Monthly Archives: December 2007

Humanist institutions

Posted on by

Time to keep pushing this one!

Neil said: “Why is it necessary to have “special” institutions that pass on humanistic belief? Surely it would be done from a humanist to his family, his workplace – sounds like evangelism! Schools and Universities would be the best example of humanist/secular “institutions”. Art and Media is then influenced by humanism, which we see presented on television, the internet, etc etc. So there’s no humanist churches. And there’s no special humanist “institution”, but does that mean that humanistic beliefs and attitudes do not influence society at large?”

If I might say so, this is a classically Protestant response!! But what I wanted to pick up on was the example of universities. These do indeed have a particular aim and ethos, and they are very good at instilling particular practices and habits in the students that attend (and later teach) at such institutions. So they could be called – with a nod to Robert M Pirsig – the ‘Church of Reason’. I would even go so far as to accept that they teach particular virtues, eg commitment to the truth and to honesty in research (which, by the by, shows up one of the dependencies of “scientific” research on moral culture). Yet would it be generally accepted that the universities produce people who are ‘more moral’ or ‘more good’ than the average? To go back to Scott’s summary of my quest, “I want to know where humanism is building up society in such a way that more people will tend to do good rather than evil.”

In addition to that, the universities and schools, especially in this country, are obviously dependent upon the Christian tradition for their founding and initial establishments and ethos. What is a) the distinctive humanist contribution to academic study, and b) what is the benefit to the good of society from that contribution.

The same thing applies in other fields. Think of hospitals and medical care generally – where, again, the Christian influence is pretty explicit. In terms of training of nurses or doctors today there are certainly institutions which – in theory – can shape people to work for the good of society. But what does humanism bring to this? Especially now, when the UK health care system has been overrun by the meddling mediocrities from Whitehall, and what matters is the meeting of some abstract ‘target’ rather than the healing of an individual person. (And there are issues lurking behind this as well, to do with the healing of the whole person rather than simply the ‘broken mechanism’ of their body).

Where is the humanist institution that is concerned with creating better people? (And it begs the question: what are people FOR?)

God hates you for all eternity

Posted on by

My worry is: this seems obviously absurd and way beyond parody. But – how many people outside the church see normal Christianity in this way? In other words – the stuff that (some) Christians think ‘normal’ – do outsiders see something like this? Are these people simply exhibiting an extreme version of something at the centre of mainstream faith?

“And on the cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied….”

Pursuing humanism

Posted on by

Let’s run with this a little longer as both Scott (Gray) and Neil (OSO) think I’m being unfair to humanists.

Firstly, I’m not aware of any theoretical reason why a humanist culture is necessarily incapable of sustaining long term moral endeavour and improvement. My concern is a practical one, ie that I’m not aware of this sustaining being done in this culture. (“This culture” mainly referring to the UK, but not excluding the other Anglo-Saxon societies).

Secondly, this point is one about religious belief over against secular thought. In other words it isn’t something that hangs on the specific beliefs advocated by Christianity. Confucianism, for example, is more than adequate to foster the social goods that concern me, and the theologies of Christianity and Confucianism (if the latter could be said to have a theology!) are very distinct.

Thirdly the existence of humanists who do good things is insufficient to answer my concern. We can all agree on the existence of such wonderful people; conversely we can also agree on the existence of wicked people who happen to be religious believers. The question is about what fosters the goodness and inhibits or reforms the badness.

Fourthly, this is a separate point to the one of accountability (hence a separate post). Whether humanism can coherently give an account of its accountability is to my mind an open question (I’m pretty sure it can’t) but that’s not the concern here.

The issue is this: the mainstream of Christianity demonstrably cultivates the virtues, be they compassion, a desire for social justice, a commitment to the truth, and so on. These virtues are developed through the adoption of particular practices which embody them, and cohere through the telling of stories and sharing of expertise. There are institutions which exist to, amongst other things, foster this moral development. In Christian terms it is called discipleship; doubtless there are equivalent terms in the other religious faiths.

My point is that I am not aware of institutions which cultivate the development and amplification of a moral sense, with associated practices and disciplines, within this country, of a humanistic form. I repeat, such things are not at all impossible. They seem to have existed in Ancient Greece (the gymnasia). I just want to know – where are they? (It’s also perfectly possible that there are many such institutions, and this post is merely parading my ignorance of them).

Hence my comment in the original post, that humanism is drawing on the bank balance built up by centuries of Christian teaching. I want to know where humanism is putting money in.

(For those familiar with him, the influence of Alasdair MacIntyre should be obvious!)