Customer Reviews

In Defense of Secular Humanism

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In Defense of Secular Humanism is a collection of essays written by Paul Kurtz, mostly in reaction to allegations leveled against secular humanism (and humanism in general) by the Religious Right and other fundamentalist Christian organizations in the United States.

And therein lies the chief problem: it's a collection of essays that are almost totally focused on one central concern. Whereas many other essay collections by other authors tend to cover wide ranges of concerns (anything from war, to ethics, to religion, to sports), Kurtz's collection is focused almost entirely on answering allegations by his opponents.

And since his opponents had a habit of making the same allegations again, and again, and again, much of this book is Kurtz writing the same responses again, and again, and again.

To sum the problem up, there's a heck of a lot of repition in this book.

Of course, there are several good essays, and some excellent ones. Kurtz's "Principle of Tolerance Reaffirmed", "Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle", and "The Democratic Ethic" are very thought-provoking works to read. However, much of the book delves into seemingly mindless repition and even vitrolic rhetoric, which is, in my opinion, unbecomming of a person of Kurtz's intellectual capabilities.

Bear in mind that I do have some biases on this subject. This was my first introduction to humanism, and it's a very poor book for a first exposure. If you're like I was, and looking for something to introduce the ideas of Humanism to you, read "The Philosophy of Humanism," by Lamont.

Ultimately, I would hesitate to buy this book if I were you. If you're like me, and willing to spend the money to add this to your collections (and read the occasional very interesting articles within), go ahead. However, overall the book is intellectually unstimulating, and probably not worth most people's money. These essays just weren't meant to be put together.

A compendium of essays, some better than others, Kurtz reports secular humanism (SH) is based on rational thinking, opposed to dogma and any system or influence suppressing critical thinking (Church, State, bigotry Left or Right). It is not a religion as it "generally" dismisses the supernatural as readily as the paranormal, astrology, UFOs and all superstitions. (One can see why it will never have a significant following, as superstition is much easier and goes far in making boring / suffering lives more exciting / tolerable.) High on the SH list is moral education, noting non God-based morality needn't be antisocial, subjective or promiscuous (as is, apparently frequently, one of the attacks on SH). Kurtz supports a program of moral education rather than obedience to a canon. Ethics has a longer history than Judeo-Christianity, he argues. (We assume he's not predating Greek ethics before Hebrew Law - perhaps Hammurabi?) "It is in the crucible of history that ethics have been tested." (i.e. no need for commandments.) Kurtz submits that God does not speak to humanity from above, but the Word is instead an expression of humanity's deepest longings (i.e. it is man speaking to himself). Yet, he stresses that simply rejecting theism is not humanistic, respect for religious freedom must be maintained. Likewise his Secular Humanist Declaration reads like a review of the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights. He also notes reasonable limits to science, misapplied to nature and human life, opening opportunities for ecological disaster and dehumanization of people and their institutions. The ultimate goal should be human growth for all, not a few, and humans are to be responsible for it, rather than forever waiting on divine intervention. "The problem for man is to discover the good life, which is achievable in human terms. The standard is... within man where sources of the good life are to be found, and in this view is an affirmation that life is worth living." Natural Humanists (a slight twist on secular) support Jesus' remark that "the kingdom of God is within thee." Humanism claims humanity as rooted in the soil (nature), it is the flesh (life) that provides satisfaction, but it is social harmony and creative fulfillment (the spirit) that we find our deepest significance.

Kurtz shines most in his chapter on Libertarianism. Oddly, earlier in the book he supports world order through world laws of transnational governments. (Yikes.) Extreme disproportions of wealth should be reduced worldwide, he says. Generally agreeable, but since this is an overview, we never know how exactly he intends to make this happen without the usual resulting tyranny. In Libertarianism he goes on to say that large governments are a threat as is new Liberalism's paternalistic welfare state. The principle of equality in the extreme has turned "equality before the law", and "equality of opportunity" into guarantees of equal results. "Doctrines of social equality are counterproductive, smothering individual initiative." For Libertarianism, he notes, economic and political liberty are central but derivative of a more fundamental ideal - the high moral value placed on individual freedom and choice. (He does not enter into the two-individuals question, both with freedom, one with choice, one in the womb.) Again he returns to morality. "While liberation from control frees us from stultifying customs it can also lead to loss of civil conduct and morality." "To emancipate individuals unprepared for loss in restraint results in license. Autonomous choice is not possible if one is not nurtured to appreciate and handle it... Freedom of restraint is not the same as the developed freedom of a person able to realize his potential. Complete autonomy can only occur in a developed personality." Ironically Kurtz was decades ahead of his time (and the Iraq war) when he stated, "As if democracy were suddenly imposed on a people unready for it or for whom it were alien." And offering advice to our modern universities - in the modern lingo to boot - Kurtz writes, "Because we tolerate diversity does not mean we approve of every style of life."

Paul Kurtz, professor of philosophy, publisher of Prometheus Books, and editor of Free Inquiry, wrote this volume in the early 1980s, when the Moral Majority were on a war path against the "religion" of Secular Humanism. Though many of his articles are redundant, Kurtz's book being a compilation, his rebuttal of much of the Religious Right's paranoia is as refreshing today as it was then. If the Secular Humanists were such a power block, it would stand to reason that such organizations would have far more than a few thousand members each. What the Falwells of the world are reacting to, lumped together under the S.H. bogeyman, is the influence of a broader humanism, which is attractive to many religionists who see little contradiction with their beliefs. The clock can't be turned back.