The New Humanism

Dan, I'm guessing this is Dan Harper, who mentioned "Is God a White Racist?" to me this summer at the UU General Assembly. I did read it, and you're right, it deserves mention. Thanks for adding that comment. A recent issue of the HUUmanist journal, "Religious Humanism", was devoted to a retrospective on "Is God a White Racist?" Doug Muder

Thanks for the this article. The only thing I would add is that the UU churches also vary quite a bit from one to the next, when it comes to the degree of theistic/nontheistic flavor.

When called on to explain the UU church quickly, I give this 15-second elevator speech: "This is the church where you don't have to fake it. You never have to pretend that you believe in things that you actually find implausible." Another way to put it: "This is the church where you're free to believe what you *really do* believe, without apologies."

Thanks for this Doug. I've attended a couple of UU congregations, and found the people very welcoming. But you are right, Humanists have to accept the crazies, the religious talk and use of religious texts. Instead, I've started attending an ethical society. The local group, although small, is a place of like-minded people. I would be very interested to hear your take on this movement and if it has the capacity to take in an influx of new Humanists.

This article was perfectly timed in my world. Last week, a humanist had asked me the following question. Since she believed that she did not belong in any church, how could I belong there? We had a great conversation. But, I needed more updated printed information and had precious little time to write it up. You did. Thanks! Secondly, I'll send her to this magazine.

Certainly Doug's piece what, from a humanistic standpoint, are the most admirable aspects of the UU church. The church;s commitment to social justice, the acceptance of science, and the embrace of reason should be enough to merit respect and admiration from humanists of all stripes. While, I have little direct personal experience with the UU church, I have no reason to bash UUs. After all the HUUmanists sought fit to publish an article that I had written on the New Atheists in the Religious Humanism journal. That's enough to win my respect. Also, my friend Tom Clark has given talks on naturalism at various UU churches which generally been well received by the UUs. Having said all that, there does seem to be a few things about the UU church that is likely to rub at least some humanists the wrong way. There is, as Doug mentions, the churchy aspects of UU. UU is a church, historically derived from Congregationalism. Some humanists may get passed all that but there us another thing that Doug mentions that may not be too appealing to many humanists. Doug tells us that, "And so, religious words that once seemed to be on their way out—worship, prayer, God, holy, sacred, salvation, divine, and many others—are on the upswing again." He goes on to write, "If you tap on those words, if you ask what UUs are trying to get at by using them, chances are you'll hear an explanation largely compatible with an underlying Humanism." That kind of thing sounds a lot like the approach to religion that the philosopher John Dewey took in his book, *A Common Faith*. Indeed, as far as I can tell, Dewey's humanistic approach to religion as had a great impact on UU thinking. In *A Common Faith*, Dewey as a naturalistic humanist proposed that it was possible for us to hang on to what was valuable in religion while dispensing with its traditional supernaturalism. This could be done by taking some of the traditional vocabulary of religion, including the term "God", and redefining these words in naturalistic humanist terms. Thus, Dewey wrote: "The idea of God, or, to avoid misleading conceptions, the idea of the divine, is one of ideal possibilities unified through imaginative realization and projection. But this idea of God, or of the divine, is also connected with all the natural forces and conditions -- including man and human association -- that promote the growth of the ideal and that further its realization. We are in the presence neither of ideals completely embodied in existence nor yet of ideals that are mere rootless ideals, fantasies, utopias. For there are forces in nature and society that generate and support the ideals. They are further unified by the action that gives them coherence and solidity. It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name 'God.' I would not insist that the name must be given." In defense of the retention of this 'God-talk', Dewey went on to write: "One reason why personally I think it fitting to use the word 'God' to denote that uniting of the ideal and actual which has been spoken of, lies in the fact that aggressive atheism seems to me to have something in common with traditional supernaturalism. . . . What I have in mind especially is the exclusive preoccupation of both militant atheism and supernaturalism with man in isolation. For in spite of supernaturalism's reference to something beyond nature, it conceives of this earth as the moral center of the universe and of man as the apex of the whole scheme of things. It regards the drama of sin and redemption enacted within the isolated and lonely soul of man as the one thing of ultimate importance. Apart from man, nature is held either accursed or negligible. Militant atheism is also affected by lack of natural piety. The ties binding man to nature that poets have always celebrated are passed over lightly. The attitude taken is often that of man living in an indifferent and hostile world and issuing blasts of defiance. A religious attitude, however, needs the sense of a connection of man, in the way of both dependence and support, with the enveloping world that the imagination feels is a universe. Use of the words 'God' or 'divine' to convey the union of actual with ideal may protect man from a sense of isolation and from consequent despair or defiance." Certainly, Dewey makes a strong case for his position, but from the beginning, many humanists have objected to it. Indeed, almost immediately, two of Dewey closest students, Sidney Hook and Corliss Lamont objected. They argued that Dewey's proposal to retain much of the traditional language of religion, while redefining things in naturalist terms was likely to cause confusion, both among traditional religious believers and among humanists. I think they were right. Also, Dewey's contention that militant atheism necessarily a involves a a "lack of natural piety" and that it promotes a feeling of indifference or hostility to nature is not well supported. Although one can find certain varieties of atheist writing that would seem to support Dewey's contentions, it is also the case that there is a long tradition of atheist writing, starting from Lucretius's great philosophical poem, "De rerum natura" that is highly appreciative of the natural world and of the inseparability of man from nature. This tradition continues to the present day in the writings of various philosophers and scientists, who while rejecting supernaturalist belief, are not lacking in what Dewey called "natural piety." The biologist Richard Dawkins is one contemporary example. This tradition, in my opinion, shows how it is possible for naturalists and humanists to get the sorts of things, like transcendence and an appreciation of the beauty and wonders of existence, that Dewey wanted to get out of a naturalized religion, without our necessarily having to hold on to the language and the ritual trappings inherited from the supernaturalist religions.

This article interested me. I appreciated the brief recap of UU history. It is helpful to be reminded that the UU church is a dynamic institution. One of its strengths. My life has been enhanced by experiences in UU churches. The Charles Street Meeting House, still a UU church in the 1960s and 1970s, enabled the early Gay Liberation Movement in Boston. It was the epicenter of the gay community for several years in the early 1970s. Gay Community News, the first widely read gay newspaper in New England, began in the basement on a purple-inked mimeo machine, which I occasionally cranked on publishing day. The sidewalk in front of the Meeting House hosted a warm-weather cafe which was the first open, outdoor gay venue in Boston. Later, the Arlington Street Church drew many GLBT community members and hosted early peer meetings for Positive Directions, a grass-roots HIV support organization, when most organizations would not want people with HIV in their buildings . While I always see the UU church as a friendly and open institution, I still see it as an institution based in traditional, clergy-driven religion. The church has a small front stage, raised above a larger, observing audience. This promotes a certain dynamic which I do not see as generally promoting individual practice and responsibility. Perhaps the difference between HUUmanism and Humanism is this simple at this time. Humanist communities now tend to consist of smaller circles, which occasionally coalesce into larger events. I find this to be the most attractive part of the new Humanism. Less lecture, more conversation and potentially more community service. Maybe the coffee hour of the UU church is its essence for many HUUmanists? Just a thought. As a person with a humanist practice, I would suggest that Unitarian Universalists, as an organized institution, could continue to further the cause of a new Humanism quite easily by actively offering meeting space for all forms of secular humanist groups under their well placed roofs across the country, as some UU churches once did for the early GLBT movement. HUUmanists could profoundly foster the growth of a new Humanist movement.

I'm a lifelong UU replying to the final part of Paul Creeden's comment. I'd encourage any humanist group looking for meeting space to contact the local UU congregation. UU congregations have traditionally hosted various allied groups, like CUUPS (the Covenant of UU Pagans), and many might be interested in allying with a local humanist group.

Alan MacRobert writes "This is the church where you're free to believe what you *really do* believe, without apologies." This statement hints at the difficulty many humanists have with UU. Freedom from dogma is only half the battle, because warm acceptance of any belief at all is intellectual oatmeal. Some of us see that the principles of science and reason, which DO NOT accept any old belief, are properly applied to questions of what is in our world and how it operates, including the "big questions." There is no question in my mind that many of the principles of humanism are embraced by most UUs. I think Doug is astute in noting the differences. However, I think he may misunderstand the motivation of many humanists who do not wish to join UU. Doug issues an invitation to those humanists who are looking for a church community, and he is correct that the common availability of UU churches makes them a more viable possibility outside of major metropolitan areas. However, many humanists seem to lead happy and productive lives without such a church community, and become involved in other groups made up of "people of goodwill [who] look past their disagreements about metaphysics and start fixing the world..." That is, they join groups that are ABOUT the fixing and NOT ABOUT the metaphysics at all. Such groups would include secular charities, school boards, public office, and the like. Those of us who oppose churches of any kind are concerned about the epistemological fabric, as Daniel Dennett puts it. We value public trends toward critical thinking and take a dim view of institutions that steer minds astray with confusion and deceit. Humanists who are put off by UU may well feel the way they do because churches, with or without creeds, value habits of thinking that are major impediments in the effort toward understanding and human progress. The frameworks of science and of logic make certain restrictions on claims, and are thus "intolerant" of ideas (but not of the people who propose them). Does UU make any restrictions in judgment? For example, does it embrace Scientology on an equal basis with astronomy?