Re: Humanism in 2006

Nice little cosy chat going on down here, guyz! Hate to be the big bad
wolf and blow down your tidy little houses.....

Where do I start?

Question: Why will humanism always be the preserve of a certain kind of
button-down, corduroy-wearing, jazz-loving, muesli-munching desperately
intelligent and earnest male?
Answer: Because these are the guys who discern and have no patience
with the caprice and excess and essential stupidty of the public world.

Next Question: Why will humanism never really impact upon that same
stupid public world?
Answer: Because even though it demolishes the myths and tales that
provide a passing sustenance to that public world it fails to offer a
replacement attuned to its manner and demands.

Next Question: Is not the truth - that we ought to take on board that
we are the arbiters of our own future - enough?
Answer: No. It is too limited. It fails to satisfy our deep need for a
story. It excludes all our past. It fails to move our hearts. It is not
comprehensive enough to face down the allurements of religion.

Final Question: So...we should spin a yarn, make up a new colourful
myth for the future, add to our existing great stock of lies?
Final Answer: Absolutely not. On no account should we do such a
terrible thing. We should, however, strive to see - and understand -
our past; we should seek to understand its dynamics. We should seek to
see what particular gifts we brought out of evolution. We should seek
to visualise how these gifts might be utilized in the future, in which
direction they might ultimately push us. We should seek to understand
how our most recent knowledge - the knowledge gained during the last
two centuries (which is almost all the knowledge we possess) - impacts
upon our view of ourselves. We should seek to understand why religion
has had such a powerful influence on the human psyche and we should -
finally - wonder if humanism can perform adequately that same function.


Joseph H

.

Quantcast