Traditional religion might be losing, but secular humanism is not winning. Instead, conventional religions seem to be largely losing ground to a combination of largely unthinking hedonism and a set of constantly shifting and mutating mystical or spiritual beliefs. Possibly these pseudo-worldviews are gaining ground not just against the old religons but against the scientific, rationalist worldview too.
The reason for this, it seems to me, reduces to meaning. For all that Christianity talks about the infinite nature of God, it is not this aspect of the divine that is important to people. Instead, the lives of Christians are imbued with meaning by the personal nature of their God. If the Christian God was supposed to have been infinite and infinitely distant and utterly unconcerned with mortals, I doubt that the religion would have been so successful in the struggle against other worldviews. Instead, though, the Christian God is supposed to have incarnated as a person to save us all from our supposed sins. Thus, the cosmological and the personal are, in Christianity, commingled into one cohesive (if relatively absurd) scheme, and a Christian becomes an integral and important part the universe. Other traditional religions provide similar sources of consolation for humans beset by finitude and misery.
Secular humanism also has a coherent (if dynamic and evolving) account of the world, stitched together out of scientific cosmology, evolutionary biology, history, and moral philosophy. However, in the humanistic worldview, these strands are not commingled: though the universe is significant for the existence of people, it is also entirely indifferent to their wellbeing. For humanists, all meaning and purpose in human existence is provided on a human scale. Humanists have faith that we can provide all the meaning we need ourselves, from our concerns, out of our own ideas and philosophies. In the face of the infinite, however, these meanings and purposes dissolve into absolute and utter insignificance. The humanist’s universe might provoke dizzying awe, but it is a distant awe compared with the more limited but also more intimate awe of the religious.
Perhaps some of us feel a certain exhiliration when contemplating the universe as revealed to us by science, a universe that is vaster and more complex and more empty of meaning than we could possibly have imagined. For most people, though, such chill vistas are not enough. The decay of the old religious certainties has left a void, a vacuum of meaning, in the hearts of many modern men and women. We are living in an age without a central narrative that shapes lives and weaves them as essential threads into the tapestry of the world. Instead, people desperately search for meaning, for the feeling of being truly alive, for anything to keep the warmth from bleeding away into the cold emptiness. For many, this search is for the ephemeral thrill of vivid experience. Others seek personal growth or the attainment of some brand of perfection. Still others try to wrap themselves in the fake consolations of a spirituality that remakes the world as a smaller, cosier place. There are many ways to hide: we have become good at inventing distractions.
Humanism has failed. It has failed because it does not give people a vital place in the universe. It has failed because people care more about where we are going than whence we came, more about morality than reality, more about meaning than facts, more about “why?” than “how?”, more about warm emotion than cold reason. Until we who are without gods and demons and heavens and hells can provide those things, our worldview will remain marginal. The losses of the old faiths will not be our gains. Furthermore, in painting this picture we must not cheat by softening the findings of science or including meaning and purpose by sleight of hand. Our worldview must not just feel authentic, but must be authentic.
Fortunately, we live in an age in which this is possible. We have two advantages over humanists of previous times. Firstly, we know that it is possible for life to influence the evolution of the universe in deep and pervasive ways. Through sufficient wisdom and determination, we can thus make the human future coincide ever more closely with the future of first the Earth, then the solar system, then the galaxy and finally the whole universe. Secondly, we are living for the first time with the real possibility of great longevity and then effective immortality. Perhaps we will not achieve these things in our lifetime, but we know they are possible and we can strive for them with all our energies. Thus, our own personal futures could through our own efforts coincide with the human future and thus the universal future. If the religious worldview is characterised by the universe reaching down to imbue human life with meaning, the transhumanist worldview is characterised by something stranger and nobler. Human life will be the torch-bearer that sets the universe alight with the fire of meaning.
|
|
|
I must admit that sometimes a rhetorical flourish pops into my head and I must include it even if its meaning isn't quite what I'd write more soberly. In any case, I not only have a broad definition of "humanity" but also think that we will turn out to be the first species to transcend (assuming we get that far...). One day, I really must try to write a coherent account of my thoughts on the Fermi Paradox. (At the moment, most of what I've written on the subject is scattered over and entangled with a number of very long and somewhat personal emails.) |
|
|
Rich, I was engrossed until the last paragraph. I couldn't understand the last two sentences, so forgive me if the vision described there left me unmoved. I strive so someone in the future can enjoy "effective immortality." Why? |
|
|
The last paragraph is, of course, only a sketch of a possible way out. It might not be perfect, but it's the best I have at the moment. If you have a better one, I'd love to hear it. (And I think there's a fair chance that people my age might well enjoy effective immortality.) It's also, less obviously, an allusion to my earlier article "Living at the Fulcrum". Indeed, this article is self-consciously an attempt to approach similar themes in a similar style (I don't often write like that and think it's fun when I do). I'm still struggling with these issues though - I know I don't believe in anything even approximately religious, I know I don't find the idea of just having fun and living more the moment very attractive, and I'm trying to figure out what I and others might consider a worthwhile source of meaning. |
|
|
The only manner to resolve the issue of war is for all Christian congregations to return to the gospel of the Prince of Peace Jesus Christ and tell their parishioners not to participate in war, military service or training. Then they will not contribute to the carnage of the Iraqi war and previous and future wars. Jesus in the New Testament taught his disciples to Turn the other cheek, love their enemies, put down the sword, and carry his cross. We should be members of the Kingdom of heaven and not become involved in matters that pertain to the kingdoms of this world. This is a difficult concept to observe, but the true Christian will take the example of the Christians of the Apostolic eras and refuse war. These concepts are outlined in my web page www.peacehost.net/peacechurch
|
|
|
The only manner to resolve the issue of war is for all Christian congregations to return to the gospel of the Prince of Peace Jesus Christ and tell their parishioners not to participate in war, military service or training. Then they will not contribute to the carnage of the Iraqi war and previous and future wars. Jesus in the New Testament taught his disciples to Turn the other cheek, love their enemies, put down the sword, and carry his cross. We should be members of the Kingdom of heaven and not become involved in matters that pertain to the kingdoms of this world. This is a difficult concept to observe, but the true Christian will take the example of the Christians of the Apostolic eras and refuse war. These concepts are outlined in my web page www.peacehost.net/peacechurch
|
|
|
can you please show me a picture of the humanism cross for my R.M.E homework please many thanks Robyn x |
|
|
I would like to be able to, Robyn, but I don't know what the "humanism cross" is. Perhaps you could tell me about it when you find out. |
|
|
Thank you, Rich. This addresses my own issues well. I am a reluctant atheist who has come to the conclusion that Quantum Physicists just haven't figured out the rules yet and that the universe is ultimately self deterministic, choice being an illusion; we're all just tiny cogs in an unimaginably large machine. (Read my one and only blog post, linked, for this epiphany, please.) My problems with this have to do with the lack of answer. Like you say, I want a vital place in the universe for myself and my progeny. I care more about where we are going than whence we came, more about morality than reality, more about meaning than facts, more about "why?" than "how?", more about warm emotion than cold reason. And yet I am fundamentally a logical person, and there is none of these things in my cold worldview. I have instead turned inward, toward our species, for my spiritual hope. We can become the gods we've created for so long, if we only evolve in the right direction. We have the ability to take charge of our own evolution, build our own immortality, shape the very building blocks of the universe at our whims, if only we keep advancing. My lifetime? Certainly not...but it doesn't matter. It just might be enough for me to know I've contributed, that there's a hope for something eternal, for our species to have some greater meaning in the universe. |
Good post. "Humanism has failed" is a little strong, literal-truth-wise, but it's a fitting hyperbole.
"Human life will be the torch-bearer that sets the universe alight with the fire of meaning": either this is a very broad construal of "human", or it assumes that we'll be the first ones to transcend. Can we say "Sentient life" here, or is humanity not yet ready to identify with something larger than the species?