Humanism is not a religion (Part 1)

At the beginning of his excellent introduction to humanism, Stephen Law (2011a) lists some of the things that characterize a humanistic outlook, including a respect for science, and reason more generally, and a commitment to moral values. Nowhere do humanists describe themselves as having faith (of the religious kind) in anything. Humanism does not involve belief in the gods or in the supernatural. Humanism is not a faith position, unless “having faith” can mean waking up in the morning and believing that there is an independently existing world.

There is also a clue in the word itself, which provides a hint to the attentive reader that a humanistic worldview is primarily concerned with humans rather than gods or chipmunks or badgers. Of course, insofar as humans have to do with gods or chipmunks or badgers, so too do humanists take an interest in those species of both the natural and imagined worlds. (See the series “Why do you care so much?”.)

Given that this is all pretty straightforward and uncontroversial, I was surprised to read the following in this Face to faith piece (accessed 02.12.11) by Savitri Hensman:

Christian, New Age, humanist or whatever, all would be welcomed, provided they played down aspects of their faith that might pose a challenge to mammon’s dominance.

(I’m not sure which I find more offensive as a humanist, being accused of having faith or being lumped in with the New Agers.)

The odd meaning of this isolated quote is understood in context as part of Hensman’s theme, that if “mammon-worship were a dominant religion” then mammon would have its own priests. She clearly regards this idea as ludicrous – what possible connection could there be between mammon and religion? – and yet I have often been struck by the theological character of the world of finance. The following is from my review of The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis (the quotes from pp. 79, 218, 229):

“Financial markets are a collection of arguments. The less transparent the market and the more complicated the securities, the more money the trading desks at big Wall Street firms can make from the argument.” Theologians, like bond traders, depend upon a “meaningless flow of words” to keep their delusions alive; the Church, like Wall Street, employs smart people who are “basically wrong about everything” and a little too keen on self-regulation. And, strangely, church and finance both cater in their own ways to personal greed. After all, what is credit but the promise of having what you can’t afford, and salvation the promise of what doesn’t exist, eternal bliss?

Humanism at the heart of Christianity?

In a word, no, although many Christians like to talk about humanist values as if they were Christian values. Phil Mercer, Dean of Christchurch Cathedral, New Zealand, talks about the aftermath of the earthquake (Sunday 02.10.11):

There’s been a strong sense of the presence of God for those of us who are Christians...

Nothing objective available to a non-believer? If I bump into a friend in the supermarket, the sense of my friend’s presence leads me to form the relevant belief. The point is, even strangers could form this belief about my friend’s presence.

This is not an act of God, this is the planet doing what the planet does. . .

But isn’t the planet, according to Christianity, a part of God’s creation? And aren’t creators usually responsible for the proper functioning of their creations?

We’re now talking about the really important things. . . we think we’re in control of everything that goes on around us. . .

It doesn’t take an earthquake for me to think I’m not in control of everything in my own life.

We’re not actually [in control of everything that goes on around us]

We don’t need to appeal to a supernatural reality to accept this conclusion. One reason we’re not in control is because we’re not omnipotent. But, again according to Christianity, isn’t God in control? Why does God, who is supposed to be all powerful and all good, allow natural disasters to occur?

We’re caught in this life that we’re part of and it’s uncertain, and there’s risks and there’s dangers as well as wonderful opportunity and delight. . . What’s really important in life?

Not believing in magic sky gods for starters.

The really important things are about relationships, about family, about caring for one another, and community . . .

A Christian making a very good case for humanism!

. . . and those are the sorts of things at the heart of the Christian faith.

Then he spoils it by mentioning religion. In fact, he’s wrong about what’s at the heart of the Christian faith. The things he lists are not exclusive to Christianity, and are nothing to do with having faith in the religious sense, so they can hardly be said to be defining elements of that faith. As Cunningham (2010, p. 174) points out:

I acknowledge that Christians have provided compassion for the less fortunate, comfort for people in time of loss, and  ministry to the sick, but all these good works are possible without adding the religious element.

What is at the heart of the Christian faith is a set of irrational beliefs about a supernatural realm that doesn’t exist. Phil Mercer is perhaps taking inspiration from Humpty Dumpty when he offers this rose-tinted view of Christianity, but the moral of Lewis Carroll’s (himself Dean of Christ Church College) great story is that playing with words doesn’t change objective reality.

Paint Christianity inch deep in PR gloss, its dirty little secret remains: you have to believe what is (according to any reasonable account) untrue to be true.