Am I a Humanist?
HUMANISM ESTABLISHED ITSELF in the late 19th
century as an umbrella term for any disposition of thought stressing the
centrality of the human species in the order of nature. Today, in the Western world, humanism is more
or less synonymous with atheism or secular rationalism. The subordination of individuals to ideologies
of economic structures, religious codes, or regulating forces is antithetical
to Humanism since it reduces human agency to a subset of pre-ordained
dogma. Being an anti-ideological
materialistic atheist, I am a Humanist.
Are Humanists Humanist?
OPINIONS EXPRESSED RECENTLY, and appear to be a consensus,
impact negatively on the question. Most
critically is the recent issue of Humanists NZ opposing the rights of free
speech, to hear and to be heard. This is
a form of censorship, cultural regulation and control of discourse. Humanists’ concern for Mubarak Bala should
apply to Kelly-Jean Minshull for offending popular beliefs. There
is an increasing distance between the Humanists and public intellectuals who,
if not atheist, adhere to the concept of eschewing determinism or external
agency, and if no longer on the Left, certainly once were, including Douglas
Murray, Frank Furedi, Jonathan Haidt, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and
particularly Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptics, who describes Humanists as
having gone “full woke”. ‘Woke’ ideology
is utopian and concerned with the primacy of individual feelings over
dispassionate rationality.
HUMANISM CAN ENCOMPASS NOMINALLY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE who eschew
supernatural interventions in human life.
But there is an irony here. While
Christians and Jews can describe themselves as Humanists on that basis,
Muslims, by the essence of their faith, cannot.
This is because an expressed belief in Allah and his agency in human
affairs is an essential component of the religion. Furthermore, Islam’s rules oblige Muslims to
bring about the dominance of Islam throughout the world. Humanists represent a form of apostasy, which
is punishable by death. Thus, Islam is
definitively anti-Humanist and vice-versa.
The naivety and neutrality, even sympathy, towards Islam I detect in
this Humanist branch is dangerously misplaced.
WHILE SARAH BAKEWELL IS NOT HERSELF A HUMANIST, in an
interview about her latest book, Humanly Possible, she describes
Humanism as “anything that puts individual human experience at the centre of
things, rather than, say, an ideology like communism...a utopian ideology where
present well-being would be sacrificed to the grand ideas of the future.” I would suggest that ‘individual’ would not
have been a factor in times past; it is a preoccupation of the present. Further, the Marxist-derived ‘woke’ ideology,
which appears to have significant sympathy within NZ Humanists, is utopian.
THE CONSENSUS I PERCEIVE OF HUMANISTS is that they consider
themselves to be on the Left. The Left
is more likely than the Right to be captured by ideology because it wants change
rather than stasis and ideology is perhaps the major agent of change. Once in place, of course, an ideology will
change laws and institutions to suit the ideology, as we saw in Russia in 1917,
Germany in 1932, China in 1949, Vietnam in 1972, Cambodia in 1973, and Iran in
1979. A return to a more liberal era
takes generations. I remain wary of the
educated on the Left for their susceptibility to arrogance of the intellect (Richard
West), chronological snobbery (C S Lewis), brahmin caste assumptions (Trevor
Philips), the tyranny of merit (Michael Sandel), anachronistic moralising,
moral superiority and authoritarianism, and cultural repudiation.
NEW ZEALAND HUMANISTS, in its manifesto, advocates personal responsibility, development and enjoyment, pursuit of positive ideals, and respect for the well-being of others. It has communitarian ideals and respect for the golden rule. It supports open societies in which differences of opinion and lifestyle are accepted, and unbiased state institutions. In practice it appears to support diversity unless it’s that of thought.
