Why should you beware secular humanism?
If you have been hanging on to your religious beliefs by clinging to the impotence of the so called “atheist movement,” secular humanism is the cure to that impotence.
Secular humanism can actually replace faith.
So many of my theist friends will cite how religion provides values and an ethical compass as they navigate through life. Indeed, for many this is exactly what religion does.
Many clever, moderate, religious people will state: “If there is no God then life is meaningless, we are alive only a short time, and even the sun will die. What can there be if all the love I feel, all the relationships I build are for no greater purpose?”
Atheist will often deal with these claims by pointing out how important truth is or how exciting science is, as Richard Dawkins does , without realizing that what it sounds like to thoughtful religious ears a lot like:
“Yeah life really is bullshit, deal with it! And if that makes you depressed, pull out your highschool biology homework, that will make you feel better!”
Good grief!
Don’t get me wrong, I love Richard Dawkins and I owe it to him that I broke free from religion, but his book gave no comfort as I abandoned the comfort of religion.
In fact I was seriously depressed for months.
Dawkins book worked on me because I was already undergoing studies in neuroscience, and had accepted science as the best way of knowing what is true, and I was won on Dawkins’s appeal to scientific reasoning.
But as much as I love science, in of itself it gives me little existential comfort.
I need to feel good in my own skin, after all, and religion provided that for me as it does for so many.
It wasn’t until I read “The Birth of Tragedy” by Nietzsche that I got some relief. “The Birth of Tragedy” essentially argues that art is the meaning of life.
This may sound as appealing as Dawkins “biology homework” cure for existential crisis at first but bare with me.
I draw, have been known to dabble with music, and love performance art. I have felt some of my greatest highs, philosophical and otherwise while engaged in the artistic endaevour. It is a form of self-exploration so furious, so lustful, so powerful. It is inquiry at its rawest, and I did not decide to seriously pursue science until I saw this link between it and art.
For me to do anything it has to be art.
Art is simply pregnant with meaning and power, a virtual positive feedback loop of passion.
What “The Birth of Tragedy” got me thinking was first, “life is art,” and then progressively “life is an art.” That is, there is an art to living life.
When I finally began to read the Secular Humanist ethics of Paul Kurtz, it was in this vein that I embraced it. Kurtz provides beautiful reasoning for the values of acts, behaviors and other ethical questions, but he also emphasizes the raw lust for life, the wanton embrace of the time you have in this world. And it is precisely because the time you have in this world is so rare, so fleeting, that you should live with lust, exuberance, and great joy. Even purpose as Kurtz says that the good life requires a beloved cause.
As I began the Secular Humanist process in my life I found something that I never expected as an atheist, sense of meaning, purpose, and joy that outdistances that which I experienced as a religious person.
So many of the people I have met through secular activism seem to have been atheist since the earliest days of their lives.
Many of you, my beloved life-long atheists, fail to understand why people fall for religion. I fell for it because it enriched my life, and having my life enriched was worth not deeply questioning the truth of it all. I passively accepted bold claims because the package came with meaning, power, and purpose.
But I have found this great thing, collecting the dust of disuse, that has real competitive power against the utility of religious faith: secular humanism.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Rodrigo Neely
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
I find that many atheists are creeped out by secular humanism, because to them it looks too much like a religion to them. I say, what is wrong with taking the parts of religion that make people feel good and reinstate them into a naturalistic outlook? You get the benefits without the baggage.
Atheism will become the norm when secular humanism is presented enthusiastically to the religious. I really think so, and statistically we are all surrounded by believers in some nonsense, so its not like we have to go out of our ways to do it. We probably all get asked, “how could you not believe in God?” and when we do get asked that we should give a positive and affirmative answer:
“When you ask how could I not believe in God, I think what you are saying is that you get a lot out of believing in God, and how do I live without those things?Correct? Well, I find that when you are responsible for the meaning you get out of life, you work harder, and you have to embrace life with more passion. This passion, this sense of participation in the life of humankind, fill me with a deep sense of value. From what I know about your religion, you do not experience this, which I daresay is worth experiencing.”
Rodgrigo:
I am very intrigued by your strong feelings toward art and the emotional power that doing art can generate in you.
You might be interested in reading up on the psychological state type referred to as “flow”, if you haven’t already.
Also, a book that I very very very highly recommend to you is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values, by Robert M. Persig. This book focusses on a number core themes that you would be right into:
* living as an art and treating one’s job and activities as an art;
* uniting art and science. Persig united the two by saying that the bridge is “quality”. Quality is the degree to which something is beautiful or pleasing. Quality is appraised pre-intellectually. Somethings are good, some are bad. Some beautiful, some repugnant. Often the judgments are made out of awareness. What is quality (i.e., what makes something beautiful)? Persig thought that was unknowable – though I personally would look at it from a social – cognitive evolutionary perspective to gain some insights. But to him it was the bridge between art and science. It was also the bridge between subjectivity and objectivity – between us and world.
* Rationality is also discussed at some length and there are a number of references to mindfulness. References are also made to a number of philosophers (e.g., Aristotle, Plato, Socrates), scientists (e.g., Poincare, Einstein).
This book inspired me to start reading fiction. I never read fiction before but I’m now quite addicted.
Also, I think I’m gonna try to make it a point to pick up that Neitsche book. What is it’s format? Long-story fiction?
The book that got me out of my atheistic despair was Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus.” The universe will ultimately destroy every human you nurture, every project you work on and every experience you have, your every endeavor doomed to fade and die along with the rest of the universe. Faced with this, how can one be truly happy with the bleak state of affairs? Rather than fantasizing the stark futility of human existence away with irrational faith, Camus tells us to seek joy in the moment-to-moment process of being and becoming. This is where I get my strength.
What I like about Secular Humanism is that it attempts to define us by who we ARE rather than by who we are NOT. The term atheist, by its very nature, only tells you a little bit about someone’s worldview. Buddhist mystics could be described as atheist just as much as you or I could, but their worldview is wildly disparate from ours.
Limiting ourselves to atheism feels good, but it is ultimately hollow. We should all ask whether or not we want to base our entire worldview on not subscribing to a common societal fantasy figure. We should all ask: “Okay, religion sucks. Now what?”
I recently pick up “Notes from the Underground” by Dostoevsky as a trainer book for the verbal section of the MCAT. I read the first part and HAD to put it down, I couldn’t bare to read what happens next, if the man simply never finds and answer I wouldn’t know what to think. I’ve inadvertently sent myself through an “existential depression”. I feet stuck and confused by circular reasoning. Maybe I should read “The Birth of Tragedy” too.
[...] Neely, Beware Secular Humanism! An argument for secular humanism as [...]
I recommend Dostoevsky’s “Brother Karamazov” where Dosteovsky was able to develop his ideas more. The use of different brother to represent different aspects of a human is pertinent to understanding what sits best with you. I hope you will give this a chance. (It is my fav. fiction book of all time).
I don’t think many philosophers would characterize Nietzsche as a humanist in the standard sense of the word, although he was certainly atheistic and had a human centred view of the world. The Birth of Tragedy is a wonder though, and Twilight of the Idols is a great way to get to know his philosophy in more depth.
Nietzsche was concerned with the human beings, but his views conflict rather strongly with a standard humanist view on the ‘equality’ of human beings… which is why he is so often abused by those who seek to oppress others.
One of the most compelling aspects of his philosophy, in my opinion, is his rejection of ‘morality’ and his embracing of a more classical idea of virtue or excellence. (which is where art comes in) Nietzsche’s ideas are more principle based (think ‘integrity’), than rule based(as in commandments), and allow for much greater flexibility when dealing with the world, which often is much less black and white than some would wish.
His individualism is also quite in line with the ‘American dream’ of building your own greatness, but he thought democracy was too flawed, preferring a ‘philosopher king’ type of government.
Camus is also quite good, but with much more communist leanings.
As to people who ask, why don’t you believe…. I find the best answer is simply to ask them why they do. Science is only a part of why I don’t believe, but my emotional attachement to science and natural beauty are quite strong… and something that may bridge the gap better than fossils and equations.
I’m one of those “life long atheists”…and I find it amazing that people need something more to live for than just the fact that they’re alive. I think this really shows the fundamental differences between people who were once religious and have lost faith, and people like me who never had it to begin with. It all seems so…biological. As in, your brain becomes accustomed to living with a faith, and then when you no longer have it it leaves some sort of gaping chasm that needs to be filled with things like secular humanism. I guess it would be more psychological…but I’ll shut up about that because I know next to nothing about any science of any kind.
When people like me (as I say it all the time) diss secular humanism, I think we do it out of an ignorance for what its like to be someone who really does need that kind of thing….
I don’t know, I just find it fascinating that we can both be atheists, and yet because of our differing relationships to religion we are unable to be the same “type” of atheist. Secular humanism and its counterparts are certainly not necessary for all atheists, but I do agree that it serves a purpose and will continue to serve one as long as children are being raised with religion.
Im interested in your opinion on secular humanism.
In terms of psychology, it is one that is proposed – indeed, I would say one the few instances Freud got it right was in “The Future of an Illusion”. We all have that space and that desire and you have very nicely defined the essence of “mysticism” (as I believe Wittgenstein defined it). Science looks at how things are and mysticism is the constant awe THAT things are! So, to me, when you say
“I find it amazing that people need something more to live for than just the fact that they’re alive.” – I hear my own voice. I completely agree. Life is beautiful, wonderful – not just mine by everyone’s.
Hence, the fact that you and I actually agree on the most fundamental part of being human, which is then imprisoned by the walls of superstitious dogma, I’d be interested to know your view on secular humanism. Because, i dont think some lack it or replace religion with humanism, I think that when you leave the faith, you break down the silly walls that entrap what is essentially beautiful about life. Not so much replacing, as refining. Some have to go through the rubble, whereas others simply never have it.
There is no doubt that there are however psychological inferences toward belief, but im strictly focussed on the nature of embracing humanism.
personally I would never embrace secular humanism. For me, it is useless. I don’t require an ethical label, or universal laws, or even just something to say I stand for the goodness inherent in humanity. I do believe in the theory of equal rights and so on, but I have no need for a label on those view points. The label I choose, “atheist”, to me communicates a few things. One, that I know there is and never was a supersensible, intelligent being that created the universe and everything in it (and yes I’m aware that that directly opposes Kantian, agnostic ideas of that term, in that I can never know anything about the supersensible, but I’m one of “those” types of atheist who know that just because there is a tiny fraction of a possibility for something to be, doesnt’ mean it is worth my time), and two, that I’m not afraid to have a clear, some would say “polemical” viewpoint on this matter. Also, it is good for PR, as many more people nowadays know what an atheist is compared to a secular humanist, but that’s much more materialistic and less important.
I like art (currently studying fine art history, english, and religion), and I feel emotion, but I don’t feel that humanity is beautiful. I feel we’re (relatively speaking) intelligent animals who, through an amazing series of flukes ended up here in the first place. And that’s it. And I’m perfectly content with knowing that nothing I do will directly “matter” in the grand scheme of things, just like I’m perfectly content with the fact that my life ends when I die. I think a lot of people who identify as secular humanists pride themselves on the knowledge of the beauty of humanity, and therefore of the importance of equality, justice, individuality (…to some extent…), and so on. But I think those things are important for a different reason, that’s all.
Fair enough. Thanks for elaborating. So it is not a critique of secular humanism or problem you have, as it is a personal thing. You just don’t want whatever the label is? Am I correct? If it’s a personal thing that you just don’t rub well with secular humanism, that’s understandable. However, if you have central critiques of secular humanism, thats what i’d be interested in hearing.
Perhaps this will tie in: What is the other reason that equality, justice, liberty, etc. are important – other than reflecting in being alive, living “the good life”, etc. as ascribed by many humanists? (by the way, it’s not a central creed and I am making it sound as such. Apologies.)