gobshite, smeghead–there are so many words for it. Unfortunately, I don’t allow them to be used here. But as I said, the pressure of turnaround time for doesn’t permit us to read comprehensively, just enough to get back to keyboard to start a new attack. We all need to be clear that this is polemic, not discussion, and once we’re happy with that we can go on throwing food. All that matters is, we really don’t like each other.
Wow! And they accuse the Gnu Atheists of stridency and offence! That really puts Hoffmann into the frame. I must say, I thought he was a bit more reserved and thoughtful than this. What is more, there is no sign at all that I did not understand Stephanie’s post, or that I cannot make a distinction between fundamentalist and liberal believers. Having been a liberal believer for many years this is not a hard distinction to make. My point is that we have not come to the point where we can effectively counter the worst effects of religion, and that, I think, is what Joe Hoffmann was suggesting we can now effectively do. I think he is wrong, and that Stephanie was wrong to agree.
It’s absolutely extraordinary, isn’t it? From someone who puts in a lot of effort chiding “new” atheists for being rude&vulgar.
In the Facebook exchange, he had the effrontery to tell me the epithets weren’t aimed at you, and that I knew it. !
Completely bizarre. I wouldn’t even dream of using such language! It really causes me some distress to think that anyone should speak in such ways about anyone!
Same here.
What’s with the invective against gnus? Wherever I look, those supposed civil atheists who are most critical of the supposed gnu tone (and you, Eric, are a model of civility in your writings) are themselves vitriolic in their condemnation.
What an interesting phenomenon.
The whole “tone” issue seems very odd. The more I see, the more it seems that “strident” is code for being “unashamedly critical” of religion. But I can’t understand why our “stridency” prompts such invective. What is it that these other atheists are really irritated by? (And why are they so eager to reject the label of “atheist”?)
I just yesterday came across this fact – that the whole Gnu atheist bashing is a continuation of a battle that brought about the resignation of Paul Kurtz a year ago from his position at the head of numerous Humanist organisations.
I know almost nothing about it.
but will give myself the benefit of the doubt that many other readers of Myers, Coyne, Benson, Blackford and MacDonald are in the same boat.
It seems very strange to me that this genesis of the current internecine warfare is unspoken.
I urge you (authors) to bring it in to the open.
—
A small piece of the story can be found here: http://paulkurtz.net/apologia.htm
wherein one R. Joseph Hoffman features.
This helps to explain the bizarre nature of his posts: he is talking about us, but he is not talking to us.
Antallan, I think the issue seems to be a misunderstanding of what it means to be a humanist, at least on the part of steph’s blog post. (i.e. atheist captivity of humanism). It’s only when one tries to separate atheism from humanism, ie. that being an atheist is not a necessary element of humanism – as steph seems intend upon doing – that she can then turn around and claim that atheists have taken humanism captive!
We don’t become humanists, our job is to retain our humanism. We can give short-shift to humanism and become theists; we can deny the supremacy of our humanity by allowing it to play second fiddle to supernaturalism, to gods. Atheism rejects that supernaturalism – and thereby retains, upholds, the primacy of our fundamental human, humanistic nature.
Atheism, being a rejection of theism, and all other supernaturalistic gods, is humanism safeguarding it’s very being. It’s battle cry, it’s suit of armour against the onslaught of gods and their fellow travellers wanting to impose their superiority.
Wikipedia, after saying the term ‘humanism’ is ambiguous, goes on to mention this lovely concept of humanism:
“In 1765, the author of an anonymous article in a French Enlightenment periodical spoke of “The general love of humanity … a virtue hitherto quite nameless among us, and which we will venture to call ‘humanism’, for the time has come to create a word for such a beautiful and necessary thing.”
The humanist starting point is human nature and not god – a reversal of the god first mantra. God, however defined, is a side issue or a non-issue. God only comes later, indoctrination or conversion. However, as long as god believers can demote their god to second place, then they cannot be denied the humanist label simply on the basis of their belief in a god.
Joseph Hoffmann removed two blog posts , re-posts, when he removed steph’s post. They had a couple of interesting quotations on humanism:
“Humanism doesn’t need to be defined anymore. It is as it does.”
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/the-dumbing-of-humanism/
“It is confidence in the self, informed by learning and imagination, that makes you a humanist. It is not an easy thing to achieve, but insofar as religion is involved in the calculation, the humanist also knows this: God will not get you there.”
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/of-progressive-humanism-beyond-the-creeds/
It seems to me that it’s not humanism, but humanist organizations – that seems to really be what this whole recent foray against atheists seems to be about. (at least for Joseph Hoffmann). Atheists have, seemingly, infiltrated humanist organizations – thereby giving humanism a bad name ie. Presumably keeping away the liberal believers….So, the ‘humanists’, of the steph variety, don’t want to carry around the atheist label – supposedly it puts people off humanist organizations. That’s like saying atheism is not really a feature of humanism, it’s just a choice of some people….humanism can get by without all those pesky atheists! But humanism cannot get by without reversing the ‘god first, man second’ mantra. Humanism stands or falls upon it’s basic principle – man first, human nature first. If the liberal god believers can abide by that principle, (demoting their god to second place – god, out of the limelight, out of secular and political life, god tamed and confined to purely wishful thinking) then for sure, they are humanists. If not, then they are supernaturalists not humanists.
Obviously, humanists and supernaturalists, at least the liberal believers, need to cooperate in order to live in our present social/political environment. To label any necessary social/political cooperation ‘humanism’ would be nonsense. Such cooperation would be a necessary aspect of our present social/political environment – not a demonstration of what humanism stands for, what humanism is. Perhaps humanitarian would be a better description for cooperating with and showing empathy for others, ie a description dealing with reality as it is and our concern for others.
A supernaturalists says god knows best. A humanitarian deals with what is. A humanist seeks to understand our human nature; seeks betterment, seeks flourishing and intellectual growth. “It is not an easy thing to achieve” (Joseph Hoffmann). It needs constant work, constant vigilance .
(Eric, I’m sorry that you had to experience that blast from Hoffmann – you and I have had our disagreements, the religion/theology issue – but at no time have you ever stopped being a gentleman – I just thought I would drop by and give you a little positive acknowledgement…..)
I don’t know, and I don’t know!
I especially don’t know how Hoffmann manages to give himself permission to post stuff like that.
That exchange of comments is quite surreal….
I also find it strange that nonbelievers actually believe there is a “true” religion. We have people like Hoffman claiming that is tied to humanism and the enlightenment and we have others claiming it is the tied to the acceptance of evolution. Why they feel qualified to make these pronouncements – I honestly have no idea.
“We don’t become humanists, our job is to retain our humanism.”
I’m not sure I agree. This seems to be on the same footing as, “We’re all born atheists.”
It seems spurious to ascribe “humanism” or “atheism” to a baby or child who is unable to reason in any meaningful way, let alone critically. It’s been shown, for example, that children prefer teleological explanations — if anything, then, young humans seem to be inately biased towards a supernaturalist worldview.
And it’s certainly not the case that everyone who rejects theism adopts humanism. Nor that every atheist even rejects all forms of supernaturalism.
PS. But I think I see what you’re driving at regarding the perception that humanism is being somehow tainted by atheism.
PPS. I’m not sure, however, how you can be a humanist and remain a theist — if you put god second to humanity, is he still god? It would seem to demote him to some kind of guardian spirit, say.
It’s been shown, for example, that children prefer teleological explanations –
Because that’s the basis of their perception – one’s self – does not lead to
- if anything, then, young humans seem to be inately biased towards a supernaturalist worldview.
Although I think children have a tendency to arrive at a supernatural explanation sooner than more developed thinkers, I am not familiar with any kind of consensus in child psych and development that children are biased towards a supernaturalist worldview. Are you thinking of anything in particular?
I’m leery of the claim that infants (or humans in general) are biassed towards supernaturalism per se. It’s more accurate to say that we are biassed towards teleological (or agent-based) explanations because much of our psychology is dedicated to dealing with purpose-driven agents — mostly other humans, but also the animals that were the predators, prey, competitors and livestock of our most ancient ancestors. “Primitive” nature religions arise as an overgeneralization of that, eg. personifying game animals as a spirit representing the whole species, personifying the weather, the local geography, etc, as agents who can be bargained with.
It was really that tendency that I was driving at. So, maybe a susceptibility: If religious adults inculcate beliefs that resonate with that tendency it seems likely that they would retain a tenacious grip on the adult mind. (Opinion!)
Furthermore, against maryhelena’s assertion: Skepticism, a foundation for naturalism (and so humanism too?), requires work:
– Sara E. Mayhew, TEDFellows, “Follow Our Bliss? Skepticism as a Better Idea for Change”
Different psychologies may be at work, too:
– John Shook, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry, “The Totalitarian Ambition of the Religious Mind”
Eamon: See my reply to tildeb which will appear, as if by magic, once Eric lets it through the pearly gates of moderation.
In short: The “bias” is really a tendency to be more accepting of supernatural explanations.
“In other words, the atheist goal of obliterating religion is simply quixotic, and atheists should simply cease and desist with the radical critique of religion.”
This is certainly the case. If the problem atheists have with religion and god is that religions represent god as a tyrant, then instead of attacking god (which only emboldens the most fundamentalist and cruel of religionists to be more cruel and more outspoken, and to proselytize with more zeal)…instead of this pointless, quixotic, attack on the very existence of god, they ought to simply teach a better kinder more rational god. You have to fight religion with religion.
Atheists have to become Deists in other words. It was Deists after all that came up with natural law and human rights. Atheists are just a bunch of complainers taking credit for all the achievements that Deists made. All our freedoms in America depend on the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…” Can you imagine an atheist Declaration of Independence “all men evolved from monkeys and therefore can be killed by the government whenever considered undesirable” or a Christian or Muslim one “all men who are not Christians/Muslims are blasphemers and should be stoned.” Only the Deists could have achieved the success of human rights because only their philosophy really allows for it. Atheism cannot see all men as created equal, since it doesn’t see them as created at all. Thomas Jefferson showed up how to fight crazy religion, and it wasn’t by atheism: it was by Deism. Duh.
Neil Godfrey has put up a blog post that some of you here might be interested in….
“The need to challenge liberal religion as well as fundamentalism”
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/challenge-liberal-religion/
“I enjoyed Eric’s post enough, and many of the related comments to it, and was incensed enough over assertions by some who like to be called humanists but object to being called atheists (even though they apparently do not believe in god/s), to join the fray with my own thoughts on the importance of atheists publicly challenging religious belief systems. My own thoughts are amateurish and inchoate compared with those expressed by Eric. But one has to start somewhere. Perhaps feedback can help me sort out with a bit more depth and rationality my own ideas. So here goes.”
I used to ridicule believers for believing in a talking donkey, as recorded in 2 peter.
‘Ridicule’ as in listing their beliefs. If you merely list Christian beliefs, the list becomes strangely indistinguishable from ridicule.
But having read Steph’s postings, I realise that it is by no means absurd to believe in a talking donkey, and that it is wrong to claim that a talking donkey is absurd.
I also listed out Christian beliefs that a woman should be silent, which is in Paul. Again, Steph has convinced me that I was wrong to attack that particular Christian belief.
Hoffman removed Steph’s posting?
Oh no! Say it isn’t true!
We are now for the next 2 years going to get Steph claiming she has been banned from web sites, as part of a campaign to crucify her.
@antallan: Perhaps if you don’t understand humanism as a philosophy but instead see humanism as our basic human nature, then it is not on the same footing as “we are all born atheists”.(which to my way of thinking, is much better reframed to read “we are all born humanists”……) Atheism is a position one takes up in order to protect ones’s humanism, one’s human nature, one’s birth right to live a humane and flourishing life. Atheism is humanism in protection mode. Sure, if there are no gods then no need for atheism as a protective shield. However, methinks that is not going to be happening anytime soon – or ever. God does have staying power, albeit a shape-shifting power….
As for babies – it’s the job of parents to care for children until they are old enough to make their own way in life. Parents can indoctrinate their children with the supernaturalistic god theory or they can strive to bring up that child in accordance with the ‘laws’ of it’s human nature. Striving to better the child’s life within a humanistic environment.
Nobody ‘adopts’ humanism – humanism just is. Have another look at those two quotes from Joseph Hoffmann and the one from Wikipedia. “The general love of humanity…”. It’s only when people take up supernaturalism as their first priority that they have demonstrated their denial of the supremacy of their humanist nature. It’s either god first, or man first. Supernaturalism verse humanism – not in the sense of denying one or the other – but of priorities. A favourite saying of mine – not all of our intellectual furniture is suitable for our earthly home….
It’s not a case of telling people don’t believe in god or some form of supernaturalism – one cannot stop people from thinking whatever takes their fancy. It’s a case of, particularly within a social/political setting, that god ideas have to be put in second place to humanist concerns. It’s a case of priorities that are necessary for social interaction.
Tim Widowfield has a good response to this comment here where he writes:
No, I cannot, because if Jefferson had learned about evolution he wouldn’t be so stupid as to think that “men evolved from monkeys.” Jefferson could read, and he was smarter than you and me put together. He’d tell you that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Duh. I have no doubt that if Jefferson were alive today and knew about evolution, genetics, quantum mechanics, modern cosmology, etc., he’d be an atheist. After all, a deist is just an insufficiently educated atheist.
However, I can imagine the deists of the French Revolution and their Committee of Public Safety. I can also imagine the streets of Paris running red with blood. Because it happened.
Perhaps you remember a little thing called the French Revolution and their Church of the Divine Being. Fine deists, all. And maybe you also remember the Reign of Terror?
Deists, Christians, atheists, Muslims, and even Buddhists are all capable of the most horrific behavior. Sadly, the problem is not in our stars but in ourselves.
Apologies to those left in moderation. I was out for awhile, and only logged on late yesterday for a few minutes, and then once again this morning. Lawn work. And since poisons are now illegal, all my dandylions must be taken out by hand — with a Fiskers tool, at least!
Regarding Stephanie’s post. I thought that I had made it clear that there is in fact room within humanism for those who hold religious beliefs, at least of a fairly liberal variety. There is a fairly proud tradition of Christian humanism, and I would be the last person to suggest that those who read their religion in purely mythological or literary ways, such as Don Cupitt, for example, or Richard Holloway, should be excluded from the humanist community. In fact, both of these “theologians” are trying to transform Christianity into a humanism without supernatural beliefs. Whether this is possible or not — and I have my doubts — it is surely a legitimate project for those for whom cultural Christianity and its rituals remain pregnant with meaning. I should add that this does not justify actions such as Martin Rees’s acceptance of the Templeton Prize, for Templetonian religion is essentially Christian supernaturalism, and no one should give comfort to such as these.
Oh no – because it was Hoffmann who did it, not an evil gnu. I’m sure Steph forgives him entirely, because she understands the necessity. (How she feels about Hoffmann calling Eric a “smeghead” along with slightly less vicious epithets, I am not so sure. I think it’s quite possible that she was disconcerted.)
“There is a fairly proud tradition of Christian humanism”
But is that humanism in the same sense? I read a lot of stuff as an undergraduate that said it wasn’t – it meant something more like “humane letters.” Renaissance Christian humanists were humanists in the sense of intellectuals with a strong interest in Greek and Roman literature. This could shade into putting emphasis on humans as humans, as with Ficino, but that wasn’t universal.
Ah, no argument from me on that point, of course, but there was a sense that the grip of dogma was loosened (as in Erasmus, for example), and if you think of people like Richard Holloway of Jack Spong as carrying on within the same tradition — as I think, in a sense, they are — then there is perhaps a role for the kind of imaginative theological understanding of human beings, in the same way that it is still helpful to think in terms of Freud’s or Jung’s categories, however unscientific they were, as a kind of imaginative — even poetic — understanding of the human. I don’t hold a brief for this, because I think it tends too easily to tip over into supernatural religion, but insofar as it works as a kind of fictional representation of being human, in the same way that novels sometimes represent humanity to itself, there seems nothing to stand in the way of using it as a way of examining dimensions of the human. I think Richard Holloway is particularly good at this, by the way, and is worth reading for this reason.
Interesting. Will make a note to read Holloway.
@antallan, sorry I missed your PS and your PPS……
Yes, some people, seemingly, are viewing humanism as being ‘tainted’ by atheism – especially humanist organization. Hoffmann: “…..read the most recent posts and reposts about the history of organized humanism in the last 75 years you would become convinced that there is not much doubt about the efforts of atheists to coopt humanist organizations.”
Hoffmann:.”Just a humanist who like Stephanie sees atheism neither as a prerequisite nor as a necessary intellectual concomitant of humanism.”
Steph: “Atheism is an option for a humanist. A humanist doesn’t have to be an atheist – atheism is an option that the humanist is free to deny. Atheism is neither a prerequisite nor a natural consequence of humanism.”
Humanism without atheism? Now that would be just great in a humanist world – unfortunately, the world that we actually live in is a world where supernaturalism, where god of some variety, is ever present. While this is the case, then humanist have to become atheists in order to safeguard their humanism from those who want to impose supernaturalistic ideas upon society.
Your other point (about being a humanist and a theist – god being demoted and thus being some kind of ‘guardian spirit’). A humanist is someone who puts human nature first, puts human nature first as the ‘standard’ of what is human and what being and flourishing as a human necessitates. Human nature is dualistic – Matter and Mind. Our physical reality requires that we abide by the ‘law’ of that nature (we can’t jump off a mountain and expect to reach the bottom in one piece…) And, since, we are social beings, our social interaction requires that we adopt a code of morality. (killing people and disrespecting their humanity by treating them badly are wrong). God does not feature here – our ‘standard’ is the ‘law’ of our physical nature and our social interaction with our fellow humans.
The Mind, our intellect, if it is to exert a positive influence in our physical existence, has to cooperate with the ‘law’, with the ‘standard’ of our physical reality. Not everything we think up, not all of our intellectual furniture is suitable for our physical home. However, the Mind has it’s own ‘mind’………and can go of on it’s own tangents, it’s own flights of fantasy that have no regard for the ‘laws’ by which our physical reality functions. In other words, the Mind is able to run free……
Within that context, a Mind running free, our intellect is able to generate ideas, able to pursue ideas, that are purely intellectual speculation. That’s the context, the space for ‘god’. By all means, within that purely intellectual context, a context that can sometimes provide a bit of a joy ride..-..‘god’ can be ones supreme value, ‘god’ can be ones first priority, the idea that gives ones life some meaning or other….. One just has to realize that the ‘god’ idea cannot pass through that Mind/Matter divide without causing distortion of the ‘law’ by which Matter, our physical bodies, need to function. (i.e. god, or his chosen spokesperson, says love your enemies – and if one followed that admonition you would loose out and your enemy will laugh all the way to the bank….) It’s all about context; Mind and Matter.
Bottom line in all of this – however great is our capacity for intellectual deliberations, those deliberations have to recognize their dependence upon our physical existence, our physical reality. A Mind running free from the restraints of Matter is a great thing – but it cannot ride rough-shod over the ‘laws’ of our physical existence without compromising both it’s own value and the value, or primacy, of Matter.
So to answer your question – is a god in second place still god – and the answer is – depends upon how you define ‘god’……..Remember all the years of god shape-shifting – well, methinks, that’s a game that ‘god’ knows inside out – you seek him here, you seek him there – that’s the great game of intellectual evolution – seek ‘god’, follow ‘god’ – and the mind will keep on spinning and turning as it follows it’s evolutionary path. I sometimes think that the ‘god’ idea is that little spark-plug that kick starts the Mind’s wanderlust……Well, something like that……;-)
(no, I don’t mean that ‘god’ is programmed into our brains – ‘god’ is of value only so far as value itself is primary – ‘god’ is simply the name that has been given to the highest value in a scale of values – and it’s values, by whatever name, that are necessary in both Matter and Mind. )
I apologise, Maryhelena, your comment ended up in spam and I didn’t notice it until now. Usually the filter is not that stupid.
@maryhelena
You state Human nature is dualistic – Matter and Mind.
I call bullshit because I’m tired of reading this empty assertion by otherwise intelligent and articulate people. Let’s spend just a moment and think about this assertion for a moment.
There is no evidence that any such divide is real in fact. There is an absurd amount of evidence that mind is matter – specifically brain matter. All the evidence seem to verify that mind is a product of – and not separate from – brain processes. In other words, the mind is what the brain does.
Consider:
If it were separate, then the mind would not be affected by damage to this organ, yet it is. If it were separate then anesthetic would not dull it. If it were separate, then chemical changes to the organ would not impair it.
So we know mind must be physical in some way to be so affected. And because it is so affected, we know that it falls under the purview of methodological naturalism.
First, though, let’s look at the source of this assertion.
Your assertion is right out of the assumed metaphysics of Aristotle about the independent nature of things… which has undergone vigorous scrutiny and found to be wanting. That things simply have ‘natures’ has long since been put to bed by Galileo’s startling revelation that all physical matter is actually subject to impersonal and natural forces – forces we can understand through cause and effect delivered by means a mechanism. (The notion that the eye sees, for example, because it is the eye’s ‘nature’ to do so is factually wrong: it is our brain that sees and uses this sensory organ to do so. But the brain is quite capable of seeing – of formulating detailed and accurate mental images – using other senses. Astounding but true.) What we call a ‘nature’ of some animated matter is simply a mental shortcut we use to describe its action. But the assignment of the word is no real answer to any honest inquiry about what this ‘nature’ really is in fact, in reality, in our physical universe, how it is carried out or by what natural and physical process it occurs – a process we can understand through testing of predictions using reality as our soundboard. Such honest answers also assumes a willingness by those who say they want honest answers to deal with the details of this process through careful scrutiny. The term is merely a convenient label that too often allows us to escape paying enough attention to these details about what is actually going on through some physical process in some verifiable way. Your biology from which your mind springs, for example, is not exempt from this understandable process even if we are at the front end of beginning to understand how our minds emerge from brain activity. Claiming mind and matter have different natures is just a substitution that sort of looks like honest inquiry when in fact it is a capitulation to accepting a pseudo-answer in its place.
If you wish to justify your assertion, then you have to link causal effect by means of a mechanism that separates mind from matter yet joins them in some understandable and testable way through our biology and offer us explanations for such concerns as:
“Where does mind reside before a brain is available to house it?”
“How does mind survive a transfer from where it was to where it is?”
“What is mind made of if it interacts with our biology?”
“By what mechanism does mind connect with brain?”
Unless and until you tackle these questions and provide demonstrable and consistent answers that work reliably well to answer them that also is capable of withstanding the criticisms of peer scrutiny, then your assertion is empty of any kind of verifiable knowledge and you should realize this before stating ever again that human ‘nature’ is dualistic. It’s not: it’s cohesively one.
@tildeb
I’ve been using Mind and Matter as analogies, if you like, to demonstrate that our human nature, our dualistic human nature, functions according to two very different codes of action. That you have read my post as suggesting that I see Mind as separate from Matter is perhaps a misunderstanding on your part – or my failure to articulate my position more clearly. Perhaps you are thinking about dualism as though it were related to two separate entities. That is not my thinking at all. The dualism that I am talking about relates to one unit – to human nature as a functioning entity.
Or to put it simply. The body, our physical reality, our physical experience in the world, requires food, clothes and shelter. Our social interaction requires a code of moral conduct. Our intellect itself is dualistic. It needs to cooperate with our physical limitations in order to benefit our flourishing. It also as the ability to function outside of the ‘law’ of our physical limitations and run free – speculation etc. Within that context of intellectual freedom, the intellect, the mind, operates according to an amoral code. Ideas can be ‘killed’; ideas can be created and destroyed. This amoral code of intellectual evolution cannot be allowed to operate as a code of physical interaction between real flesh and blood people. A dualistic concept of human nature – yes indeed – our living a rational life requires that we uphold two codes of functioning. A moral code that supports our physical existence and our social interaction…-…and an amoral code that supports our intellectual flourishing.
My interest is in these two codes that are relevant for a rational human life. Upholding only one code fails to do justice to how we do actually function. Two codes of action – one code for our physical life, Matter, the other code for our intellectual life, Mind. Both Matter and Mind, our physicality and our intellectual capacity, while being part of our one human identity, nevertheless, function according to two very different codes.
Once people say that some ideas are sacrosanct, particularly theological ideas, then they are using a code of morality within an intellectual context. Don’t rock the intellectual boat, ideas can comfort people, don’t disturb their peace, leave the ideas be, etc.(which is the type of approach that steph was after in her blog post). Moral concerns inhibit intellectual evolution. On the other hand, when theology say the best thing you can do in life is to lay down your life for your brother – it is using an amoral code, of sacrifice, an intellectual code where old ideas give way to new ideas, as a ‘moral’ code – and thereby throwing morality out of the window.
No, tildeb, no bullshit here – we, as humans operate according to two codes of action – a positive moral code – and an amoral, negative, intellectual code. That is the inherent dualism of our human nature. Referring to this as Mind and Matter, while simplistic, is, biology aside, the philosophical reality, the intellectual reality, of how human life is lived. Morality, as an intellectual code would produce a mind that is handicapped or stunted. The amoral code of intellectual evolution, as a code of ‘morality’, would produce social chaos – which is of course, what we see all around us today….an upside down world……
Pingback: Atheism and antihumanism as intellectual-historical objects | Unsettled Christianity
Pingback: The need to challenge liberal religion as well as fundamentalism « Vridar
Pingback: The need to challenge liberal religion as well as fundamentalism « Vridar