Secular Humanism’s Achilles’ Heel
Madeleine Bunting picks up on what I think is the most serious problem of Richard Dawkins’ brand of secular humanism. (via Mr. Grouchypants) It simpy “hasn’t generated a compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and our place in the cosmos.” The misguided alliance of atheism and science further obfuscates the key issues. Science will never tell us why we are here and what our role is in relationship to the world that we perceive around us.
To be fair, many claims made by religious institutions may be and have been debunked by scientific discovery. But religion per se, humanity’s search for God and its subsequent relationship with Him, remains completely unscathed. When pushed against the wall, the secular humanist merely plays the skeptic’s card, seeming not to realize that it cuts both ways.
I’m still waiting for a positive atheistic-humanistic worldview that can hold its own with the great religious traditions of the ages, in both scope and depth, while maintaining the strict logical rigor that critics demand of theologians.
(Sorry for the late comment — for some reason bloglines just picked up your post today.)
Some argue that certain flavors of Buddhism provide what you’re looking for — essentially meaningful religion without theism. Humanism itself comes close. I think it does lack the narrative that you mention, but the potential is there. Try to ignore Dawkins, and instead look at Sagan’s humanism or Einstein’s.
Comment by JewishAtheist — January 20, 2006 @ 11:57 am
JA, glad to see you around the comments again.
I don’t think Buddhism is humanistic. It may not be theistic either but it has plenty to say about the spiritual - which is generally rejected by secular humanists who favor materialism.
Comment by sagoboulevard — January 22, 2006 @ 12:48 pm