Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Humanist view, 1 Nov 2008
Mark Vernon's new book on humanism is well-written, inclusive, liberal and humane. Unfortunately, it's not about Humanism as we know it. A paltry ten out of two hundred pages are devoted to `organised Humanism'. Vernon's intention was to look at the humanist tradition in a `broad and appreciative sweep' but he has collected so many humanisms together it is difficult to make sense of the concept. The problem, of course, is that the word `humanism' is highly promiscuous and Humanists have no copyright over its meaning or application. Indeed, it was only in the postwar period that the word caught on in Britain as an umbrella term to cover secularism, rationalism and the ethical societies. The British Humanist Association would not exist were it not for the foundation of the ethical societies in the late 19th century, yet Vernon does not even mention them - an unforgiveable omission.
Nevertheless, there is much in here of interest to Humanists, not least his `ten pressing issues' and his challenging questions, such as this one: "In your arguments against religion do you examine the best in religion? After all, you look to the best in humanity in your humanism...". The Dawkins doctrine is that all religion is mad and bad, but Vernon argues that "Christian humanists and atheistic humanists should surely be working towards a common cause to combat growing intolerance". This has to be right. For many Humanists, 'Christian humanism' is the ultimate oxymoron. But this need not be so, if 'Christian humanists' are understood as fellow-travellers whose orienting goal is human wellbeing rather than mindless subservience to a deity.
If Vernon succeeds in building some bridges across the Humanist-Christian divide then his book will have served a useful purpose.
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
Balance and Belief, 26 Oct 2009
Mark Vernon is a former priest who now calls himself an agnostic. He "stopped being an atheist because (he) sensed that the human imagination is a religious imagination" and he felt drawn to "spiritual traditions that have evolved with human beings". He does not equate humanism with atheism but regards it as being based on those Enlightenment ideas which seek "solely rational ways of solving human problems" and assume human beings are "responsible and progressive intellectual beings". Vernon sets out to be even-handed and he achieves his objective throughout including a balanced account of heliocentrism, Galileo and Giordano Bruno.
The book itself provides a survey of ancient, Renaissance and Enlightenment humanism, not all of which represented a break with Christian authority but most of which supplied those concepts which undermined the political role of the Church in society. The outcome was that humanist centred philosophies sought to substitute their own authority for that which had been based on various forms of tradition, including transcendentalism. Vernon identifies six varieties of humanism; Marxist, pragmatic, existential, atheistic, Christian humanism and, from history, Renaissance. He acknowledges that atheistic humanism is "the kind of humanism that tends to be organised in humanist associations", which is probably why I failed the BHA's "Are you a humanist?" test.
Marx argued that, "Communism as completed naturalism is humanism and as completed humanism is naturalism. It is the genuine solution of the antagonism between man and nature and between man and man". To explain away the communist experience humanists sought to find an explanation in adjustments in capitalism rather than the constancy of human nature. Vernon fails to note the centrality of the inextricable mix of atheism and Marxism as two sides of the same coin. Attempts by Russell and other philosophers to identify a modified socialistic form of humanism met the same fate although such thought still permeates much of academia. Vernon accepts that humanists should "be aware that what they believe to be true has ramifications for others that can actually be oppressive". However, whatever humanists may claim, admitting error is not one of their most readily acknowledged characteristics.
Vernon is honest in his recognition of the conflict between religion and humanism, the most fundamental part of which is whether human nature is the servant or the master of the world in which we live. Although he appears to accord Russell more importance than he deserves (Russell's Why I am Not A Christian, for example, was a polemic not an intellectual tour de force) he draws attention to the adverse impact Russell's views on education had on the philosopher's son. Vernon misses the point when he suggests that "(Don) Cupitt represents a point at which atheistic and Christian humanism come remarkably close". Cupitt's views moved from Christianity into Buddhism, a fact Cupitt accepted by leaving the Church. Had Vernon considered the excellent set of questions he posed for atheistic humanists and those for Christian humanists, he would have appreciated that Cuppit's "sea of faith" was incompatible with Christian profession.
Vernon includes a chapter on ten pressing issues, acknowledging the challenge posed to humanists' belief in human goodness and progress by the Holocaust and the regimes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Whereas atheists often have difficulty in acknowledging the role of atheism in the minds of the three dictators, Vernon does not avoid the issue. Similarly he lambastes those who argue that faith schools represent a form of child abuse, an allegation which "is not only wrong but....unhelpful to wider humanist goals". Other issues include climate change, blasphemy, the idea of progress, the mind-body problem and rites of passage, concluding with mystery and wonderment.
Vernon states, "humanism has succeeded because today we live in a pluralist, secular society" suggesting it has contributed to " a taming of religious excesses on a scale that was common during the wars of religion; a widespread habit of respect for others of different positions and beliefs". That is too sweeping a statement and underestimates the political nature of the religious excesses referred to. The humanist principles underlying the French Revolution and the Holocaust were expressions of humanism's failure not its success. It is incorrect to regard social changes as anything other than shifts of opinion within social elites rather than movements of genuine opinion within society. Humanism remains politics under another guise. Yesterday's burning issues are today's ashes.
The book has a good bibliography, glossary and, for those interested, half a dozen contact points. Vernon achieves his objective of providing balanced coverage of the subject for which he deserves five stars. However, humanism as a philosophy remains willfully ignorant of human nature, is characterised by complacency with its inherited self-centred Enlightenment inspiration and has yet to scratch the surface of "the mystery of existence itself". No doubt the debate will continue. Mark Vernon's contribution is to show that such debate can be conducted in a reasonable and rational manner, irrespective of whether one is a humanist or not.
|
|
|
|