- Amazon Student members get an extra 5% off this product Here's how (terms and conditions apply)
Humanism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) Paperback – 27 Jan 2011
|New from||Used from|
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Special offers and product promotions
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
About the Author
Stephen Law is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. He has written many books including several popular philosophy titles including The Philosophy Gym (Headline, 2003), Companion Guide to Philosophy (Dorling Kindersley, 2007), and Greatest Philosophers (Quercus, 2008). He is also the Editor of THINK, the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Top customer reviews
As might be expected the author, who is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College of the University of London, begins by explaining the term ‘humanism’ in the context of this book. On the one hand, humanism may mean simply putting the welfare of humans at the forefront of our philosophy of life: such humanists may very well also be theists or deists. A more restrictive view of humanism is that of the Renaissance that swept aside the view of the Church as authority on all matters, spiritual and temporal, to be replaced by Protagoras’ view that ‘Man is the measure of all things’. Law comments: ‘personally, I would rather see the world as it is, than as I might like it to be’. This statement echoes the words of Carl Sagan, another humanist: ‘It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring’.
This is the line followed by the author. Such humanists are unbelieving, or at least sceptical, of the existence of gods or an afterlife so are almost invariably atheists. Those beliefs that are, or need not be, part of humanist belief are laid out very clearly in the introductory chapter.
Law then goes on in Chapter 1 to explore the history of humanism, from the ideas of ancient China, India and Greece, through the Renaissance and Enlightenment, up to the views of 20th Century humanists like Bertrand Russell and Peter Singer. Chapters 2 and 3 then discuss arguments for and against the existence of God: these are good but I think Mackie’s book ‘The Miracle of Theism’ is more detailed and therefore more informative. There is an excellent discussion in the next chapter of humanism and morality and how belief in a god is unnecessary to inspire a moral life. Then in Chapter 5 we have what might be considered at first sight a surprising interpretation of secularism – not that every individual should be non-religious but that the State should uphold freedom of the individual to follow whatever beliefs they choose, without any coercion.
This leads on in the final chapters to a discussion of religious indoctrination of children, supporting the Dawkins view of the practice as child abuse, and how humanism, even in the absence of belief in God, can still lead to a moral society, and one that is by no means without purpose for the individuals in it. The book ends with short sections of References, Further Reading and an Index. This is an excellent introduction to the subject.
Some reviewers have criticised this book for its emphasis on attacking religion. But one of the goals of humanism is precisely to provide a basis for morality and to give life a purpose - without all the falsehoods of religion. I do not find the arguments here unhelpful in that regard.
Howard Jones is the author of The World as Spirit and Evolution of Consciousness
The discussion of a meaningful life is poor. If you can not say what it is why write about it? The illustrations are no help. Ten year old children can understand they could think more. How does a picture of the face of a small old foreign compass help them or anyone else?
A well written introduction might use 8,000 words, the vocabulary of a good newspaper or maybe a high school graduate. My own meagre 80,000 word vocabulary did not include Swiftian satires, apophatacism or catophatacism. Charles Simmonds. M.A. (Cantab)
There is no single snappy definition to which all humanists sign up. Indeed, a lack of doctrine is part of its appeal, but this does not mean that anything goes, or that humanists turn to intellectual mush when faced with questions about ethics or the existence of gods or angels. It's the approach to these questions that matters. Humanists "believe science, and reason more generally, are invaluable tools we can and should apply to all areas of life". Reason is the bedrock of humanism as it can never be for religion, which ultimately appeals to faith, and often takes pride in faith trumping reason. An emphasis on reason does not have to diminish human emotional experience or eliminate love, hope, purpose and everything else that goes to make life worth living: humanists value these aspects as well.
Law continues his "seven-point characterization of humanism": "humanists are either atheists or at least agnostic... believe that this life is the only life we have... [are committed] to the existence and importance of moral value... offer moral justifications and arguments rooted other than in religious authority and dogma... emphasize our individual moral autonomy... believe our lives can have meaning without it being bestowed from above by God".
The absence of God is perhaps the most salient feature of this characterization, and anyone who wants to be a humanist must deal with this. How is the average person, with no training in theology or philosophy, going to face down a couple of thousand years of tradition and a few billion believers who all attest, sometimes vehemently, to the existence of a higher power?
Part of the answer lies in precisely that plurality. As Law puts it, people "have experienced literally thousands of gods and other supernatural beings" and have never been able to agree on just what it is that is supposed to exist, let alone demonstrate this existence to a non-believer. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Religious experience simply isn't a reliable indicator of truth. For another part of the answer, Law simply points out that "religion has an extraordinary track record of getting even intelligent, well-educated people to believe things that are obviously false".
Could it be fairly obvious that there is no God? Law's "personal view is that, yes, it could". In addition to the embarrassing absence of evidence, the "evil god hypothesis" presents a powerful challenge to anyone who imagines that the only possibility under discussion is the existence of a good god. Why not an evil one? Of course, those "who believe in an evil god face the evidential problem of good": why is there so much good in the world if there is an evil god who can prevent it? One theodicy is that our experience of the good makes suffering all the more terrible: to experience the joy of bringing a new life into the world only to have it destroyed is far more satisfying to an evil god than our being uniformly miserable.
One of the most refreshing things about humanism is that it does not treat the big questions as merely rhetorical devices to intimidate the curious into intellectual deference, or as an excuse to trot out tired old stories (as the evil god hypothesis shows, there are always new ways to think about these issues). Humanism provides clear answers where these are available; otherwise, humanists are perfectly comfortable owning up to not knowing. And only occasionally will "mystery" (a favourite of obfuscators the world over) be invoked. As Law puts it, "atheists can admit that there is a mystery about why the universe exists, and that they are utterly baffled by it, while nevertheless insisting that there's overwhelming evidence that, however it came to be, it certainly wasn't created by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God of Christian theology".
Ah, the religious apologist retorts, how can we be certain of anything? Again, this is a rhetorical move, intended to close down discussion rather than open it up. When a humanist asks for proof, or claims certainty, this is not proof beyond all possible doubt. Understanding this standard of reasonable proof is essential to not mistaking an atheist's confidence about the non-existence of angels, deities, fairies, etc., for unthinking arrogance. The beauty of reading a philosopher like Stephen Law is that he relies on the power of reasoned argument rather than the polemic of position-taking.
Law acknowledges that "the rabbit of morality cannot be conjured entirely out of the hat of reason" and yet, when it comes to "making moral progress, reason is an indispensable tool". He deals very effectively with the widespread slander that humanists are moral relativists, since if the moral truth is just what people say it is, then why bother "bringing our critical faculties to bear in figuring our what's right or wrong"? And in the classroom, humanists advocate freedom of thought, not freedom of action. Indeed, thinking before acting is useful humanist advice for adults, and thinking is made all the more pleasurable with philosophers like Stephen Law around.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Most recent customer reviews
Look for similar items by category