Humanism, a non-religious body, or deeply religious?
Finally, someone has neatly summed up some of the thoughts that I have been having recently, regarding the ‘Humanist’ movement.
Observing the Humanist campaign to be included on the BBC ‘Thought for the Day’ and their recent advertising campaign, you simply can’t help but notice that this group is somewhat ‘evangelistic’ in an almost zealously religious fashion. Watching how they operate on Christian forums and within the comment section of this blog reinforces this. They can be quite aggressive for their version of the ‘truth’.
The fact that the ideology of Humanism in not truly an objective, rational, neutral worldview, is an amazing internal irony and contradiction within the Humanist movement, which Humanists themselves seem utterly unable to comprehend or admit. Because Humanists actually believe that their version of reality is the absolute, unprejudiced, unbiased, objective, rational truth, (sounds like a religion to me) they spend most of their time freaking out, at what they perceive to be the ‘indoctrination’ of children, by religion, through parents and the education system, without ever for one moment stopping and wondering if they are themselves guilty of the same.
It really is a case of telling someone about the speck in their eye, whilst at the same time, having a plank in your own eye and not realising it.
Did you know that there is actually divisions and schisms within Humanist and Atheist movements, akin to religious denominational splits?
Here is an excerpt from an excellent analysis in the CIF by Nick Spencer
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonThose [Humanists] who have been campaigning so long and so hard to open up Thought for the Day to non-religious items have vowed to carry on. We have not heard the end of this story. There is, however, a way through the impasse.
Humanism, the non-religious body that has made the most convincing case for a slot on the programme, insists with some vigour that it is not a religion. In one respect that is right. Religions are (in part) about people being “bound together” around a common vision of the good. Humanists may agree about what they do not believe, but it is hard to see what substantive vision they share. Talk of “shared human values” merely begs the question.
In another way, however, humanism is deeply religious. It may not rely on revelation or the supernatural but, like any serious worldview, it does depend on beliefs and moral convictions that cannot be proved. Humanists tend to be a little shy of admitting this, preferring to pretend that their belief system is “scientific”, “rational” or “neutral”. But the fact remains that if you have an opinion on the merits of assisted dying, or whether the Scottish government was right to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, or indeed why it is worth getting out of bed in the morning, you will be drawing on a worldview that is not demonstrably rational or neutral.
And that is the sticking point. As long as humanism hides under these fig leaves of science, rationality and neutrality, and insists it is not a religion, it is hard to see how it can legitimately demand a slice of the religious cake. If, however, those who hold such views are willing to abandon their fig leaves and embrace the vulnerability that goes with any religious faith position then there might be a role for them on this most contentious 2½ minutes of broadcasting.
Tags: Christianity, News