God Bless Humanism

I’m not one to dwell on movement politics, but Sam Harris’ recent exhortation to shed the “atheist” label has struck a chord, and may be worthy of a second look (and wanton embrace) by humanists. At the Atheist Alliance International conference in Washington DC, Harris said:

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

While Harris calls for the abandonment of all of the freethinker labels in common use, I would suggest something perhaps more modest, and more specifically applicable to those who wish to promote humanism as a viable worldview. Humanism is not synonymous with atheism, and is clearly distinct from other atheistic philosophies (e.g. Objectivism or Buddhism). Therefore, while rejection of supernatural belief is at the core of humanism, it is not the whole story.

One could plausibly argue that we better serve our ends if we immediately and unambiguously abandon any pretense toward overt atheism. In fact, much could be gained if we would immediately profess our deism. Ours could be the religion of Jefferson, Paine, Thoreau and Einstein. This would have no practical effect on our worldview, but would enhance our ability to grow the humanist movement immeasurably. And, as non-practicing deists, we would no longer be relegated to the fringe, crying offense at the mere utterance of “god bless you” or, god forbid, claims that we live in a nation “under god.” We openly embrace the millions of non-believers who do not have the courage to declare their atheism, and give them the theological crutch that is deism. Non-believers? Bah! Not us! God bless humanism! Done. We are mainstream.

Now, we fight the fight over intelligent design, but we have our deistic shields in place. Sure, we believe in god. No question. But there is no evidence that he/she/it designed our universe. Now, we fight to strengthen our standards for science education, not to displace god- heavens, no - but to understand the majesty of his/her/its creation. Now, we fight for the separation of religion and government, not as infidel interlopers, but to preserve the sanctity of each. It is not us versus religion. We are you, you are us. After all, are our real goals doctrinal purity, or winning in the marketplace of ideas and values.

Too far? Perhaps. But shouldn’t we at least consider how damaging a dogmatic insistence on absolute atheism can be to the humanist movement? As long as humanism is seen as little more than a euphemism for atheism, the movement will be constrained. On the contrary, if we could somehow become more welcoming of those who hold a belief in a supernatural first cause, but are otherwise as forcefully rational as we are, wouldn’t we benefit?

I’m not suggesting that we abandon one of the core tenets of the humanist philosophy. We should remain proudly and firmly reality based, shunning faith in the intervention of some divine, supernatural interloper. But if we relegate the entity referenced on our currency to a deistic position, we may find that we’ve opened an avenue to dialogue that is unavailable while we are perceived as clinging to a dogmatic, strident and even militant atheism. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Similar Posts:

None Found