Lots of things
Austin Dacey considers ‘the latest critics of the new atheists: the old humanists’.
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.
Indeed not, especially since we wouldn’t know where to begin (which is part of Austin’s point). It’s not, after all, as if humanists and/or atheists are like theism turned inside out – carrying all the same baggage but with minus-signs replacing plus-signs; it’s not as if we come complete with our own atheist music and atheist prayers and atheist temples and atheist holidays and atheist hats. It’s also not as if the ‘more’ that there is to life is necessarily a peculiarly atheist kind of more. It’s just more. Most of it is every bit as available to theists as it is to us. (I say ‘most’ because there probably are various senses of freedom, liberation, autonomy, that are specific to atheism, in the same way that there are various senses of protection, companionship, cosmic love, that are specific to theism.) We can all revel in poetry, music, nature, landscapes, relationships, conversation, learning, dance, play; feelings of wonder, awe, joy; chocolate, ice cream, weirdly fascinating stupid tv shows about real people being neurotic, chocolate. Other kinds of more are harder to replace, as I said in answer to a ‘Comment is Free’ question, but that’s just how it is. You can’t change something and at the same time replace it so completely that nothing is missing, because then you haven’t changed it.
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.
Exactly – partly because the closer the fit, the more religion-shaped the single religion-replacing object is, the more like religion it will be, and that rather defeats the purpose. But also partly because religion contains multitudes, and much of what it contains is great stuff that we can all enjoy. There are good songs! And I don’t want any dang humanist replacements for them, neither. On the other hand I decidedly do want non-religious versions of nearly all of it.
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.
Like that.
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.
Heehee.
Ophelia, I think you hit on the next idea for humanists/atheists.
The hat.
Something worn like a cheese-head hat but must be of the power of a crock-o-duck.
I envision the big red A as a stocking cap. It could have a saying like “I am. Then I will be gone. Lets party now.”
I suppose so, but I’m still tempted to put Douglas Adams at the quasi-moral center of movement atheism. Don’t panic: behold the church of the towel.
(Argh. This is odd. I think this must be what theists feel like when some criticises what they see as a caricature of their beliefs.)
I don’t understand the criticism of organised humanism.
OB: “Exactly – partly because the closer the fit, the more religion-shaped the single religion-replacing object is, the more like religion it will be, and that rather defeats the purpose. But also partly because religion contains multitudes, and much of what it contains is great stuff that we can all enjoy.”
Humanists *know* religion has multiple aspects, that’s part of *the point*. Religion often does community very well, and that’s one thing people apparently miss when they leave the fold. It’s about the only thing I look at with respect in the churches of my friends and relatives. An organised humanism helps provide that, without the baggage that the religious have to put up with.
AD: “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.”
But that describes what humanists think (amongst other things). Humanism is in some ways just a label for aspects of a positive, non-dogmatic, non-supernatural view of the world. You don’t have to identify with the label if you don’t want to, but why the downer on others that do?
AD: “Do we really need an institution for people who find Reform Judaism and Unitarian Universalism too rigid?”
“Institution”, no. Try “Community” instead. And then the answer would be yes, some people would like that very much.
One more bit.
OB: “You can’t change something and at the same time replace it so completely that nothing is missing, because then you haven’t changed it.”
Who’s trying to do that? Certainly not humanists. They very much want to have things missing, like dogma, authoritarianism, and suchlike.
Owen, I know, I know. :- )
Really, I do! That’s what I said in that Comment is Free piece I linked to – the community thing is big, and in many ways enviable.
I have doubts about its replaceability, but that’s partly a matter of temperament, I think.
I suppose it goes something like this: the idea of humanist gatherings makes me cringe, but then I’m not a community type so I have some natural resistance, and I suspect it takes something with the power of religious belief to overcome that. I can imagine community + belief working a lot more easily than I can imagine community + humanism working.
In the anti-clericalist aftermath of the French Revolution, a church called the Cult of Reason (Culte de la Raison)was set up, and after a short time spent trashing Catholicism both verbally and physically, was terminated in the politics of the time. Maximilien Robespierre, a deist, set up his own outfit in opposition to it, which he called the Cult of the Supreme Being (Culte de l’Etre Supreme). But it didn’t last long either. Neither for that matter, did Robespierre.
Karl Marx, coming along later in that revolutionary tradition, famously said “nothing human is alien to me.” All religions, as human creations for coping with both life and death, would have to be included there. Thus reading the literature of the religions, singing their chants, mantras and psalms, and reciting their prayers and curses is a good way into understanding the minds that created them and the sorts of solutions they propose for real matters and problems of life.
I do not think that there will ever be a viable ‘Church of Rationalism’. Probably the example of the Church of Scientology is enough to squash any such project permanently. But private celebrations and parties are something else again.
So it is in that spirit, and as one who favours the language of the King James Bible, that I offer the following:
Our Reason,
Which art in our heads and books,
Hallowed be thy name,
Thy global democracy come,
Thy will be done on Earth, as it is nowhere else that we presently know of.
Keep giving us this day and onwards our daily bread, olive oil, chocolate, fruit, meat, chocolate, fish, seeds and other foods like chocolate,
And steer us away from doing things for which we might later feel guilty.
Help us to lead mutually supportive lives, untroubled by self-doubt and negativity.
Lead us not into short sighted actions,
But give us wisdom and insight into good and evil,
For thou art the best we have,
And all we look like ever having.
If Marx did famously say that he stole it from Terence – nihil humanum alienum mihi puto, or something like that.
Lots of things human are alien to me, I can tell you that. Coffee mixed with egg nog, for a start.
“It is not the job of religion’s critics to organize a replacement”
Of course it is not. Neither is it their ‘job’ to criticize in the first place-it is something they ‘choose’ to do. Except of course, for those who derive income from propounding their arguments…in which case they have a vested financial interest in ensuring people continue to listen to them. Personally I have no reason to suspect either Dawkins or Bakker are capable of keeping an open mind when dogma pays well.Ok I quibble.
Dacey’s claim is smugly disingenuous. It is pointless sophistry to on the one hand champion the downfall of the Judeo-Christian tradition whilst on the other disavow all responsibility for suggesting a better alternative. In this regard, vaguely waving in the general direction of (non-existent)secular moral systems does not count for anything-except perhaps as a pointer towards the likelihood that therein lies the bigger challenge-What do we have that is any better AND stands any real chance of having a few billion people sign on to it?
Well, that’s fair.
I confess I didn’t follow your link until after my response, which was rather remiss of me. I’m glad I finally did, as the comments you got in response were quite a treat! Who knew you were so religious??
You’re probably right about community + belief working more easily that community + humanism, but I’d say the humanism option has better prospects than community + atheism. (If community is important to you, and you don’t already have one. Neither point is universal.)
Despite my rather tetchy-sounding initial comment (not intended, sorry, just rushed) defending humanism, I’m really more of a humanist-wannabe. I think to fit the bill properly, you really should have a mostly positive view of humanity. And, I don’t, sadly. Too many crap people messing things up for everyone else!
(Someone who almost certainly isn’t crap is Dale McGowan: check out what he’s attempting with the Foundation Beyond Belief at http://www.foundationbeyondbelief.org)
Well exactly. That’s why I can’t be a humanist, why I don’t really yearn for community (well that plus a very low boredom threshold), etc. I don’t actually even wannabe. It’s too…too…sentimental, optimistic, starry-eyed; something along those lines. It makes me cringe. I can’t help it.
A reader pointed out Dale McGowan’s blog to me just a couple of days ago; it’s great. I linked to an entry in News.
Whatever the merits of the idea of replacing religion, I’m skeptical about setting out to do so. The elaborate social functions and trappings of religion did not arise by conscious design — no one set out several thousand years ago and said, “we need community” or “we need one-stop shopping for comforting the grieving and conducting Big Life Event ceremonies”, etc. — and I think it would be folly to try to replace these functions and trappings by conscious design.
I think atheism and humanism will — and should! — continue chewing away at the legitimacy of religion and continue working to define alternatives (respectively); and that this will go forward in tandem with a not-quite-conscious, or at most partially conscious, construction of a replacement, or more likely, replacements.
I would go so far as to say that the wane of religion will need this construction to succeed fully, but that the construction and the wane need not be, and should not be, seen as the same broad effort. That is, there will be a ‘build it and they will come’ aspect to rolling back religion — lots of people will take that step only when they see somewhere else to stand, and that somewhere else is not likely to be the perch of New Atheism or humanism as we see it now.
That somewhere else to stand will take many forms, I expect, and for good or ill, “movement atheism,” “new atheism,” and humanism will not do all the building of it. That’s fine.
I want it to result in something that doesn’t enable 9/11 attacks and child rape and second-class designation for most of the world’s people. That would be a good start, and a low bar.
Obviously, nonbelievers should not be forced or guilt-tripped into joinining communities, but for those who are joiners, why not have something available?
Let me point out this piece on secular communities (including the North Texas Church of Freethought!)
http://thenewhumanism.org/authors/emily-cadik/articles/come-together
When I left religion, I felt like an atomized individual for a number of years. As a male over 40, I found it difficult to make friends and mostly relied on my wife’s social circle. Participating in humanism has been a nice way to connect with people.
The Terence quotes is (according to Wikipedia, at least) “Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto”; “I am a man, I consider nothing that is human alien to me.”
Pretty close, with the Terence! Which is a joke, considering how bad I was at Latin in school.
OB: A few drops of vanilla in your egg nog + coffee will make all the difference.
I speak not from empirical experience, but from first principles and pure reason. (BTW always check on the label that the reason you use is 100% pure.)
D. Trooper: Just out of curiosity, what is it exactly that those “few billion people” you talk about have actually signed up on? Islam? Hinduism? Christianity? Judaism? Catholicism?
I would add polytheistic animism to that list, except that I know there are so few of us left around.
I commented to the original article, expressing my doubts about its analysis, and I feel the same here. It seems like you both have misunderstood the Humanist movement’s aims and hopes.
First, it is not to replace religion with a single institution that performs all religious functions. his truly would be absurd. However, it would be wise to recognize that religious organizations do fulfill particular social roles that would not be easily performed by existing secular institutions (the recognition, in the wider community, of new births, for instance), and it might be wise to provide nonreligious alternatives for these.
Further, the model that sees the naturalization of religious beliefs and rituals as the “removal” of something which leaves a “hole” is not a good way to look at the problem. Rather, these ritualistic elements of human living are being reclaimed for humanity and for a naturalistic worldview. There is no hole.
I’m not sure who these “organized humanists” are. I think Reform Judaism and Unitarian Universalism *are* organized humanist institutions.
And they’re pretty good at incorporating the good of religion–songs, meaningful rituals, the commitment to social justice that you see in some liberationist religious groups, that kind of thing–while leaving the harmful/annoying dogma out.
I was unaware that there are “organized humanists” apart from these groups. Having learned of their existence, I’m not sure how they would differentiate themselves from these groups. Which is part of Dacey’s point, I suppose?
‘New atheism’ has really concentrated on one major question – the truth claims of religion. The result of this is that other questions, such as whether there are useful activities, now associated with churches, that might be usefully applied in a secular setting, have not been addressed in detail. Its apparent to me that there is a variety of opinions on this matter, from the old fashioned ‘herding cats’ type atheists to more community orientated atheists. So long as we recognize that these are both intellectually valid then I don’t see this as a significant issue (at least not the way atheism/faitheism is a problem).
Ian McDougal
Hmm. I did not say “have signed up on”. The suggestion was quite different. Tsk
To be fair (to you) though, “a few billion” is rhetorically frivolous.
So would you be happy if we agreed to amend the last bit to read “500 million” ?
Your fellow animist travellers will by your own concession, unlikely change the arithmentic all that much.
If you’re not religious and you want to be part of a community, why not just get a hobby? Join the ramblers, or a book club, or play Sunday league football, something like that.
I suppose if you’re living in a very religious area, you might have to settle for the Humanists, but otherwise, what’s the point?
“Join the ramblers”
Bloody hell, I’d almost prefer the Catholics!
D Trooper, I was talking about the following from you: “…vaguely waving in the general direction of (non-existent)secular moral systems does not count for anything-except perhaps as a pointer towards the likelihood that therein lies the bigger challenge-What do we have that is any better AND stands any real chance of having a few billion people sign on to it?”
I choose to leave aside the tsking over ‘sign up on’ vs ‘sign up to’, though I doubt it would make much difference, even in a law court. But I googled ‘500 million, religion’ and top of the first page was ‘Pelosi’s’ claim that 500 million will lose their jobs each month. (!) Then came 5 million Baha’is, there followed, as the race callers say, by 500 million Taoists (including Buddhists) (?). Next global warming the religion of First World elites “…Not carbon levels and temperatures from 500 million years ago…”; then 500 million Buddhists, presumably reducing the rest of the ‘Taoists’ back to zero, which would be a genuine pity; then 500 million gallons of sludge spills into town – which must refer to some televangelist; then 400 million Buddhists, 400 million Taoists, and 500 million Agnostics. (!) Just as I was really starting to get confused, there they were at the bottom of the page: “… This revival consists of more than 500 million Pentecostals and charismatics…” I honestly had no idea there were so many of them. Or should that be ‘so many of you’?
I did not click on that site or any other.
Still, by any calculation that leaves the majority of the world’s population living without any one given religion’s moral code. Or perhaps they are all much the same on any given day, give or take the odd FGM or stoning of a raped woman. Agree?
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=500+million%2C+religion&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&rlz=1W1GGLL_en&aq=f&oq=
Sigmund,
Don’t dismiss the ramblers so lightly. They do a damn good job in keeping public access to land open.
D Troeper, I really don’t follow this claim:
“It is pointless sophistry to on the one hand champion the downfall of the Judeo-Christian tradition whilst on the other disavow all responsibility for suggesting a better alternative.”
How on earth does that count as sophistry? Are you saying there’s some logical connection between the two, between “champion[ing] the downfall of the Judeo-Christian tradition” and the “responsibility for suggesting a better alternative”? I don’t see it. Seems like a perfectly coherent position: you can approve of the demise of something without having any particular alternative(s) in mind. The value judgment in question doesn’t logically entail any further opinions. Not even close. And indeed, if you happened to harbor some further opinions, they might be that a replacement would be as bad as the original, that we’re better off without anything like it.
For example, if someone is in a terrible marriage, I might approve of its demise without having any specific alternatives in mind, or I might even be convinced that the two parties are not fit for marriage or long-term relationships generally. No sophistry I can see in holding views of this form.
D Troeper: My apologies. I just realised that I have been mis-spelling your name.