Lazy Atheists and Smug Humanists
I think we Humanists need something extra, a bit of zing, a bit of a turbo charge, that missing ingredient. Humanism, is to me is the most sensible approach to the one life we live; but I wonder if we are not quite there yet, or perhaps that some of us need to travel to the next destination.
What you might ask has that to do with the title above? Well...
Growing up my family were all religious, we discussed and debate our beliefs (particularly my mother and me). We were interested in understanding our faith, what was ethically "right and wrong" and what was true. Ultimately this, handed down curiosity, resulted in my digging too deep into the faith in which I was raised, through the bottom to the empty underside, discovering to my surprise (and shock) that I had become an atheist. There was however in my family one person that had never believed in Christianity. However there was a difference in approach: they didn't study any of the literature, debate or discuss. Seemingly rejecting our families Catholic and Baptist traditions from dislike, not reason or ethics. As one by one we each dropped our religious belief, she uttered words to the effect of "see I was right". From our current standpoint one has to agree, but the thought occurs that she had been right for the wrong reason.
This may sound petulant but from a Humanistic point of view, holding beliefs on basis of convenience or preference is a dangerous position to take. To use the example of extremes: one might like the feeling of superiority over another race, and thus subscribe to racism, or perhaps buy into a point of view on vaccinations because gives a simple tangible answer for a child’s autism. The position of "atheism from convenience" or a reluctance to look closer at matters philosophical, I have in the past harshly categorised as "Lazy Atheism". It could similarly apply to those raised atheist but haven't looked into it. I pass no moral judgement on this, just hold that (to borrow a phrase) this is a house built upon the on sand.
This may sound petulant but from a Humanistic point of view, holding beliefs on basis of convenience or preference is a dangerous position to take. To use the example of extremes: one might like the feeling of superiority over another race, and thus subscribe to racism, or perhaps buy into a point of view on vaccinations because gives a simple tangible answer for a child’s autism. The position of "atheism from convenience" or a reluctance to look closer at matters philosophical, I have in the past harshly categorised as "Lazy Atheism". It could similarly apply to those raised atheist but haven't looked into it. I pass no moral judgement on this, just hold that (to borrow a phrase) this is a house built upon the on sand.
The other side of the coin is "Smug Humanism", this is the position that through diligent study one has found the "Truth", and others have not. Others are not being rational, are not paying attention and not being fastidious enough. There are few actual Smug Humanists out there, but there is often the whiff of them around. It can put others off, undermine our position and perhaps result in us not being as open minded as we should. It also means we seem to ask more of others than ourselves.
I myself of course have found the perfect position, hopefully you perceive the sarcasm in this, but, I am trying to be better, do better and treat others better. It’s fortunate to find ones fundamental values to be utterly wrong (I believed in ley lines and homeopathy too). It provides that little niggling voice in the back of the mind, saying “you might be wrong”. It doesn't stop me arguing a point of view strongly; but does mean that after a discussion, I might do a little research on the stronger ideas from the opposition, and perhaps change my mind.
I am by no means unique in this position, and can take no credit for this, I did not choose my upbringing or the opportunities that led me to where I am now. I am just grateful for it.
To put some of my concerns in a different light: Humanists should be ahead of the curve on ethics, but I often find we are not (that's not to say we haven't done great things in some areas). For example when I first started going to meetings in London for those involved in running Humanist groups, there was never any fair trade coffee. This was at a time when many where not aware of Fair Trade. But I should have been hearing about this from Humanists not trying to explain why no fair trade could cause human suffering - looking like some kind of fanatic. Nowadays Fair Trade coffee is widely consumed and now there is Fair Trade coffee at these events. But we should as a community be trail blazing, not catching up on ethical trends.
This should be true for environment, human rights, what we buy and how we behave. If there was more of this in the community it would be easier to be ethical, because ideas would be shared and discussed. Meaning we would need to spend less time seeking out these issues and learning how to make a difference. We need to be more reflective on how we are as individuals, hold ourselves to a high standard. Humanism should be able to do this. However it's not about criticising those that are not perfect or trying for perfect, it's delusional to think that any of us know what perfection is, let alone get there. But we can move in the right direction.
This should be true for environment, human rights, what we buy and how we behave. If there was more of this in the community it would be easier to be ethical, because ideas would be shared and discussed. Meaning we would need to spend less time seeking out these issues and learning how to make a difference. We need to be more reflective on how we are as individuals, hold ourselves to a high standard. Humanism should be able to do this. However it's not about criticising those that are not perfect or trying for perfect, it's delusional to think that any of us know what perfection is, let alone get there. But we can move in the right direction.
Returning to the opening point: Lazy, Smug or something else, we are a little stuck. Humanism should be exploding, given the increasing rejection of supernatural beliefs and ancient dogma. It is growing, but not to the extent one would hope or expect. There is a genuine hazard here, it feels like the idea of trying to live a better life and personal ethics is being lost (and no this is not a “it was better in the good old days” rant, it was not). Humanism can help here, but is largely ignored or rejected.
To improve the situation we need something that has three things:
-to be beneficial to the self.
-to have a positive impact on the world.
-to have the tools to achieve the first two points.
If being a humanist could help one be happier, healthier and more effective, more people would want to get on board. If more people were on board we could effect a bigger positive change in the world. If we were happier, healthier and more effective we would be individually better at improving things. If we actively sort after, shared, tested and evaluated tools to do these things, we would amplify what we do. It’s a virtuous circle (or three of them).
I'm not sure if I am arguing for an upgrade to Humanism, a subset of Humanism or a move to something else (maybe Humanism+, well perhaps not by that name). Recently I have been looking into Stoicism, and may in time characterise myself as Stoic Humanist, but there are other approaches out there, secular Buddhism for example. It's a tricky path to walk: lurching dangerously towards religions and cults on one side and self-help fakery on the other.
I write this in the hope of nudging fellow Humanists in this direction and to seek advice and opinions on how this might be achieved.
It will of course (to quote a cliché) not be about the destination, but the journey; however sitting on our laurels and not trying seems like a real waste, perhaps even a genuine sin...
...for now I am looking to discuss and collect ideas for this under the label Humanist Guild
...for now I am looking to discuss and collect ideas for this under the label Humanist Guild
A really thought-provoking piece…
ReplyDeleteMy own journey from apatheism to (once I began to think about the ‘big’ questions) humanism was without an immediate and conscious consideration of the arguments for and against religion. Instead I had already over the years subconsciously rejected the belief in god adults had tried to inculcate into me as a child. So, I have some sympathy with the Lazy Atheist as I (charitably) like to think there is some logic there, even if not explicitly worked through. But I certainly agree everyone should take the time to think carefully about their worldview at some point (hopefully early in life!) - with just one life it’s vital we make a considered decision about how we live it. I’d want to draw too on JS Mill here and his stress on preventing the truth becoming a ‘dead dogma’ by exposing ourselves to contrary points of view.
There is a caveat, though. Having read some Christian apologetics recently it’s become obvious to me that looking at the same evidence and reasoning oneself through the same arguments can still lead people to radically different beliefs. Our personalities heavily mediate the worldview we end up selecting, easily overturning what seem to others to be fatal flaws in it.
Going on from that to the Smug Humanist, the broad thrust of this analysis really chimes with me. As for how to respond, well there’s plenty of room for further thought here.
Just as we need to carefully consider what we believe, we need to equally consider how we relate to others and the impact of our decisions, mundane and otherwise, on their wellbeing. At least as much thought is required here as in evaluating our outlook on religion, god and so on, if not more so.
Now I certainly see Stoicism as an incredibly powerful tool in helping us get through life’s inevitable difficulties. It deserves far more attention from Humanists. But I’m not sure how far the modern Stoicism movement can drive our ethics.
The Effective Altruism movement provides some vital tools once we have got on that path, but I’m not convinced it’s enough to get us started in the first place. Peter Singer’s works certainly fill that gap, but we perhaps need a broader movement here rather than risk deifying just one person's writing.
To make a dye stick fast in a garment, you need to allow it to soak for a long time. Yes, you get brighter clothes splashing them in the dye fast, but it can be washed out easier. I think the way secularism and it's cousin, humanism is growing is acceptable. It is settling into the worlds mind as non threatening and this make it easier for people to accept. Consider "EAT THIS FOOD OR YOU WILL DIE!!!!" over "Here, have a snack, it tastes great." Even reading this proves the point.
ReplyDelete