Just like religion, humanism is on a range between secularism and sacredness. I am traditional Christian however, I am also involved in several humanistic societies that still hold on to some hope of transcendence. I think we run into more problems with atheist humanism, which is hostile to the idea of God and will try to remove any vestiges of Him but keep the social improvement pieces. The message then rings hollow and because of the superficiality of it all, people reject it.
I also find atheistic humanism to easily fall into the trap of higher anthropologies, where humans are continually moving toward a higher knowledge, with better ethics, etc. So that even the goal is superficial.
Another common factor among (OT) prophets: They had a profound and humbling encounter with the living God that must have burnt itself into their memoies and was a protection against becoming self-righteous or feeling self-appointed. Also: Prophets (except Jonah for) were usually called to confront the evil and bigotry in their own ingroup. They were not cheered on by their bubble to proclaim judgement over "them"... but usually rather lonely while confronting their peers.
That "loneliness" was exactly what I was going to comment.
I'm remain a "believer." Even if some friends stopped inviting me to Bible study because they are uncomfortable with my less than "infallible"/"literal" take on every word of the Old Testament. Mind you, this is not something I'm vocal about or need to express. They asked; I answered honestly. I didn't feel a need to resolve the issue. But suddenly I wasn't correctly Christian or Christian enough or something.
That's maybe too much sidebar, but I think it points to the problem that occurs in modern discourse. We are always looking for firm ground to stand on and certainty to rest in. Which is why to me, religious fundamentalists and New Atheists aren't are two sides of the same coin.
For anyone else, you need to be able to rest in uncertainty to varying small and large degrees.
Maybe I'm tempted to relieve that discomfort by just saying, I'm not Christian at all. I'm a super evolved secular humanist. And therefore, my non-believing friends will take me more seriously. But I can't do it. Buddhists and Jesuits have "messed" me up enough that I know that I don't know lots of things. That if I think I've found the end of the trail, I better keep walking. So I walk on. There is no "post" in my Christianity.
I think the secular humanistic worldview is lovely. It's deeply Christian. So in its moral content, as I said in my post, I wholly agree with it.
The issue concerns the foundations of that worldview, specifically the degree to which I can "opt in and out" as I see fit. On this point, Nietzsche was absolutely right, almost alone among the post-Christians in his courage and honesty. Nietzsche saw very clearly that the secular humanistic worldview was a cheat, pretending that it could kill God but keep the moral vision, deny the metaphysics but keep the universal obligation to love. But you cannot pull the rabbit out of that hat. That's the problem with the secular humanistic worldview, it's magical thinking.
I'm not being original in any of this. That secular humanism has yet to answer Nietzsche is one of its biggest blind spots.
Yeah, I guess I would say that secular humanism can maintain that "Christian-ness," without subscribing to the Christian worldview. What I mean by "inherently" is for the sake of coherence, does secular humanism's foundation, being atheistic, necessitate a nihilist view of life and the opposite moral view of what it promotes? I think it's incoherent, but so what? If you don't believe in God yet want people to flourish, what other choice do you have but to be inconsistent in that regard? But I guess for the sake of intellectual honesty, you have to acknowledge the incoherence there, which Nietzsche surely did.
I recently wrote this in my own substack: “ Devotion was what was missing. I was devoted to myself. I was going to get what I wanted & needed from them, or at least I thought. My mission was me, my devotion was to me. It was all about me, me, me so I went about my life like a parasite extracting all I could from whoever came across my path. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13 that “Love… is not self-seeking”. I was self-seeking which means I was sinning & Paul also wrote that “the payment for sin is death”. Those relationships died. Something in me died.”
Humanism of any type is self-seeking. Self-seeking, like every sin, has a short shelf life. It’s like a firework, it’s loud, sparkly, has a big boom then fizzles away yet it’s not light.
God’s 1st commandment was less instruction as it was a declaration. “You WILL NOT have any other God”. Paul’s stated consequence of trying to make anything or anyone else God was death. Jesus is eternal, forever life & light.
Humanistic ideas don’t fit in the world God designed eternally. That’s why slavery came to an end & it’s why woke-ism has an expiration date. It’s also why religiosity is the only way to save the world. We can try to take God out of the conversation yet He never leaves. You can’t describe darkness with out Light, you can’t give a detailed description of what a woman or man is without describing the other.
Richard, one of the tightest, best pieces in your body of work. Spot on.
Reminds me a little too of Michael Buckley's excellent work arguing that humanistic atheism is essentially parasitic on Christian theology. Lots in common with MacIntyre there too.
I'd like to understand what motivates the woke. I was worried that mean or greedy behavior would give people a reason to reject Christianity. For example, even as early as 4th grade I remember being upset over western expansion in the US. I felt that Natives should have Evangelized, not conquered. What are the woke trying to preserve? What are they worried will be rejected if we don't follow the woke agenda? I only see them interested in dismantling.
I think it's maybe a mistake to create a group called "the woke." I know people who would probably be easily called "woke" because they want to house the homeless, want demilitarize police, and want to eliminate racial disparity. But in my very leftist view, they aren't woke in the sort of puritanical, mirror image of Christian conservativism.
I think the greater problems of our age lie in the self awareness of everything, where righteousness easily turns to self-righteousness. Try having a nuanced discussion about the war in Ukraine, or abortion. It's all madness and I think people can't help but cling onto a sense of rightness about where they stand. We've lost all sense of nuance and of civil discourse. Because everything has become a binary, zero sum game.
I applaud you Richard for providing me with the insight that without a vision that comes from beyond human opinion, there is no agreed morals or behavior to accountable to. I do spread this insight. Sadly, those who do proclaim to live by biblical teachings primarily do not actually live it, many becoming christian nationalists that embrace some of the worst behavior and do love capitalism, war, forced adherence in their views and behavior, and extreme intolerance. With this global and extremely diverse population that is quite secular, I don't see a way forward except in small groups such as in the Bruderhof christian communities that embrace the same theology and live by it. I feel stuck, losing hope, and without an answer that is a solution to this societal decline. Watching it is painful.
I continually hold onto to statements as I navigate this life and this world. The first is from Ibsen's "Enemy of the People," where the main character Dr. Stockman concludes that the "strongest man in the world is the one who stands most alone."
And Jesus who says, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Just like religion, humanism is on a range between secularism and sacredness. I am traditional Christian however, I am also involved in several humanistic societies that still hold on to some hope of transcendence. I think we run into more problems with atheist humanism, which is hostile to the idea of God and will try to remove any vestiges of Him but keep the social improvement pieces. The message then rings hollow and because of the superficiality of it all, people reject it.
I also find atheistic humanism to easily fall into the trap of higher anthropologies, where humans are continually moving toward a higher knowledge, with better ethics, etc. So that even the goal is superficial.
Another common factor among (OT) prophets: They had a profound and humbling encounter with the living God that must have burnt itself into their memoies and was a protection against becoming self-righteous or feeling self-appointed. Also: Prophets (except Jonah for) were usually called to confront the evil and bigotry in their own ingroup. They were not cheered on by their bubble to proclaim judgement over "them"... but usually rather lonely while confronting their peers.
That "loneliness" was exactly what I was going to comment.
I'm remain a "believer." Even if some friends stopped inviting me to Bible study because they are uncomfortable with my less than "infallible"/"literal" take on every word of the Old Testament. Mind you, this is not something I'm vocal about or need to express. They asked; I answered honestly. I didn't feel a need to resolve the issue. But suddenly I wasn't correctly Christian or Christian enough or something.
That's maybe too much sidebar, but I think it points to the problem that occurs in modern discourse. We are always looking for firm ground to stand on and certainty to rest in. Which is why to me, religious fundamentalists and New Atheists aren't are two sides of the same coin.
For anyone else, you need to be able to rest in uncertainty to varying small and large degrees.
Maybe I'm tempted to relieve that discomfort by just saying, I'm not Christian at all. I'm a super evolved secular humanist. And therefore, my non-believing friends will take me more seriously. But I can't do it. Buddhists and Jesuits have "messed" me up enough that I know that I don't know lots of things. That if I think I've found the end of the trail, I better keep walking. So I walk on. There is no "post" in my Christianity.
Moses and Jonah (perhaps others) also were reticent to speak on the Lord's behalf. They didn't rush gleefully into fray like I did when I was woke.
Richard, do you think a secular humanistic worldview is inherently nihilist/materialist or no?
Depends upon what you mean by "inherently."
I think the secular humanistic worldview is lovely. It's deeply Christian. So in its moral content, as I said in my post, I wholly agree with it.
The issue concerns the foundations of that worldview, specifically the degree to which I can "opt in and out" as I see fit. On this point, Nietzsche was absolutely right, almost alone among the post-Christians in his courage and honesty. Nietzsche saw very clearly that the secular humanistic worldview was a cheat, pretending that it could kill God but keep the moral vision, deny the metaphysics but keep the universal obligation to love. But you cannot pull the rabbit out of that hat. That's the problem with the secular humanistic worldview, it's magical thinking.
I'm not being original in any of this. That secular humanism has yet to answer Nietzsche is one of its biggest blind spots.
Yeah, I guess I would say that secular humanism can maintain that "Christian-ness," without subscribing to the Christian worldview. What I mean by "inherently" is for the sake of coherence, does secular humanism's foundation, being atheistic, necessitate a nihilist view of life and the opposite moral view of what it promotes? I think it's incoherent, but so what? If you don't believe in God yet want people to flourish, what other choice do you have but to be inconsistent in that regard? But I guess for the sake of intellectual honesty, you have to acknowledge the incoherence there, which Nietzsche surely did.
I recently wrote this in my own substack: “ Devotion was what was missing. I was devoted to myself. I was going to get what I wanted & needed from them, or at least I thought. My mission was me, my devotion was to me. It was all about me, me, me so I went about my life like a parasite extracting all I could from whoever came across my path. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13 that “Love… is not self-seeking”. I was self-seeking which means I was sinning & Paul also wrote that “the payment for sin is death”. Those relationships died. Something in me died.”
Humanism of any type is self-seeking. Self-seeking, like every sin, has a short shelf life. It’s like a firework, it’s loud, sparkly, has a big boom then fizzles away yet it’s not light.
God’s 1st commandment was less instruction as it was a declaration. “You WILL NOT have any other God”. Paul’s stated consequence of trying to make anything or anyone else God was death. Jesus is eternal, forever life & light.
Humanistic ideas don’t fit in the world God designed eternally. That’s why slavery came to an end & it’s why woke-ism has an expiration date. It’s also why religiosity is the only way to save the world. We can try to take God out of the conversation yet He never leaves. You can’t describe darkness with out Light, you can’t give a detailed description of what a woman or man is without describing the other.
Richard, one of the tightest, best pieces in your body of work. Spot on.
Reminds me a little too of Michael Buckley's excellent work arguing that humanistic atheism is essentially parasitic on Christian theology. Lots in common with MacIntyre there too.
I'd like to understand what motivates the woke. I was worried that mean or greedy behavior would give people a reason to reject Christianity. For example, even as early as 4th grade I remember being upset over western expansion in the US. I felt that Natives should have Evangelized, not conquered. What are the woke trying to preserve? What are they worried will be rejected if we don't follow the woke agenda? I only see them interested in dismantling.
I think it's maybe a mistake to create a group called "the woke." I know people who would probably be easily called "woke" because they want to house the homeless, want demilitarize police, and want to eliminate racial disparity. But in my very leftist view, they aren't woke in the sort of puritanical, mirror image of Christian conservativism.
I think the greater problems of our age lie in the self awareness of everything, where righteousness easily turns to self-righteousness. Try having a nuanced discussion about the war in Ukraine, or abortion. It's all madness and I think people can't help but cling onto a sense of rightness about where they stand. We've lost all sense of nuance and of civil discourse. Because everything has become a binary, zero sum game.
I applaud you Richard for providing me with the insight that without a vision that comes from beyond human opinion, there is no agreed morals or behavior to accountable to. I do spread this insight. Sadly, those who do proclaim to live by biblical teachings primarily do not actually live it, many becoming christian nationalists that embrace some of the worst behavior and do love capitalism, war, forced adherence in their views and behavior, and extreme intolerance. With this global and extremely diverse population that is quite secular, I don't see a way forward except in small groups such as in the Bruderhof christian communities that embrace the same theology and live by it. I feel stuck, losing hope, and without an answer that is a solution to this societal decline. Watching it is painful.
I continually hold onto to statements as I navigate this life and this world. The first is from Ibsen's "Enemy of the People," where the main character Dr. Stockman concludes that the "strongest man in the world is the one who stands most alone."
And Jesus who says, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Holding on to truth is rarely comfortable.