Softpanorama (slightly skeptical) Open Source Software Educational Society

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Christian and Secular Humanism

Humanism, an educational and philosophical outlook that emphasizes the personal worth of the individual and the central importance of human values as opposed to religious belief, developed in Europe during the Renaissance, influenced by the study of ancient Greek and Latin literature and philosophy. Humanism thus began as an educational program called the humanities, which inculcated those ancient secular values which were consistent with Christian teachings. The Renaissance humanists were often devout Christians, but they promoted secular values and a love of pagan antiquity.

There are two major flavor of humanism: Christian humanism and secular humanism

• Christian Humanism. The Roman Catholic Jacques Maritain tried to formulate a new Christian humanism based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom. In recent years, fundamentalist Christian groups in the United States have declared their opposition to "secular humanism," an antireligious ideology that they believe pervades American society, including the major churches, and that they blame for its moral failings.

  The view that individuals and their culture have value in the Christian life. Justin Martyr appears to have been the first to offer a formulation of Christianity that included an acceptance of classical achievements as he stated in the Apology (1.46) that Christ the Word had put culture under his control. Such an approach, he believed, would restrain believers from leading vulgar lives while at the same time keeping them from attaching more importance to human culture than to the truths of the faith.

  During the Middle Ages little attention was paid to humanism, but with the beginning of the Renaissance there was a revival of that perspective. Renaissance humanism was both an outlook and a method. It has been described as "man's discovery of himself and the world." The worth of earthly existence for its own sake was accepted, and the otherworldliness of medieval Christianity was disparaged. Humanists believed that the pursuit of secular life was not only proper but even meritorious.

  Closely allied to the new view of worldly life was a devotion to nature and its beauty as part of a broadened religious outlook. Yet Renaissance humanism must be viewed from another vantage point. Those involved in the movement were devoted to the studia humanitatis, or the liberal arts, including history, literary criticism, grammar, poetry, philology, and rhetoric. These subjects were taught from classical texts of the Greco - Roman period and were intended to help students understand and deal with other people. In addition, the humanists valued ancient artifacts and manuscripts and tried to revive classical life styles.

  Many Christians, including Savonarola and Zwingli, reacted against the more secular approach of humanism; but others such as John Colet, Thomas More, and Erasmus felt that great benefits would come from the revival of classicism and the development of historical criticism. It has been pointed out that even John Calvin reveals the influence of humanism. The new Renaissance philological tools were helpful in studying the Bible, and the ancient view of man held the promise for better government and greater social justice. A wedding of the ethical and social concern of the Renaissance with the introspective force of Christianity held the possibility for church renewal in the minds of many sixteenth century scholars. Christian humanist teaching was kept alive by many Anglicans, by the moderates in the Church of Scotland, by certain German pietists, and through the philosophy of Kant. It continues in the twentieth century among such writers as Jacques Maritain and Hans Kung.

  Those who believe that the Christian revelation has a humanistic emphasis point to the fact that man was made in the image of God, that Jesus Christ became man through the incarnation, and that the worth of the individual is a consistent theme in the teaching of Jesus. Indeed, when asked to give a summary of the life that pleases God, Christ advised his listeners to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:37, 39).

  Christian humanists acknowledge the contributions of other forms of humanism, such as the classical variety that discovered the value of human liberty, and the Marxists, who realize that man has been estranged from the good life because he is dispossessed of property and subordinated to material and economic forces. However, they caution that these other forms can degenerate into excessive individualism or savage collectivism because they operate without God. The Christian humanist values culture but confesses that man is fully developed only as he comes into a right relationship with Christ. When this happens, a person can begin to experience growth in all areas of life as the new creation of revelation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15).

  R G Clouse
  (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

  Bibliography
  L Bouyer, Christian Humanism; Q Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism; H Kung, On Being a Christian; J Maritain, True Humanism; J I Packer, Knowing Man; G Toffanin, History of Humanism; C Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness; W Bouwsma, The Interpretation of Renaissance Humanism.

• Secular Humanism. The founder of Renaissance humanism was Petrarch (1304-74), an Italian poet and man of letters who attempted to apply the values and lessons of antiquity to questions of Christian faith and morals in his own day. By the late 14th century, the term studia humanitatis ("humanistic studies") had come to mean a well-defined cycle of education, including the study of grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy, based on Latin authors and classical texts. Key in ensuring the permanence of humanism after Petrarch's initial success was the Florentine chancellor Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406), who wrote many learned treatises and kept up a massive correspondence with his literary contemporaries. Salutati, together with his younger follower Leonardo Bruni (1369-1444), used the studia humanitatis as the basis for a life of active service to state and society. Bruni in particular created a new definition of Florence's republican traditions, and defended the city in panegyrics and letters.

  The 14th-century humanists had relied mainly on Latin. In the early 15th century, however, classical Greek became a major study, providing scholars with a fuller, more accurate knowledge of ancient civilization. Included were many of the works of Plato, the Homeric epics, the Greek tragedies, and the narratives of Plutarch and Xenophon. Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), a chancellor of Florence and papal secretary, discovered important classical texts, studied Roman ruins and inscriptions, and created the study of classical archaeology. Poggio also criticized the corruption and hypocrisy of his age in biting satire and well-argued dialogues. Lorenzo Valla (c. 1407-57), one of the greatest classical scholars and text editors of his age, proved that the Donation of Constantine, a medieval document that supported papal claims to temporal authority, was a forgery.

  The founding (c. 1450) of the Platonic Academy in Florence by Cosimo de'Medici signaled a shift in humanist values from political and social concerns to speculation about the nature of humankind and the cosmos. Scholars such as Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola used their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to reconcile Platonic teachings with Jewish mysticism, the Hermetic tradition, and Christian orthodoxy in the search for a philosophia perennia (a philosophy that would be always true).

  The work of Italian humanists soon spread north of the Alps, finding a receptive audience among English thinkers such as John Colet (c. 1467-1519), who applied the critical methods developed in Italy to the study of the Bible. Desiderius Erasmuy of the Netherlands was the most influential of the Christian humanists. In his Colloquies and Praise of Folly (1509), Erasmus satirized the corruptions of his contemporaries, especially the clergy, in comparison with the teachings of the Bible, early Christianity, and the best of pagan thinkers. In his Adages (1500 and later editions), he showed the consistency of Christian teachings with ancient pagan wisdom. Erasmus devoted most of his energy and learning, however, to establishing sound editions of the sources of the Christian tradition, such as his Greek New Testament (1516) and translations of the Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church. Erasmus' friend Thomas More wrote yet another humanist critique of society--Utopia (1516), which attacked the corruptions of power, wealth, and social status. By the middle of the 16th century humanism had won wide acceptance as an educational system.

• Later Types of HumanismBy the 18th century the word humanism had come to be identified with a purely secular attitude--one that often rejected Christianity altogether. In the 20th century the term has taken on a number of different, often conflicting, meanings. In the works of the pragmatist philosopher Ferdinand Schiller (1864-1937) humanism is seen as that philosophical understanding which stems from human activity. Irving Babbitt used the word to describe a program of reaction against romanticism and naturalism in literature. Jean Paul Sartre developed a scientific humanism preaching human worth based on Marxist theory, and the Roman Catholic Jacques Maritain tried to formulate a new Christian humanism based on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom. In recent years, fundamentalist Christian groups in the United States have declared their opposition to "secular humanism," an antireligious ideology that they believe pervades American society, including the major churches, and that they blame for its moral failings.

  Bibliography: Bullock, Alan, The Humanist Tradition in the West (1985); Garin, Eugenio, Italian Humanism (1966); Kohl, Benjamin G., and Witt, Ronald G., eds., The Earthly Republic: Italian Humanists on Government and Society (1978); Kristeller, Paul O., Renaissance Thought and Its Sources (1979); Nash, Paul, Models of Man (1968); Trinkaus, Charles, The Scope of Renaissance Humanism (1983).

Notes: Those pages are written by people for whom English is not a native language. Some amount of grammar and spelling errors should be expected. This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site. It cannot replace the best teachers and the best books. The site contain some obsolete pages as it develops like a living tree... Some links on older pages are broken. Please try to use Google, Open directory, etc. to find a replacement link (see HOWTO search the WEB for details). We would appreciate if you can mail us a correct link. Search Amazon by keywords:     Open directory Research Index

Old News ;-)

The Rise and Fall of Latin Humanism in Early-Modern Russia

Humanism in Post-Soviet Russia. Some Aspects of Theory, History and Actuality Mikhail B. Konashev

The fact that the Russian Humanistic Society (RHS) was established only in 1995 ' in the latest, post-Soviet history of Russia - has a special meaning and presents a subject for particular consideration. In this article I will try to demonstrate that this fact has one very important cause deeply connected with the fate of humanism as an idea, a theory, and an attempt to realize it in practice in Russia. (leader)

The establishment of the RHS was at the same time a significant and an unnoticed event. Neither at the moment of its formation, nor at present after more than five years of activity, has the RHS been, or is, an influential or noticeable public organisation. The RHS has practically never been mentioned in the mass media, and its actions and opinions were not taken into account by government officials or by the leaders of such major political parties as Edinstvo [Unity], Liberal'no-demokratichaskaya partiya [Liberal-Democratic Party], Kommunisticheskaya partiya Rossiskoi Federatsii [Communist Party of Russian Federation], Soiuz pravykh sil [The union of right forces], Yabloko [Apple] or by the leaders of the so-called tvorcheskikh soiuzov [creative unions] such as soiuz kinematografistov [the union of cinematographers] and soiuz zhurnalistov [the union of journalists].(1) The total number of RHS members may be no more than several hundred; its St. Petersburg branch has just about fifty members - not that many for the 'second', 'northern' or 'cultural' capital of the country, as this city is often referred to in the mass media. On the one hand, the RHS is simply one of hundreds, if not thousands, of newly emerged public associations in Russia. On the other hand, the RHS has its own journal Zdravyi Smysl [Common sense], which has subscribers probably throughout Russia. This situation appears rather strange for the country in which not too long ago the slogan 'all men are brothers' was a commonplace, but it has its history, its logic and its explanations.(2) It can be said that this situation is typical enough for the origin of a civic association in a still non-civic society,(3) and that the future of the RHS, its success or failure, will depend (although not exclusively) on its ability to solve various problems, which are of the utmost importance for the fate of humanism in Russia. I do not pretend to define exactly and exhaustively all these problems, and to consider the meaning of each of them. However, I shall briefly describe two problems which have been discussed by RHS members more often than any other, and which are still 'hot' topics.

The most hotly debated issues are the unbelievably rapid expansion of the Russian Orthodox Church into almost all spheres of social life, and the continuing growth and flourishing of pseudo-science, astrology, mysticism and many other 'non-traditional' forms of rationality and irrationality. These two types of spiritual invasion are indeed a real cause for anxiety and they have to be taken seriously. The most dangerous tendency is a fusion (which is not very obvious yet) of the state and the church, the quiet' clericalisation of various facets of life and of social and state structures. Here are some recent examples.

First, Radio Rossiia [Radio Russia] reported in its news broadcast of 27 January 2002 that Aleksii II, the patriarch of All-Russia, had announced that an introduction of 'zakon bozhii' [God's law, that is, lessons of religion] in the school does not contradict Russian legislature. This statement can be considered a first step in an attempt to actually introduce religious teaching into Russian schools. Second, only several days earlier, the Russian president Vladimir Putin had received an award from Aleksii II in the Kremlin for his outstanding activity in consolidating the unity of the peoples of the Orthodox Christian faith'.(4)

Under these conditions, many members of the RHS have concentrated their efforts mainly on protecting a secular, non-theistic mode of thinking and living, and recreating the values of scientific, rational and sceptical thought. With this aim they write and publish articles and popular pamphlets, and take part in public debates and programmes on radio and TV.(5) Last autumn, from 3 to 7 October, the RHS held a special conference at Moscow university on the problems of pseudo-science and related matters.(6) One of the latest issues of Zdravyi Smysl was devoted entirely to modern atheism in Russia. Thus there is a certain one-sidedness or narrowness in the RHS activities, and at present, judging from its actions, the RHS is an atheistic rather than a humanistic organisation, although humanistic and ethical subjects are included in its agenda. For instance, a permanent monthly seminar on ethics and humanism has already been in operation for three years at the philosophical faculty of St. Petersburg University under RHS guidance.

However, despite the pressing nature of these issues, which indeed occupy a central place in the discussions among humanists in Russia, as well as in the practical activities of the RHS and of some other organisations such as Atom (Moscow association of young atheists), there is one more issue that still has not been considered at all. This most important issue can be defined as the problem of a 'humanistic ideal'. What is this? Why is this problem more significant and more fundamental than others, and perhaps even crucial for the fate of humanism in Russia? And what is the basis for such a conclusion?

Let me propose a hypothesis based on the historic events in Russia, events which, for the second time in the 20th century, shocked the world. The end of Soviet society in 1991 not only meant the fall of a 'totalitarian' regime, the collapse of 'socialism' in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries, the dissolution of the USSR, and the elimination of the Soviet Communist party, but also the end of... a humanistic ideal.

This latter event was neither recorded nor noticed. The humanistic ideal was neither cursed nor derided, as was the 'communist utopia'. No propagandist or other actions were undertaken against it. Instead, it just simply ceased to be. The RHS itself began its activities without mentioning it, as if the RHS started to create humanism in Russia 'from scratch'. There is no reference to the existence of the idea of humanism in Soviet or even in tsarist Russia in the printed or electronic publications of the RHS, and the RHS documents are written in a cosmopolitan style.(7) Perhaps it was shameful to remember the previous humanistic ideal, maybe because of its link with 'communism' and its use for ideological purposes. It had been intensively exploited by the Communist Party propagandists, lectors and professors of 'scientific communism' and 'scientific atheism', by announcers on radio and TV programmes. Ten years ago all this 'scientific bosh' was thrown out, but the 'baby' was thrown out together with the 'dirty bathwater'. What was the 'baby'? What was this humanistic ideal?

'Man is born for happiness as a bird for flight'. Nobody says these words. Nobody remembers anymore that 'man sounds proudly'. Nobody calls to 'the yawning heights'. Not to the communist ones, but to the heights of man's development and perfection. 'We are not slaves, slaves we are not'. Of course, these and similar phrases cannot express the humanistic ideal completely, but they were signs of a new era and of a new world,(8) where no human being can be used as a thing. It is difficult to describe this humanist ideal in detail, in all its exactly formulated aspects, because it was not fixed in any single classical text as were religious texts such as the Bible or the Talmud, or such Marxian ones as the Manifesto of the Communist Party. This ideal was dissolved, as it were, in society's atmosphere, it was presented in relationships among common people and in the notions of the intelligentsia, in poems and films, in songs and novels.

Here are just two examples to illustrate the diversity of its manifestations. In one of the most famous and beloved poems by Andrei Voznesensky it was proclaimed poetically that no progress can be named progressive if it caused harm to man. Another and very 'communist' example is the episode in the film for children produced on the basis of Aleksei Tolstoi's book Zolotoi kliuchik ili prikliucheniya Buratino [The Golden Key or Buratino's Adventures] in which the following words are spoken: 'Neither the rich, nor the poor will be, but everybody will be happy'.(9) After all, as a legacy of 'all the best that was created by human thought', the humanistic ideal, in its most general and essential and not specifically Russian features, was, perhaps, the same as a humanist ideal in any other European (western or eastern) country. When ten years ago 'Communism' was kicked out, this humanist ideal was, at least temporarily, lost too.

It is not difficult to foresee the very first objection: this was a 'Communist' ideal! The attempt to realise this ideal inevitably brought Stalinism and later the so-called 'real socialism'.(10)

For this reason, although not only for this, the idea of humanism, as a 'communist' idea that resulted in inhuman practices, was forgotten for almost five years, from 1991 to 1995. Let us also remember that Gorbachev's perestroika had been conducted under the slogan of a more humane, renovated socialism, and resulted in a new crash. I will not mention the whole set of the many other reasons and obstacles which influenced the image - consciously and unconsciously - of humanism in the mind of various groups of men and women, from the so-called intellectuals to the common folk. What I want to emphasize is the relative conjunction, indissolubility and partial overlap of humanist and communist ideals (and systems of views). Thus those five years were needed to clear humanism of its previous Soviet communist cover.

Nevertheless, this ideal was - historically and theoretically - a humanistic ideal in the first place, and only then a communist one. The ideal originated, changed and developed during a long period as a humanistic one, and only then was it used by men who were members of one party that proclaimed that this ideal would be implemented in life. This party had different names (and abbreviations): Rossiaskaya sotsial-demokraticheskaya rabochaya partiya (RSDRP) [Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party], Rossiaskaya sotsial-demokraticheskaya rabochaya partiya bol'shevikov (RSDRP(b)) [Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (of Bolsheviks)], Vsesouznaya kommunisticheskaya partiya bol'shevikov (VKP(b)) [All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks)], Kommunisticheskya partiya Sovetskogo Souza (KPSS) [Communist Party of the Soviet Union]. However, there were other men and women who believed in the same humanistic ideal and were devoted to it, but they were members of other parties in Russia, such as the constitutional democrats, the party of socialist-revolutionaries, and the Russian social-democratic labour party [of Mensheviks].(11) All these parties, and some others, fought for the 'freedom of the people' and the 'free development of the individual'; at least they announced these tasks as their goals. (Although there are a lot of recent works on political parties in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century and during the Russian revolutions,(12) no research has been devoted specifically to the connection between an idea of humanism and political movements in Russia during this period.) Furthermore, there were many individual humanists with very different political and cultural views who were not members of any party, and who did not even participate in political struggles: one of the best humanist slogans ever was coined not by a politician, but by the physician and writer Anton P. Chekhov: 'In man all has to be wonderful'.

In other words, it is true that the humanistic ideal was communist (that means, communists incorporated it in their programmes and ideology, and in this way the humanist ideal became associated with them in people's minds), at least in Russia during a certain period. But it was non-communist, and even totally non-communist. Let me reiterate: in this 'communist' humanistic ideal, and not in the reality of 'real socialism', 'all the best that was created by humankind' found its embodiment. That is why, when 'communism' or the 'communist' humanistic ideal was thrown out, 'all the best that was created by humankind' was thrown out too.

To ascertain that this is true, it is enough to compare the following three definitions of humanism: Soviet, post-Soviet and non-Soviet.

The definition of the latest Soviet times (just before perestroika) contains a clear 'class' approach: 'Humanism... [is] the recognition of the value of man as a personality, his right of free development and manifestation of his abilities, assertion of man's ''well-being'' as a criterion of evaluation of all social relations. In a narrower sense h[umanism] is a secular freethinking of the Renaissance epoch, which withstood the scholasticism and spiritual supremacy of the church, and which was connected with the study of newly discovered works of classical antiquity. To reject an abstract and class-independent approach of humanism, Marxism connected it with the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the building of the communist society, that created preconditions for the all-round development of man. In this sense Karl Marx referred to communism as a ''real h[umanism]''. H[umanism] gets its practical realization through the achievements of socialism, proclaimed as its principle: ''All in the name of man, all for the good of man''.'(13)

The post-Soviet definition of humanism does not include the class approach: the latter part of the above definition, starting with the words 'To reject an abstract and class-independent approach of humanism...', was simply deleted.(14) 'Western' definitions of humanism, including modern ones, are almost identical to the Soviet one, except for the same 'communist' addition (the latter part of the Soviet definition).(15) On the other hand, the earlier Soviet definition of humanism as a historic movement of Renaissance almost coincides (in its content) with a pre-Soviet one. For example: 'Humanism... 1. Ideological movement of the Renaissance, directed at the liberation of human personality and thought from fetters of feudalism and Catholicism (historic). 2. Enlightened philanthropy (obsolete)'.(16) One year prior to the dramatic year of 1917, it was as follows: 'Humanism or Renaissance. - In historical literature, the term h[umanism] is used to describe a literary-scientific movement, which started in Italy in the 14^th century, and slowly, until the beginning of 16^th century, embraced the main countries of Europe. The essence of this movement is usually defined as a tendency to the completeness of personal development, which is free of those constraints that were imposed by the mediaeval Church through its theocratic and ascetic demands'.(17)

It is a mistake to say that there was only 'communistic' humanism in the USSR. The official Soviet humanism (that is the humanism of official philosophers and party ideologists) constantly criticized an 'abstract humanism', that was also Soviet, but non-official. This 'abstract humanism' was denigrated in a standard manner: 'Socialist h[umanism] stands against abstract h[umanism], which preaches ''humanity in general'', without a connection to the struggle for the complete release of man from all kinds of exploitation'.(18) In 1991 this 'abstract humanism' disappeared, not absolutely, of course, but as a noticeable public (cultural) phenomenon.

So far there has been no satisfactory explanation of the existence and blooming of abstract humanism during the ten years of Khrushev's 'thaw'. How could it happen that in this still totalitarian society abstract humanism indeed flourished in literature, cinema, the arts and humanitarian sciences such as literary criticism, the history of literature and even in some sections of ideologised Soviet philosophy? Why was it impossible to extirpate this abstract humanism, in spite of all the criticism? And why does it vegetate in modern post-Soviet Russia?

Neither was the 'communist' humanism something invariable, as it was not the primary and absolute evil. It changed historically even within the Soviet period of Russian history. The humanism of A.V. Lunacharskii is not the same as that of R. Kosolapov, I.T. Frolov or E.V. Il'enkov. It was not a homogeneous monolith in each historical moment: the humanism of the KPSS programme (the corresponding phrases in it) was not the same as the humanism of V.G. Kelle or G.S. Batishev. Moreover, there was also the pre-Soviet 'communist' humanism of G.V. Plekhanov or of Karl Marx himself. Finally, in the Soviet period there was a 'communist' humanism of A. Gramsci or of R. Garaudy.

Anything better than the 'communist' humanism of the so-called 'early Marx' was not proposed in Russia; it was not superseded by a new, more profound and more humane humanism. The task of the 'liberation' of man is still unfulfilled. It is a commonplace in present-day Russia that the 'communist' humanism is the same utopia as communism itself. Then a question is natural: is a non-communist humanism an impossible, far-away utopia too? If so, humanism (not as the stoic ethic of one individual but as the ethical norm of many and as a way of living for the whole society) makes no sense. If humanism, at least as a humanistic ideal, is not only an abstract, theoretical possibility, but also a necessity to be realized, it has to be recovered and returned to the place it occupied in the development of Russia, in its evolution to a better country, a better society, a better life, a better people and to better persons who formed this people, this society and this country.

Perhaps one can say that humanism as the ethical norm of many and as a way of living for the whole society is not a personal ideal for individuals, but an ideal for a society. However, this is just the same, at least from the vantage point of the Russian historical situation. 'Free development of everybody is a precondition of free development of all', and vice versa. Has everybody the opportunity to develop his abilities freely in a society with unjustifiable inequalities of income and property? Or without a solid system of social services protecting unfortunate people from poverty and misery? Or in a society lacking respect for human rights and human personality, lacking a real democracy for both majority and minority, the responsibility of man, society and state to each other? The development of all personal abilities means the development not only of artistic or mathematical talents or sporting achievements, but also of the ability to become a citizen, to be a ruler and be ruled. In this case, a humanistic ideal for society coincides (in principle, although not totally) with a humanistic ideal for an individual, and this joint or united humanistic ideal would naturally mean improving the Russian society as a civil society, in which, through some institutional mechanisms, citizens are both the rulers and the ruled, and are socially, culturally and politically active agents and public figures.

Of course, a lot of questions then arise. For instance: how to initiate humanitarian, social and political activities of Russians and groups such as the RHS, that will help to realise this ideal or a part of it? And, of course, this ideal has not to become an idol. The problem is: can a humanistic attitude become a norm of life; and if it can, does it have to become, and under what conditions, a norm of life or, at least, 'the guidance to action'; and if it has to, the guidance to what actions? In other words, can a humanism, as an idea or a system of related ideas, or, perhaps, even as a theory, become a practical humanism? This problem, the problem of humanism in practice, is the most important and the most pressing for Russia, especially from the point of view of a certain balance between ideal and action, or between goals and means. It also includes such 'particular' questions as: should the RHS be a club of intellectuals, or purely an organisation of enlightenment (as the former Znanie [Knowledge] organization), or a civic mass movement 'above the parties', or an independent humanistic party? The type of action depends on a choice that may be reduced to the following three options: a propagation (or propaganda), a reform, a revolution.(19) The actuality and the cost of this choice for Russia is too evident.

At present, the RHS has proclaimed a mixture of more propagandistic and less reformative activity. This activity is based on its understanding of the real situation in Russian society. First of all, this situation is determined by the deep moral crisis of society which leads to the disintegration of basic social and individual values. This crisis has been ignored by the state and the mass media, and in this crisis Russia can find the final defeat.(20) Therefore, the RHS has to assist in forming the mechanisms to resolve this crisis, which are as follows:

1. a broad moral and intellectual enlightenment of the individual and society;

2. the adoption by state, public and political leaders of their moral responsibility, and by the electorate of the application of a strong moral criterion in elections;

3. a social policy of the state and businessmen supporting those organisations which fight for the moral reconstruction of society;

4. extension of the financial support for education, science, and true culture;

5. support for the natural willingness of each individual to be in good physical, spiritual and mental shape, to be happy;

6. formation of more active and powerful elements and bodies of civil society such as the RHS.(21) As a whole, this set of measures is defined by its author himself as a general call 'to return to the all-human values in order to change the attitudes of both the state and the mass media in Russia towards the problem of human rights and dignity'.(22) It should be noted that this strategy of activity is connected essentially with contemporary RHS interpretation of humanism as 'a guiding star of humankind, an improving, open, historically dynamic system of values, actually a meta-value because it covers in itself all the fundamental values of individual and society, and in eco-humanism of the whole world.' (23) Humanism is 'to be the worldview of the individual, his ideal and at the same time a mark of his ''zrelosti i samostoyatelnosti'', the means of self-perfection and self-realisation.' (24) Humanism is neither a political nor a religious ideology. Then it is argued that, as a value-system and a social movement, humanism plays an important general and trans-political role. As a meta- and inter-political phenomenon, humanism brings to the political scene such fundamental political values as freedom, democracy, social justice, supremacy of law, participation of citizens in political processes, etc. All-human values of humanism provide the best moral ground for the struggle of political ideologies, protecting this process of a competition of ideas from transforming into a clash between people and social classes. Humanism is a worldview and a moral power. Therefore the social role of humanism is to be an organized and socially active worldview, and the general political mission of humanism in Russia is to humanize both the people's political consciousness and the political institutions of society.

Such an approach means that the political role of humanism in Russia can be defined as follows. Humanism is:

1) not outside of politics, as it proclaims democracy, freedom, etc.;

2) above all parties and it speaks directly to everybody;

3) for all parties, as it brings all-human values;

4) a link between parties, for the same reason.

But at the same time, humanism cannot become a party or a political ideology as the goal of any party is power, and where there is power there is violence.(25) That is why any attempt to transform humanism as a worldview and a public movement into a party will lead to its fall. However, a humanist movement has to try and become an influential moral-political force, and its 'all-political role is the humanisation of political consciousness of civic man, of practices of political parties and of the state.' (26) Thus the actual choice of the RHS is for humanistic enlightenment.

Whether this proclaimed activity of the RHS is sufficient or not, and whether this choice of strategy is right or wrong, partly or totally, only the future will show.(27) It is natural that in a normal, civilised society all parties stay on the platform of human values. Humanity is the main criterion of any political regime and social order. The problem is that humanism (as any idea) also 'can be used for good or for evil'.(28) It can be added that in present-day Russia humanism 'can be used for good or for evil', as were many other ideas used throughout Russian history.

Horner-Morgentaler Debate (Secular vs. Christian Humanism)

• Secular Humanism & Christian Humanism Seeking After Common Ground

      Hi folks,

      I am very curious about the response of atheists to the following
      questions. They will likely generate discussion as well, but for myself,
      I am primarily interested in simply seeing how you would reply, for the
      sake of my own knowledge, and to understand your point of view better.

  I'll make my answers short, and won't always be able to meet your criteria,
  I'm afraid. I suspect my responses will go a long way towards showing the
  poverty of my background knowledge, but that's valuable to know, of course,
  and bound to show anyway. I'll try to make myself clear and not think too
  hard, because if I do I won't ever finish this in time for lunch.

      1. What do you make of Jesus? How do you classify him as a person and
      ethicist? What do you make of his claims to being God in the flesh
      (assuming that you agree that he made such claims)? Particularly I am
      interested in your replies to what is referred to as the Trilemma
      (brought up initially, I believe, by C.S. Lewis, in his Mere Christianity):
      "Jesus claimed to be God; therefore, the only reasonable and logical
      response to this is to regard him as either in fact the Lord, or a
      liar, or a lunatic."

  I am not sure what the historical Jesus may or may not have actually said.
  That there was an historical Jesus is somewhat debateable, though I think
  it is very likely. The accuracy of the gospels is also uncertain, since
  there appears to have been a great deal of religious interpretation which
  went into them both during and after they were written. Thus, I am far from
  sure that Jesus actually claimed to be God. I strongly suspect he was a
  wisdom teacher of approximately the first century who believed he was a
  messenger of the divine, not God Himself.

  My personal opinion then is that while Jesus was not God, neither was he a
  liar nor a lunatic. He was sincere and no crazier than most people who
  believe they have a close and insightful relationship with God, meaning not
  "crazy" at all. I believe many of his teachings were valuable and
  humanistic in nature; some of his teachings were given under the assumption
  that the world was about to end and thus inapplicable to living in a world
  that is not about to end; and some of his teachings, such as the ones on
  hell and damnation, are not immoral themselves, but do not lead to a loving
  and responsible attitude or approach to living with others.

      2. Please name five or ten Christians whom you consider the most
      intelligent and intellectually brilliant (and/or culturally
      influential) of all time, and tell us (briefly) why?

  I'm not sure whether you are asking for the names of intelligent, brilliant
  and influential Christian scholars, or scholars who are these things and
  also happen to be Christian. Assuming either/or, I would probably include
  Aquinas, Erasmus, Bacon, Newton, and Locke. This is a short list, of
  course: any longer and I would be leaving even more people out. ;) All of
  the above showed insight, clarity, and scope. Each of them were able to
  look outside of their religious paradigm to incorporate new knowledge,
  scholarship, or experience either into the religion or into knowledge about
  the world. Many, though not all, were also Humanists.

  I might also include C.S. Lewis, since he has had an enormous amount of
  modern influence and writes with masterful clarity and ability for the
  general reader. I enjoy reading him for the narrative and insight into
  popular Christian beliefs, though it is -- from my point of view -- like
  sitting on the lap of a Mr. Rogers who most certainly does NOT like me the
  way I am. Creepy, and frustrating. But what he does ... he does very well
  (as Noel Coward said about Liberace.)

      3. Please name five or ten Christians from history whom you admire the
      most [I'm thinking more about character here, rather than merely
      intellect], and tell us (briefly) why?

  St. Francis of Assisi -- because I admire his humility and kindness.
  Erasmus again, because his humanistic approach to the Christian world
  helped to bring the Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and revealed not only
  a skilled mind, but a good heart. George Fox, who founded the Quakers and introduced a simplicity and concern for character which contributed to the humanization of society and the end of slavery. Johann Sebastian Bach, whose love of God was the inspiration for some of the most beautiful music ever written, and whose meticulous commitment to his art still enhances the world today.

  And Bishop John Shelby Spong, whose humanistic version of Christianity is
  the one which makes the most sense to me on an emotional as well as
  intellectual level -- and who had the incredible self-restraint and
  integrity to examine and then renounce his strong belief in the power of
  prayer when his wife's cancer went into remission after she was prayed
  for.

      4.  Please name five or ten Christians from history that you despise
      and detest the most and consider the most harmful to society and culture,
      and tell us (briefly) why?

  This is actually more difficult. :) Tertullian, St. Augustine, Torquemada, John Calvin, the Televangelists (pick one.) All show an anathema towards the principles of humanism and its ethics, and a chilling willingness to live by it -- and impose it on
  others.

      5. Who is the greatest living Christian philosopher, and the greatest
      of all time, and (briefly) why?

  Difficult. Probably Aquinas for all time, because his attempted synthesis
  of Eastern mysticism and Greek philosophy lead to some of the most
  influential theology and apologetics in history. Possibly Swinburne for
  today.

      6. Who is the greatest living atheist philosopher, and the greatest of
      all time, and (briefly) why?

  Again, philosopher who is an atheist, or a philosopher of atheism? Most of
  the great philosophers of atheism were theists. As for today, I am partial
  to Flew, who is still alive, though I have far more books by Paul Kurtz. I
  know they may not be on the level of Greatness, but I have trouble picking
  someone I don't like to read and spend money for ;)

      7. What is the one single argument or proof which would have the
      greatest potential for proving to you that Christianity were true?

  Scientific evidence for the paranormal/supernatural which is then accepted
  by the mainstream scientific community. Unless the supernatural exists,
  then God's existence is problematic. Unless God exists, Christianity is
  moot. This would not of course be the only argument or proof that would
  persuade me, but it is the one that would have the greatest potential,
  which is what you asked.

      8. How many of you used to be Christians, and what denomination? At
      what age did you cease becoming a Christian, and (briefly), why?

  I was not raised Christian, but Freethinker. I was New Age during my teens,
  liberal Christian briefly in my 20's (Quaker), and agnostic and then
  atheist as my definitions became sharper. In explanation -- very briefly indeed -- it became implausible to me that the fundamental nature of the universe either was or could be a special secret shared only by the enlightened through intuition or revelation. I lost my faith in the power and ability of the human mind to make direct
  connections with transcendent knowledge, and became more certain that our
  knowledge ought to be provisional and the evidence open to all.

      9. What is the most intellectually and morally respectable religion (if
      an atheist were to choose one; the "lesser of the evils," so to speak)? If
      you select Christianity, please also narrow that down to a denomination,
      if you can, and also tell us which Christian denomination you regard
      as the least intellectually and morally respectable (or which non-Christian
      religion, as the case may be), and briefly explain your rationale for
      all these answers.

  The religions with fewer assumptions and less anthropomorphism (God like a
  Person) seem less unlikely to me. Zen Buddism and Taoism seem to lead not
  only to a better self-awareness, but a kinder and more accepting attitude
  towards others. I enjoy reading "pop" zen, and find it entirely consistent
  with Humanism in its ethics, if not epistemically. I've a brother who is
  Zen, and he lends me his books sometimes. The Eastern views of 'God' are
  much grander in many ways than Western views, and more consistent with what
  I would expect God to be like.

  Christianity, with its claim that a Personal God intervenes in earth
  history and came to earth as a man -- and this was done in order to have an
  atoning sacrifice for payment of 'sin' -- doesn't even seem remotely
  plausible to me, though I try hard to suspend my disbelief in order to give
  it a fair hearing on its own ground. I would view Quaker and Unitarian
  (heh) as most honorable, Calvinism and Pentecostal as not only least
  likely, but least morally respectable given what can be legitimately
  derived from their premises.

  As for nonchristian religion, the Thuggees usually win the #atheism
  contests of "religion that sucks the most." <g>

      10. If you had one thing to say to a Christian, in terms of the falsity
      of their religion, and to persuade them of that (say you had two minutes
      before a nuclear bomb was to hit), what would it be (briefly)? And what
      would be your corresponding single greatest quick defense of the
      atheist position?

  I'm going to ignore the part about the nuclear bomb about to drop, since it
  puts a rather strange and bizarre twist to apologetics (under those
  circumstances I cannot imagine making metaphysical arguments.) I think
  you simply want something quick and simple and off the cuff. If I had only
  a couple of minutes, I would probably point out that Theism puts an enormous
  amount of faith in the human propensity to put things into human terms, and that we have good evidence that our doing so is false in many cases. I would appeal to consistency. I would take the next two minutes to continue the same argument.

      11. What troubles you the most about the atheist worldview (for me,
      with regard to my Christian belief, it is the problem of evil)?

  I'm not sure here if you're asking what troubles me the most given my
  belief that atheism is true, or what most troubles my belief that atheism
  is true. If it's the former, it would be my eventual death and permanent subsequent
  nonexistence. As Woody Allen once said, "I don't want to become immortal by
  living on in my works: I want to become immortal by not dying." I have a
  lot of sympathy with that ;) Truths are not always easy to accept.
  If it's the latter, then I would say that I consider arguments on the
  nature of consciousness and qualia to be the most difficult, coupled with
  the problems of immaterial existants and their nature.

      12. What is your greatest single criticism of Catholicism?

  I have always admired the Catholic attitude towards the salvific character
  of Works, since it is by this back door that propositional belief in the
  resurrection of Jesus can become less critical than belief in the values
  that Jesus stood for, and Christianity becomes more ethically respectable.
  My greatest criticism might be what I consider to be the almost
  schizophrenic tendency Catholicism often has in embracing humanism,
  science, scholarship, and tolerance with one hand and then pandering to
  superstition, miracles, belief in demons, and intolerance with the other.
  I always have to find out what kind of Catholic I am speaking to --
  sometimes at the moment.

  ... ... ...

The Religion of Christian Humanism

Today, pure Apostolic Christianity has been mixed with ancient humanism and ancient humanism has been "Christianized" to form a syncretized religion of "Christian Humanism" or "Humanistic Christianity". Modern Christianity is no longer monotheistic in worship and doctrine, because it now bows at the altar of its new god of humanism, the worship of man.

Christian Humanism - Resources for a Humanistic Christianity

This site is a growing exploration of the increasing overlap between the values of modern humanism and the current trend in liberal Christian theology and practice toward naturalist, utilitarian Christianity. It is not affiliated with any church or organization; rather it is part of a research project into the evolution of modern Christianity by one hopeful Christian. Christian Humanism, as discussed on this website, generally denotes an ethical, relational spirituality drawing heavily from the richly vast Christian traditions and commonly emphasizing broader definitions of and experiences of "God", while incorporating many progressive values of the modern forms of humanism. Christian humanism integrates the humanistic principles of science and reason, advancement of the common good, morality grounded in human experience, equality for all classes of people, and focus on this natural world, with the Christian gospel of liberty, personal and communal transformation, care of the poor and those in need, celebration of the "sacred" within the "secular", support in community of others along the journey, and above all, boundless love. It is Christianity as an ongoing work by and for humankind; it is humanism enriched with the best of Christian heritage. It seeks to retain all that is good from the past, and integrate all that proves true in each future age. (1 Thess 5:21) It believes religion is for humanity and not humanity for religion. (Mark 2:27) Finally, this site is dedicated to the proposition that the essentials of a Christian faith and life in its truest form are not foremost historic creeds and dogmas, but love of God (however conceived or experienced) encompassing heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love of neighbor as self - as exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. Such Christians live fully in this world and work for the betterment of this world's inhabitants, while consciously and joyfully choosing for themselves a Christian story and path to best describe and provide a framework for their journey through life

Recommended Links

• Open Directory - Society Religion and Spirituality Humanism
• Council for Secular Humanism
• British Humanist Association
• Horner-Morgentaler Debate (Secular vs. Christian Humanism)
  • Dr. Morgentaler's Opening Remarks
  • ... In our pluralist North American society, the religion in polite circles is usually not discussed, for fear of offending someone whose religious beliefs are so strong that any hint of criticism may be interpreted as an insult or a put-down. On the other hand, I could not resist the invitation to discuss my own philosophy of life, secular humanism, which I believe is a valid philosophy or life-stance, not only appropriate but necessary for our times, with the idea that people should be aware that it is possible to develop a life-style and a commitment to human values without the necessity of believing in God, and without the illusions of immortality, or the promises of everlasting life.
     
• Erasmus (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
   
• Erasmus-Praise of Folly - Table of Contents

  From [Erasmus (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)] IN PRAISE OF FOLLY. While visiting fellow humanist Thomas More in 1509, he composed In Praise of Folly (Encomium Moriae), his most famous and controversial work. Modeled after Lucian's classic Charon, the essay is written as an oratory delivered by the personification of Folly, in which Folly ironically praises foolish activities of the day. Included are attacks on superstitious religious practices, uncritical theories held by traditional scientists, and the vanity of Church leaders. Erasmus attacks superstitious folk beliefs in ghosts and goblins as well as Christian rituals involving prayers to the saints. One such superstition involved the sale of indulgence certificates by the Catholic church. An indulgence is a remission punishment for a sin which reduces the time which a person spends in purgatory. To raise money for lavish building projects, Popes authorized the sale of indulgence certificates which could remit punishment for either living people or the souls of the dead currently in purgatory. Erasmus continues satirizing an array of people and occupations, including peasants, poets, rhetoricians, layers and narrow-minded natural scientists. He turns to members of his own vocation: those who have taken monastic vows. They are neither religious nor monastic, and are too preoccupied with ritual. Although they take vows of poverty, they nevertheless make a of money through begging. Pulling no punches, Erasmus attacks the behavior of church leaders at the highest levels. The bishops live like princes. He argues that their true function would be evident if they noted the symbolism of their attire. Their vestments represent a blameless life; their forked miter hats represent knowledge of the Old and New Testaments; their gloves represent freedom from contact with worldly business; their staff represents caring for their flock; the cross carried before them in processions represents victory over all earthly affections. The word "bishop" signifies that they are to labor, care, and trouble. Although cardinals are successors of the apostles, they too neglect their true function also represented by their attire. For example, the upper white garment signifies the remarkable and singular integrity of life. If they focused on their true responsibilities, they would not want to have the job. Popes take the place of Christ, and should try to imitate Christ's life, specifically his poverty, labor, doctrine, cross, and contempt of life. However, they seem to be more concerned with financial gain.

• CHRISTIAN HUMANISM
  • Compare with Blas' Personal Page The Self-Contradiction of Christian Humanism
• BIBLIOGRAPHY Erasmus & Renaissance Humanism
• International Atheistic Secular Humanist Conspiracy [Canada Division]
• Stanford Humanists Web Page
• Humanist Association of Canada
• The American Humanist Association
• Teaching Christian Humanism

  This appropriation of Neoplatonism, culminating with the Pseudo- Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor, allowed Christian thinkers to incorporate into their thought such Neoplatonic features as the primacy of beauty and the metaphysics of descent and ascent, and thereby to lay the philosophical foundations of nearly all future Christian humanism. But the pattern of appropriation is what I would want my students to notice most, for it is the typical and fundamental gesture of Christian humanism: to respond to the world by taking it over, by embracing it, by showing that no beauty, intelligence, or goodness is alien to Christianity or incompatible with it.

The Religion of Christian Humanism

Humor

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950):

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.

Peter De Vries

Last modified: February 28, 2008