Ancient Weaver’s Reviews > When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy: The Making of a Religious Naturalist > Status Update

In my experience, the Humanism most atheists replace religion with, is toothless and weak. What's your opinion?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "toothless and weak". "Toothless and weak" humanism as opposed to something more "macho and manly"?

:/

There's no oomph behind atheism. Nothing to get excited about. It won't make people fall on their swords for a higher purpose nor will it get people to lay down their lives for someone else.

In my experience, Humanism (secular) is just posturing/virtue signaling for fat upper-middle white people. No community. No girls. Just a complete and utter waste of time.

I'm of the opinion (unlike the adage) that if *religion did not exist, it would have to be created.

What say you?

Dan wrote: ":/

There's no oomph behind atheism. Nothing to get excited about. It won't make people fall on their swords for a higher purpose nor will it get people to lay down their lives for someone else.

..."

Oh, I see what you mean now. Sorry, at first I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about.

You make some good points. Just to be clear, I consider myself to be an agnostic friendly to humanism, not an atheist, so I can't really speak from or for a strictly atheistic POV. I'm not one of these people who imagines that that religion per se is the Great Satan that must be destroyed in order to clear the way for some atheistic technopoly utopia.

Along those same lines, I think we should first be careful to distinguish humanism from atheism. They are not one and the same thing. There are humanist atheists, but there are also religious humanists. And there are there are also non-humanist and anti-humanist atheists. ( The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement is an excellent analysis of the so-called "New Atheism" movement where the author demonstrates how many of your New Atheist leaders and self-identifying members are actually anti-humanistic in their thinking in a way that departs from the older tradition where atheism and humanism went hand in hand.)

But, yes, I think I do know what you're talking about. Much of what goes under the official banner of atheism or humanism seems to be represented by well-to-do white people and a kind of shallow, arid rationalism where everybody talks a big game about noble causes and ideals, but are mostly interested in the prestige of being associated with something that sounds noble rather than in actually accomplishing anything. All talk, no action.

My question to you would be what "higher purpose" is there that people should be "falling on their swords for"? What cause? Whose cause, and for whose benefit? So often grand religious causes have simply been a trick concocted by the clergy in order to serve their own interests and the interests of the rich and powerful. So often the masses were and are supposed to slave, suffer, and give their all in a way that mostly benefited elite members of society at the top of the social pyramid.

And as far as laying down you life for other people's benefit, I've known atheists who are some of the most decent, moral people I've ever met. Some of them live much more upstanding lives than some of the religious people I know. I really don't think that a person can generalize about the religious or atheists when it comes to being exceptionally moral people, the kind of people who would lay down their lives for others. I've known exceptionally good atheists and religious people, as well as average atheists and religious people, and also rotten atheists and religious people. There are only different kinds of people. The extra labels mean nothing.

I do feel that same absence of community among various types of skeptics. That does seem to be a problem. There's much I do not miss about my former fundamentalist churches, but there was a sense of community there that I do miss. Being a part of a common social group is probably one of the biggest reason why people join churches. It's not necessarily about the theology, it's about being connected with other people.

Ok, so here's my two cents about one of the major problems with humanism that touches on what you were saying about oomph, community, lack of purpose, etc. Once upon a time in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, humanism was a vital, broad-based movement with real appeal focused on issues that affected people's lives. Humanism used to be connected with a real progressive movements centered on improving the life of the common working person. It was about things like improving education, better work conditions, better health care, more rights for the poor, fighting prejudice, opposing war, championing the little guy against the rich and powerful, countering superstition and propaganda, etc. These are all causes that had obvious appeal for the benefit of the common, working person which fostered organizations and real community. Humanism offered something for people instead of the religious promise of "pie in the sky when you die". The ideal was the promise of a better future through socialism, labor movements, education, science, etc. (There was also a parallel (I would call more humanistic) religious movement around that time called the Social Gospel movement, which also made it's concern about the plight of the average working person.)

But for all kinds of reasons including the two World Wars and a concerted effort by the governmental powers-that-be to demonize, sabotage, and destroy any left progressive, socialist, labor movements that would threaten the stranglehold of power the powerful had over the masses, a vital humanism movement made up of regular people gradually withered away into what we have now. The older humanism had a higher purpose and community and a place for more than just rich, white guys, plus, unlike religion, it offered real benefits instead of the promise of a future paradise in the afterlife.

So, that's a big part of the problem as I see it. Humanism that offers nothing for the real life concerns of the average person can only be a mostly theoretical and academic thing for the elites. If you want community and a sense of greater purpose, the older type of humanism that was concerned with improving the conditions of life for and the rights and dignity of the common person seems like the path to follow.