June 12, 2023 - 4:30pm
The website of Humanists UK has a quiz asking “how humanist are you?” It says that “if you are non-religious and look to science, reason, empathy and compassion” to live an ethical life, you might like to join the organisation. Weirdly, however, those are the very reasons why I have just resigned as a Patron. I’m still a humanist, but I’m not certain that an organisation that spouts gender woo-woo can claim to be so.
Take, for example, its briefing setting out why Humanists UK opposes a proposal to clarify that “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological sex. Yes, you did read that right: a human rights organisation is campaigning against a change in wording that would make clear that the Act means what we thought it did, until gender ideology started arguing otherwise.
Big red flag coming up: according to the Humanists UK briefing, published ahead of a debate about the proposal in Westminster Hall on Monday afternoon, the Act permits different treatment for people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and those “whose sex was assigned at birth”.
This language is straight from the trans activist playbook, conjuring up a scene where people scratch their heads over a newborn. “What shall we make this one? We assigned two as boys this morning so maybe we should say this one is a girl?” If only there were a more certain way of sexing babies, such as, say, looking at their physical characteristics as human beings have done for centuries.
But it gets worse. Defining sex as biological sex is, according to Humanists UK, “intended to create a de facto blanket ban on trans people from services they had previously enjoyed without concern or complaint”. This is flat-out untrue, for two reasons. Trans people are welcome to use any services they like, as long as they are compatible with their biological sex. More to the point, rows about trans-identified males demanding to be housed in women’s prisons, single-sex hospital wards and refuges make almost daily headlines. Has the organisation missed every single one? Or does it dismiss them all as ‘transphobic’?
Apparently so, because the briefing claims that the proposed change would “solve non-existent problems”. It’s the kind of arrogance I’ve come to expect from an organisation that until recently had a president, Professor Alice Roberts, who tweeted a slur about “the unholy alliance between gender-critical feminists and the far right”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOne of the criteria to be “humanist” is to be non-religious according to this group, hmmm? So much of left leaning activism today has all the characteristics of a religion. They have their priests and priestesses in academics, entertainment, & government. They preach from their lecture halls, news outlets, Hollywood and social media pulpits. There is certainly a list of do’s and absolute don’ts. Science can be altered or ignored to fit the correct narrative. Their promise land is the utopian future to come promising diversity, equity & inclusion bliss. I have heard this nascent religion referred to as “secular humanism.”
Indeed. They are just as or more rabid than the religious people they often denounce. The sad thing is they’re not even aware of it.
Surely if, or wherever, humanism becomes ‘just another religion’ (and surely it is used , conceived that way- by some); and that leads to certain problems (e.g. trans overreach ideology, communist/fascism/satanism dysfunctions)…..then it follows that the problems are rooted in (bad) religious belief, not humanism. Or perhaps rooted in ‘humanism’ that has failed to adhere to empirical evidence and instead become corrupted by religious fervour or faith.
Surely if, or wherever, humanism becomes ‘just another religion’ (and surely it is used , conceived that way- by some); and that leads to certain problems (e.g. trans overreach ideology, communist/fascism/satanism dysfunctions)…..then it follows that the problems are rooted in (bad) religious belief, not humanism. Or perhaps rooted in ‘humanism’ that has failed to adhere to empirical evidence and instead become corrupted by religious fervour or faith.
I think you’re wrong to bracket gender identity ideology as left leaning. In fact, isn’t this argument that the feelings of the individual are supremely important firmly rooted in the thinking of the libertarian right? The truth of it is that this is not a left-right issue, but a reality-religion issue. Gender identity ideology is an issue that attracts and repels across the entire political spectrum.
Yes – in fairness to rational people on the left and right (what’s left of them), the “barking mad” category usually eludes rational left-right distinctions.
The ‘libertarian right’ is not conservative. They are on the side of woke, globalism….WHcih is pretty much why Koch foundation and Neo-libs, Neo-cons are on team progressive now. The libertarian right is functionally far left.
Yes – in fairness to rational people on the left and right (what’s left of them), the “barking mad” category usually eludes rational left-right distinctions.
The ‘libertarian right’ is not conservative. They are on the side of woke, globalism….WHcih is pretty much why Koch foundation and Neo-libs, Neo-cons are on team progressive now. The libertarian right is functionally far left.
Exactly. I blame the internet, and the decline of organised religion. The hoi polloi aren’t too bright, and there was a good reason why societies evolved to keep most people’s opinions shut out of serious discourse.
You’re not supposed to say that, but, unless you’re a serial woke bullshitter, that’s a mere truism. It’s why we have representative democracy. Many people simply are too intellectually lazy, too emotional, too inclined to favour simple solutions, to be trusted with direct (plebiscite) democracy. And most ordinary folk have an innate religiosity which regulates them rather more than reason ever does.
Once deprived of a conventional outlet (such as regular churches), the hoi polloi’s innate predilection for irrationality will find an outlet in some other area, such as identity politics. Pretty much all of the identity politics manifestations, from critical race theory through trans rights to metoo, have all the hallmarks of cults, rather than anything rational.
Significantly, it is the “religious people” who have been the first to follow the actual evidence & recognise the insanity of Transgenderism etc. & has stuck to the scientific facts, as usual, more closely than their critics. God created male & female.
For example, look at the stands made by Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, John McArthur, Michael Knowles etc & the Christian teachers in the news recently for losing their jobs because they dared to make a stand, whilst their non/anti-religious colleagues ducked their heads.
The comparatively anchorless Secular Humanist position has been tossed about by the whims of anti-religious fashion.
As a Christian who believes in Creation (along with plenty of scientists), I am constantly entertained by how anti-science the opposers are!
Indeed. They are just as or more rabid than the religious people they often denounce. The sad thing is they’re not even aware of it.
I think you’re wrong to bracket gender identity ideology as left leaning. In fact, isn’t this argument that the feelings of the individual are supremely important firmly rooted in the thinking of the libertarian right? The truth of it is that this is not a left-right issue, but a reality-religion issue. Gender identity ideology is an issue that attracts and repels across the entire political spectrum.
Exactly. I blame the internet, and the decline of organised religion. The hoi polloi aren’t too bright, and there was a good reason why societies evolved to keep most people’s opinions shut out of serious discourse.
You’re not supposed to say that, but, unless you’re a serial woke bullshitter, that’s a mere truism. It’s why we have representative democracy. Many people simply are too intellectually lazy, too emotional, too inclined to favour simple solutions, to be trusted with direct (plebiscite) democracy. And most ordinary folk have an innate religiosity which regulates them rather more than reason ever does.
Once deprived of a conventional outlet (such as regular churches), the hoi polloi’s innate predilection for irrationality will find an outlet in some other area, such as identity politics. Pretty much all of the identity politics manifestations, from critical race theory through trans rights to metoo, have all the hallmarks of cults, rather than anything rational.
Significantly, it is the “religious people” who have been the first to follow the actual evidence & recognise the insanity of Transgenderism etc. & has stuck to the scientific facts, as usual, more closely than their critics. God created male & female.
For example, look at the stands made by Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, John McArthur, Michael Knowles etc & the Christian teachers in the news recently for losing their jobs because they dared to make a stand, whilst their non/anti-religious colleagues ducked their heads.
The comparatively anchorless Secular Humanist position has been tossed about by the whims of anti-religious fashion.
As a Christian who believes in Creation (along with plenty of scientists), I am constantly entertained by how anti-science the opposers are!
One of the criteria to be “humanist” is to be non-religious according to this group, hmmm? So much of left leaning activism today has all the characteristics of a religion. They have their priests and priestesses in academics, entertainment, & government. They preach from their lecture halls, news outlets, Hollywood and social media pulpits. There is certainly a list of do’s and absolute don’ts. Science can be altered or ignored to fit the correct narrative. Their promise land is the utopian future to come promising diversity, equity & inclusion bliss. I have heard this nascent religion referred to as “secular humanism.”
Despite being a lifelong atheist, that lot always struck me as rather smug. Too many sanctimonious endorsements from Radio 4 types. Looks like I was right not to give them any money.
Quite so, the NSS is the place for us!
I see no difference between modern gender ideologues and 17th century Ranters.
Quite so, the NSS is the place for us!
I see no difference between modern gender ideologues and 17th century Ranters.
Despite being a lifelong atheist, that lot always struck me as rather smug. Too many sanctimonious endorsements from Radio 4 types. Looks like I was right not to give them any money.
It is ironic that the result of diminishing the role of religion in society has been to make our entire society more irrational.
Not irony, the Old Testament has instructive examples. I’m sure someone else has quoted Chesterton on atheists believing anything rather than nothing.
Not irony, the Old Testament has instructive examples. I’m sure someone else has quoted Chesterton on atheists believing anything rather than nothing.
It is ironic that the result of diminishing the role of religion in society has been to make our entire society more irrational.
I’m not religious but like most people feel the desire to be ‘part of something’. I went to a few of the Humanist UK events, they were absolutely packed the most insufferable people I’ve ever met in my life, 0/10, would not recommend. Definitely not surprised a sanctimonious grifter like Alice is the VP.
I’m not religious but like most people feel the desire to be ‘part of something’. I went to a few of the Humanist UK events, they were absolutely packed the most insufferable people I’ve ever met in my life, 0/10, would not recommend. Definitely not surprised a sanctimonious grifter like Alice is the VP.
humanist = “non-religious and look to science, reason, empathy and compassion to live an ethical life”
This is essentially nominalist materialism. The logical outcome of such a philosophy was always maximal individual autonomy in the name of liberation. In the absence of a divine moral framework, there is no countervailing force to the liberationist tendency. And sans imago-Dei, there is no reason man should not remake himself as he sees fit. The humanist (by this definition) is a believer that “ape brained meat sacks should be free to to as they wish”.
I’m glad the author saw the light. But honestly, there were lots of people warning about the end of this road way back in 1968. Heck, there were people warning of it in John Stuart Mill’s time.
It’s important to rectify your claim that what you describe as “nominalist materialism” equates to humanism. It absolutely does not, although of course it suits the purposes of those who believe in a “divine moral framework” make that claim.
I wouldn’t be joining Humanists UK even before this latest turn in its profile; i just don’t feel any need to align with any such group. But i do share many of the concerns highlighted by humanists around religion. The first and foremost is that religion seeks to channel the natural spirituality of human beings into groups which either end up fighting each other or being taken over by elites for their own purposes. This sounds very much like what’s happening at Humanists UK too i.e. it’s taking on the practices of a religion.
But to be clear, human spirituality stands at the core of humanism and vastly pre-dates religion. It’s pretty much the antithesis of materialism.
Religion is as old as humanity, so natural spirituality cannot predate it.
Natural spirituality = everybody does their own thing, has their personal spirituality and own morality.
Result: the West in 2023, i.e. a dead parrot.
Even bad people have spirituality, so natural spirituality is as inclined to evil as it is to good.
Religion is but one manifestation of human spirituality. Without the latter, the former simply cannot arise.
I won’t linger on your claim about “bad people” and spirituality, since the number of acts of inhumanity to man that’ve been undertaken down the ages via religious belief are innumerable.
Furthermore, your claim about everyone having their own morality is also false. Morality arises from living within society, and our responsibilities to others. For instance, if my morality allowed me to steal the property of others at will, i’d soon come a cropper – therefore it doesn’t happen, and those who do so are punished (if caught). Religious belief has nothing to do with it.
Far more acts of inhumanity have been undertaken down the ages for reasons unconnected with religion.
Most wars (eg the two world wars) have NOT been religious wars.
Communism and Nazism were non-religious ideologies killing many millions.
Slavery was For Profit.
Morality ? It obviously goes much deeper than mere social regulation.
To the humanist/atheist all wars were, are because of what humans felt, thought and did; not one single act of aggression was anything to do with God, as God does not exist. Humans have a deep need to organise and co-operate, and so both recognise common belief systems (i.e. evolved traits, sociability) and create them (all the ‘isms’). When you empirically analyse either, and any belief system, some are found to have multiple sources of support, and so are very likely to be objectively true, and others have little by way of support, other than emotion, faith. Comparing the two is like setting out why a painting is beautiful vs how a car works.
To the humanist/atheist all wars were, are because of what humans felt, thought and did; not one single act of aggression was anything to do with God, as God does not exist. Humans have a deep need to organise and co-operate, and so both recognise common belief systems (i.e. evolved traits, sociability) and create them (all the ‘isms’). When you empirically analyse either, and any belief system, some are found to have multiple sources of support, and so are very likely to be objectively true, and others have little by way of support, other than emotion, faith. Comparing the two is like setting out why a painting is beautiful vs how a car works.
Far more acts of inhumanity have been undertaken down the ages for reasons unconnected with religion.
Most wars (eg the two world wars) have NOT been religious wars.
Communism and Nazism were non-religious ideologies killing many millions.
Slavery was For Profit.
Morality ? It obviously goes much deeper than mere social regulation.
Religion is but one manifestation of human spirituality. Without the latter, the former simply cannot arise.
I won’t linger on your claim about “bad people” and spirituality, since the number of acts of inhumanity to man that’ve been undertaken down the ages via religious belief are innumerable.
Furthermore, your claim about everyone having their own morality is also false. Morality arises from living within society, and our responsibilities to others. For instance, if my morality allowed me to steal the property of others at will, i’d soon come a cropper – therefore it doesn’t happen, and those who do so are punished (if caught). Religious belief has nothing to do with it.
I rather thought “nominalist materialism” was being polite. There are more theologically accurate terms for a quasi-religion that elevates man to the level of a god.
I respect that you have your own definition of “humanist”, but the definition I used was the author’s, and I still maintain nominalist materialism is the perfect shorthand for his definition of “non-religious and look to science, reason” for the answers.
The author is a woman.
Using “shorthand” to try to encapsulate the complexity of human spirituality is quite probably why your argument fails.
The author is a woman.
Using “shorthand” to try to encapsulate the complexity of human spirituality is quite probably why your argument fails.
Religion is as old as humanity, so natural spirituality cannot predate it.
Natural spirituality = everybody does their own thing, has their personal spirituality and own morality.
Result: the West in 2023, i.e. a dead parrot.
Even bad people have spirituality, so natural spirituality is as inclined to evil as it is to good.
I rather thought “nominalist materialism” was being polite. There are more theologically accurate terms for a quasi-religion that elevates man to the level of a god.
I respect that you have your own definition of “humanist”, but the definition I used was the author’s, and I still maintain nominalist materialism is the perfect shorthand for his definition of “non-religious and look to science, reason” for the answers.
Did you ever consider the possibility that imago- Dei and a ‘divine moral framework’ are artifacts, which credulous humans use to guide, inspire and manipulate. This would account for much of the evidence, including the vast, almost infinite variety of both.
Yes. I spent half my life as an atheist. Reason led me to the conclusion that the Christian faith made more sense, just as it did C.S. Lewis.
There’s a lot to be said for the teachings of Christ (Christianity) but the belief that it either is, or needs to be, based on a belief in a divine creator has absolutely nothing to do with reason and everything to do with fulfilling an emotional need for an extra-human authority.
You beat me to it – Reason leads to agnosticism/atheism, faith leads to faith (clue is in the name). Many of the Christian teachings, and of course of other religions are eminently reasonable. Probably they arrived at them through reason and observation.
How would you arrive at Christianity through reason and observation?
Treat others as you have others treat you A reasonable idea, with observable effects.
Treat others as you have others treat you A reasonable idea, with observable effects.
How would you arrive at Christianity through reason and observation?
This is simply not the case. Faith and reason went hand in hand for centuries, and outside of the Western churches, they still do. Orthodoxy retains great teachings on this.
In my own case, I realized that to be a serious atheist I had to have an answer for who Jesus was. If he wasn’t God (as billions of people thought he was), what was he? I was taught that Jesus was “a good moral teacher, kind of like Buddha”, but neither of my parents had ever even read the Bible or studied the early church at all, and even a brief encounter with the historical Jesus renders the “nice moral teacher” position utterly untenable. I stumbled on what I later discovered Lewis terms the “liar, loon or Lord” problem. In the end, in depth, completely secular, study of the 12 apostles convinced me that the 12 men who knew Jesus best believed he was God so completely that most of them (perhaps all) went to painful deaths rather than recant that belief. That’s a very logical and reasonable basis on which to give Christianity a closer look, which I did.
Reason can open the door to religious experience. It takes faith to walk through it.
Anthony’s Storr in ‘Feet of Clay’ gives a seemingly solid account of the origins of the story of Jesus. According to the sources he sites, there were multiple key elements of the Jesus story circulating many centuries BC in the Middle-East, North African areas; and the New Testaments were not eye-witness accounts, not a true collective; rather anonymously written and later compiled into one source. It seems most likely that Jesus was a revolutionary preacher, persecuted by the powers that be (as they usually are) and his story was, post-hoc, cop-opted and augmented to form a new religion (the novelty seems mostly to be a humanistic focus, a human loving God). This was done in the usual way – co-opting established myths, fused with ideas whose time had come, and appealing to those unserved/ persecuted by the dominant power groups of the times.
Yep. That was the basic layout I was taught as a kid. The problem is those 12 apostles. Unless you’re willing to say that all of them and the stories about them and their executions are completely fictional, you somehow have to explain how the people closest to that “revolutionary preacher” were all willing to die rather than deny that he was raised from the dead. Men will do a lot of things for a lie (that they know is a lie), but dying painful deaths generally isn’t one of them.
One of my hobbies is patristic era studies, and without going into the weeds, the “the story was assembled over decades or centuries” sounds good on the surface, but it’s very hard to square it with the actual documentary history of the New Testament and patristic era letters. For example, the Didache is a 1st century document which likely predates the book of Revelation and contains a fully formed Christological theology including Eucharistic adoration, the Lords prayer, and a baptismal preparation. The letters of Ignatius and Polycarp have a wealth of extra-biblical support. Josephus (a Jew) provides a non-Christian summary of the beliefs of the early Christians.
OK, so I went a little into the weeds. 🙂
Yep. That was the basic layout I was taught as a kid. The problem is those 12 apostles. Unless you’re willing to say that all of them and the stories about them and their executions are completely fictional, you somehow have to explain how the people closest to that “revolutionary preacher” were all willing to die rather than deny that he was raised from the dead. Men will do a lot of things for a lie (that they know is a lie), but dying painful deaths generally isn’t one of them.
One of my hobbies is patristic era studies, and without going into the weeds, the “the story was assembled over decades or centuries” sounds good on the surface, but it’s very hard to square it with the actual documentary history of the New Testament and patristic era letters. For example, the Didache is a 1st century document which likely predates the book of Revelation and contains a fully formed Christological theology including Eucharistic adoration, the Lords prayer, and a baptismal preparation. The letters of Ignatius and Polycarp have a wealth of extra-biblical support. Josephus (a Jew) provides a non-Christian summary of the beliefs of the early Christians.
OK, so I went a little into the weeds. 🙂
Anthony’s Storr in ‘Feet of Clay’ gives a seemingly solid account of the origins of the story of Jesus. According to the sources he sites, there were multiple key elements of the Jesus story circulating many centuries BC in the Middle-East, North African areas; and the New Testaments were not eye-witness accounts, not a true collective; rather anonymously written and later compiled into one source. It seems most likely that Jesus was a revolutionary preacher, persecuted by the powers that be (as they usually are) and his story was, post-hoc, cop-opted and augmented to form a new religion (the novelty seems mostly to be a humanistic focus, a human loving God). This was done in the usual way – co-opting established myths, fused with ideas whose time had come, and appealing to those unserved/ persecuted by the dominant power groups of the times.
You beat me to it – Reason leads to agnosticism/atheism, faith leads to faith (clue is in the name). Many of the Christian teachings, and of course of other religions are eminently reasonable. Probably they arrived at them through reason and observation.
This is simply not the case. Faith and reason went hand in hand for centuries, and outside of the Western churches, they still do. Orthodoxy retains great teachings on this.
In my own case, I realized that to be a serious atheist I had to have an answer for who Jesus was. If he wasn’t God (as billions of people thought he was), what was he? I was taught that Jesus was “a good moral teacher, kind of like Buddha”, but neither of my parents had ever even read the Bible or studied the early church at all, and even a brief encounter with the historical Jesus renders the “nice moral teacher” position utterly untenable. I stumbled on what I later discovered Lewis terms the “liar, loon or Lord” problem. In the end, in depth, completely secular, study of the 12 apostles convinced me that the 12 men who knew Jesus best believed he was God so completely that most of them (perhaps all) went to painful deaths rather than recant that belief. That’s a very logical and reasonable basis on which to give Christianity a closer look, which I did.
Reason can open the door to religious experience. It takes faith to walk through it.
There’s a lot to be said for the teachings of Christ (Christianity) but the belief that it either is, or needs to be, based on a belief in a divine creator has absolutely nothing to do with reason and everything to do with fulfilling an emotional need for an extra-human authority.
Yes. I spent half my life as an atheist. Reason led me to the conclusion that the Christian faith made more sense, just as it did C.S. Lewis.
“Classical Liberalism” is absolutely the ideology of the individual “liberating” themselves from all constraints on their “freedom.” Whether it be family, God, human biology, you name it. All that technology will allow— Which of course expands at an ever increasing rate as it feeds on itself in a Godless economic system.
A question is if this was not a natural outgrowth of Protestantism and the habit of asking God directly for forgiveness and help. Many see this (“woke”/hyper-liberalism) as a post-Christian Anglophone ideology first.
I wouldn’t mind the liberalism as much if it wasn’t so totalitarian. Trying to impose this western mindset on Afghanistan or Iraq was cruel.
Also cruel: liberals now go to the point of cleansing history. Anyone who does not think in the manner that they do is erased!
It’s worth looking at what the few remaining Anglophone Protestants are doing regarding Wokeism to try to answer the question you pose. As far as I can see, they’re endorsing Wokeism one way or another.
Timothy, I have a book recommendation for you: the Unintended Reformation by Brad Gregory. It’s a pretty dense book, but you’re talking about the accidental byproducts of the Reformation, and Gregory’s book is about exactly that. (It’s a library checkout in my view — not good enough for a purchase.)
The Enlightenment is a fundamentally monotheistic endeavor. Smart apes can’t have inalienable rights.
I would also like to live in a broadly liberal, tolerant, and philosophically (not theologically) Judeo-Christian society. Alas, as you said, such a system is not stable.
It’s worth looking at what the few remaining Anglophone Protestants are doing regarding Wokeism to try to answer the question you pose. As far as I can see, they’re endorsing Wokeism one way or another.
Timothy, I have a book recommendation for you: the Unintended Reformation by Brad Gregory. It’s a pretty dense book, but you’re talking about the accidental byproducts of the Reformation, and Gregory’s book is about exactly that. (It’s a library checkout in my view — not good enough for a purchase.)
The Enlightenment is a fundamentally monotheistic endeavor. Smart apes can’t have inalienable rights.
I would also like to live in a broadly liberal, tolerant, and philosophically (not theologically) Judeo-Christian society. Alas, as you said, such a system is not stable.
Eloquently put. When a man stops believing in God he believes in everything not nothing, paraphrasing Chesterton badly..
You either raise your eyes to the heavens with your feet planted firmly on the ground or you go down endless rabbit holes of narcissism and neurosis.
Oh no… not that hoary old Chesterton quote again?
You might do what you suggest “a man” might do, but leave others out of your spiritual problem.
Hoary old quotations are funny things aren’t they. A bit like cliches. Wonder why they keep coming up?
Hoary old quotations are funny things aren’t they. A bit like cliches. Wonder why they keep coming up?
I shouldn’t worry about paraphrasing Chesterton badly. It appears he didn’t actually write that most famous sentence at all. It is rather a formulation of the writer’s thinking by Emile Cammaerts, in his 1937 study of GKC The Laughing Prophet. It is sandwiched between two actual Father Brown quotes from the story The Oracle of the Dog:
“It’s drowning all your old rationalism and scepticism, it’s coming in like a sea; and the name of it is superstition.” The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything: “And a dog is an omen and a cat is a mystery.”
Source: The Society of G.K. Chesterton’s website.
G.K Chesterton absolutely definitely said that you cannot put the sayings of Jesus into context because they were out of context when he said them. That is relevant to this discussion because if you tried to live your life observing every behavioural injunction of Jesus (as some claim to do),your life would get very confusing and contradictory
G.K Chesterton absolutely definitely said that you cannot put the sayings of Jesus into context because they were out of context when he said them. That is relevant to this discussion because if you tried to live your life observing every behavioural injunction of Jesus (as some claim to do),your life would get very confusing and contradictory
Oh no… not that hoary old Chesterton quote again?
You might do what you suggest “a man” might do, but leave others out of your spiritual problem.
I shouldn’t worry about paraphrasing Chesterton badly. It appears he didn’t actually write that most famous sentence at all. It is rather a formulation of the writer’s thinking by Emile Cammaerts, in his 1937 study of GKC The Laughing Prophet. It is sandwiched between two actual Father Brown quotes from the story The Oracle of the Dog:
“It’s drowning all your old rationalism and scepticism, it’s coming in like a sea; and the name of it is superstition.” The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything: “And a dog is an omen and a cat is a mystery.”
Source: The Society of G.K. Chesterton’s website.
It’s important to rectify your claim that what you describe as “nominalist materialism” equates to humanism. It absolutely does not, although of course it suits the purposes of those who believe in a “divine moral framework” make that claim.
I wouldn’t be joining Humanists UK even before this latest turn in its profile; i just don’t feel any need to align with any such group. But i do share many of the concerns highlighted by humanists around religion. The first and foremost is that religion seeks to channel the natural spirituality of human beings into groups which either end up fighting each other or being taken over by elites for their own purposes. This sounds very much like what’s happening at Humanists UK too i.e. it’s taking on the practices of a religion.
But to be clear, human spirituality stands at the core of humanism and vastly pre-dates religion. It’s pretty much the antithesis of materialism.
Did you ever consider the possibility that imago- Dei and a ‘divine moral framework’ are artifacts, which credulous humans use to guide, inspire and manipulate. This would account for much of the evidence, including the vast, almost infinite variety of both.
“Classical Liberalism” is absolutely the ideology of the individual “liberating” themselves from all constraints on their “freedom.” Whether it be family, God, human biology, you name it. All that technology will allow— Which of course expands at an ever increasing rate as it feeds on itself in a Godless economic system.
A question is if this was not a natural outgrowth of Protestantism and the habit of asking God directly for forgiveness and help. Many see this (“woke”/hyper-liberalism) as a post-Christian Anglophone ideology first.
I wouldn’t mind the liberalism as much if it wasn’t so totalitarian. Trying to impose this western mindset on Afghanistan or Iraq was cruel.
Also cruel: liberals now go to the point of cleansing history. Anyone who does not think in the manner that they do is erased!
Eloquently put. When a man stops believing in God he believes in everything not nothing, paraphrasing Chesterton badly..
You either raise your eyes to the heavens with your feet planted firmly on the ground or you go down endless rabbit holes of narcissism and neurosis.
humanist = “non-religious and look to science, reason, empathy and compassion to live an ethical life”
This is essentially nominalist materialism. The logical outcome of such a philosophy was always maximal individual autonomy in the name of liberation. In the absence of a divine moral framework, there is no countervailing force to the liberationist tendency. And sans imago-Dei, there is no reason man should not remake himself as he sees fit. The humanist (by this definition) is a believer that “ape brained meat sacks should be free to to as they wish”.
I’m glad the author saw the light. But honestly, there were lots of people warning about the end of this road way back in 1968. Heck, there were people warning of it in John Stuart Mill’s time.
The definitions of words are should be maintained, if we are to communicate clearly. Many words are now used without regard to their past definitions. Eg Racist, Traitor, Bigot. And the words “Opinion” and “Fact” are commonly confused.
The definitions of words are should be maintained, if we are to communicate clearly. Many words are now used without regard to their past definitions. Eg Racist, Traitor, Bigot. And the words “Opinion” and “Fact” are commonly confused.
Good for you, Joan Smith. Institutionalised humanism is more terrifying than any religion with its arrogant attitude of superiority over any belief system other than its own. Of course, ‘Man is the measure of all things’ is a bit outdated in the 21st century but it would seem that women are just as daft.
“Institutionalised humanism is more terrifying than any religion with its arrogant attitude of superiority over any belief system other than its own.”
Pot kettle black.
“Institutionalised humanism is more terrifying than any religion with its arrogant attitude of superiority over any belief system other than its own.”
Pot kettle black.
Good for you, Joan Smith. Institutionalised humanism is more terrifying than any religion with its arrogant attitude of superiority over any belief system other than its own. Of course, ‘Man is the measure of all things’ is a bit outdated in the 21st century but it would seem that women are just as daft.
The whole notion of being born in the ‘wrong’ body, presupposes something like a sexed or gendered soul.
Bit of a sticky wicket for Humanism, no?
No. It’s endocrinology, neuropsychology, self-psychology, biology etc. Or read any number of philosophy works on the problem of consciousness.
No. It’s endocrinology, neuropsychology, self-psychology, biology etc. Or read any number of philosophy works on the problem of consciousness.
The whole notion of being born in the ‘wrong’ body, presupposes something like a sexed or gendered soul.
Bit of a sticky wicket for Humanism, no?
Congratulations, I resigned when I saw that quote from Alice Roberts. Having said that, I’ve never been altogether happy with ‘humanism’. I am an atheist, pure and simple and the Secular Society is just right. But ‘humanism’ seems to graft on all kinds of vaguely leftish, right-on, ideas about human rights, that are not obviously connected with what the word ‘humanism’ implies. So its no surprise they now end up supporting gender equality.
Congratulations, I resigned when I saw that quote from Alice Roberts. Having said that, I’ve never been altogether happy with ‘humanism’. I am an atheist, pure and simple and the Secular Society is just right. But ‘humanism’ seems to graft on all kinds of vaguely leftish, right-on, ideas about human rights, that are not obviously connected with what the word ‘humanism’ implies. So its no surprise they now end up supporting gender equality.
I thought that humanism was basically about criticising religion and the supernatural. At least, I never saw people who noisily claimed to be humanists doing much else over the past 50 years. Basically a group of people ridiculing religion in what seemed a socially-approved channel for the expression of their own intellectual superiority.
So now this narrow aim has apparently been colonised by trans activists. I can’t say I’m all that bothered. It will at least introduce some more ideas into their activities and proclamations. The old stuff about rationality and science versus sky-pixies and woo was getting a bit stale since Bertrand Russell’s death.
I thought that humanism was basically about criticising religion and the supernatural. At least, I never saw people who noisily claimed to be humanists doing much else over the past 50 years. Basically a group of people ridiculing religion in what seemed a socially-approved channel for the expression of their own intellectual superiority.
So now this narrow aim has apparently been colonised by trans activists. I can’t say I’m all that bothered. It will at least introduce some more ideas into their activities and proclamations. The old stuff about rationality and science versus sky-pixies and woo was getting a bit stale since Bertrand Russell’s death.
Interesting piece. No surprises in there to be honest: why wouldn’t Humanists UK go down the same route as everyone else? Did we assume there was some metaphysical reason they would maintain their principles under pressure? Unlike, I don’t know, every single other organisation that has gone the same way?
I always thought the movement was a bit of a cop-out really, a religion for people who claim not to believe in religion. And I’m not saying this to insult those who define themselves as humanist (good for them, whatever) it’s just that it seems so pointless to try and pretend there is a rational form of ethics to all get behind if there is no God. If there’s no God, life is objectively meaningless – it’s one of the possibilities, ‘deal with it’. To deal with it by building a community of people with shared ethics and norms and rules and even liturgies (!) is a profoundly religious response to there being ‘no point in religion’. What a waste of time.
If I genuinely didn’t believe in a God I wouldn’t find some way to have atheistic weddings and funerals (sorry, ‘celebrations of life’) alongside my fellow believing non-believers: the only interesting thing left to do would be to satisfy all the urges for sex and violence that religion regulates. This would of course be equally meaningless, in a godless world: but unlike ‘celebrations of life’ it might at least be fun.
Interesting piece. No surprises in there to be honest: why wouldn’t Humanists UK go down the same route as everyone else? Did we assume there was some metaphysical reason they would maintain their principles under pressure? Unlike, I don’t know, every single other organisation that has gone the same way?
I always thought the movement was a bit of a cop-out really, a religion for people who claim not to believe in religion. And I’m not saying this to insult those who define themselves as humanist (good for them, whatever) it’s just that it seems so pointless to try and pretend there is a rational form of ethics to all get behind if there is no God. If there’s no God, life is objectively meaningless – it’s one of the possibilities, ‘deal with it’. To deal with it by building a community of people with shared ethics and norms and rules and even liturgies (!) is a profoundly religious response to there being ‘no point in religion’. What a waste of time.
If I genuinely didn’t believe in a God I wouldn’t find some way to have atheistic weddings and funerals (sorry, ‘celebrations of life’) alongside my fellow believing non-believers: the only interesting thing left to do would be to satisfy all the urges for sex and violence that religion regulates. This would of course be equally meaningless, in a godless world: but unlike ‘celebrations of life’ it might at least be fun.
Richard Dawkins is also vocally on our side here.
The Humanists will soon become an irrelevance.
Richard Dawkins is also vocally on our side here.
The Humanists will soon become an irrelevance.
Yes…leave organisations that behave like this and promote dubious ideologies – and take your money with you..I’m registered as a Humanists UK supporter…bye !
Yes…leave organisations that behave like this and promote dubious ideologies – and take your money with you..I’m registered as a Humanists UK supporter…bye !
Here’s a good rule of thumb: if there’s an ist or an ism attached to a cause, it’s probably a cult.
As Bob Marley sang – “I’m sick and tired of your ism schism.”
As Bob Marley sang – “I’m sick and tired of your ism schism.”
Here’s a good rule of thumb: if there’s an ist or an ism attached to a cause, it’s probably a cult.
We may be seeing the voluntary self-destruction of every heretofore “liberal” group in the world as they vanish under the wheels of this patently ridiculous trans radicalism. Ordinary people with leftist or even progressive leanings will find themselves simply unable to tolerate both the irrationality and the profound mistreatment of actual women.
We may be seeing the voluntary self-destruction of every heretofore “liberal” group in the world as they vanish under the wheels of this patently ridiculous trans radicalism. Ordinary people with leftist or even progressive leanings will find themselves simply unable to tolerate both the irrationality and the profound mistreatment of actual women.
Transgenderism, non-binary gender politics, metaphysical materialism and transhumanism go together. They are the furthest extension of liberal individualism – a gnostic vision of total autonomy and sovereignty…what happens when the cycle of iconoclasm severs the link between the dignity of individuals made in the image of God (the universalism of Imago Dei) becomes severed from the transcendent ground of all being. To be honest, Joan should either accept the new religion or go back to Church. The middle ground of ‘sensible’ liberalism has destroyed itself. It always depended on the reservoir of Judeo-Christian virtue inherited from traditional society – albeit tacitly, sotto voce. Having (somewhat inevitably) declared war on this inheritance, the whole structure is falling apart. Decision time. Woke religion or Judeo-Christianity. Secular liberalism and humanism are dead.
Transgenderism, non-binary gender politics, metaphysical materialism and transhumanism go together. They are the furthest extension of liberal individualism – a gnostic vision of total autonomy and sovereignty…what happens when the cycle of iconoclasm severs the link between the dignity of individuals made in the image of God (the universalism of Imago Dei) becomes severed from the transcendent ground of all being. To be honest, Joan should either accept the new religion or go back to Church. The middle ground of ‘sensible’ liberalism has destroyed itself. It always depended on the reservoir of Judeo-Christian virtue inherited from traditional society – albeit tacitly, sotto voce. Having (somewhat inevitably) declared war on this inheritance, the whole structure is falling apart. Decision time. Woke religion or Judeo-Christianity. Secular liberalism and humanism are dead.
This made me laugh — especially the baby-sexing paragraph — so I thank you for your sense of humor as well as your intelligence. It seems as if more and more organizations that previously stood for women’s rights (not to mention gay rights) are now owned by gender ideology. If you belong to the old constituency but don’t embrace the new, you’re out of luck.