To my knowledge, religious criticism, as a comparison with art criticism, is a project of my own creation (if anyone knows differently please let me know). With that caveat, I would encourage any critic to practice self-criticism; not practicing self-criticism is a discredit to your project, doubly so if you are starting from scratch. I have had the good fortune to interview and learn from Greg Epstein, a humanist chaplain and leader of the Humanist Hub (featured in my previous post).
One important lesson I learned from the following interview is always re-read someone’s book directly before interviewing them. Reading a book with the purpose of asking the author questions will help you immensely, regardless of your perceived familiarity with it.
Epstein was polite and expanded on points he made in his book and due to his patience this interview is of great value to those wishing to better understand this version of humanism.
Q: Is the Humanist Hub religious?
A: No. Anthropologically speaking, if you are a follower of Clifford Geertz, sure it’s religious. So it depends on your definition, but we have to make a decision and to avoid confusion we are not religious.
Q: I’m generally a Durkheimian, is the Humanist Hub religious in this respect?
A: In many ways it is a religion, if using other theorists, Weber Rappaport and others.
Q: I noticed in your service and on your website you emphasize ‘reason’. What do you mean by ‘reason’?
A: We do use reason, but we use it less than other humanistic organizations. For instance, there is the United Coalition of Reason. But we are less enthusiastic about it being primary and we don’t have a monopoly on the term.
Reason corresponds to thinking about reality and connotes using all faculties of investigation. It is not wishing that reality is something else. Steven Pinker, the cognitive scientist, says reason is the ability to use our highest intellectual functions that have evolved to solve problems.
Q: I generally like to ask a question or two about the organization. What was it like recently switching from solely serving Harvard students to serving the broader community? For instance, did it go smoothly?
A: I don’t think smoothly is descriptive, because human communities hardly ever go smoothly. But it has gone well. There is a huge demand for this type of organization and a huge non-religious population that really does want community in a professionally facilitated way.
It is becoming increasingly well facilitated. The Humanist Hub is not funded by Harvard. But to be affiliated we have to spend a significant percentage serving Harvard students. We have broadened the scope to serve dozens more.
Q: In your book you state that a better question about God is “what do you believe about God.” So what do you believe about God?
A: Like I say in my book, I believe that God is the most influential literary character created. More is explained about the world, more about ourselves through this concept. It’s empowering to have all of these things fall into place with greater clarity of the universe and ourselves.
Q: Is humanism a logical conclusion of the Protestant Reformation?
A: Organized humanism is not a natural product of the Protestant Reformation, but more accurately a product of human experience. There are humanist ideas in both Eastern and Western traditions. It’s global and the way you presented the question presents humanism as being Eurocentric, as if it’s THE experience of humanism.
Different cultures have just as much to say about humanism. There is more said in the ancient Indian traditions about atheism and agnosticism then in the entire ancient Greek cannon.
Q: What is the inherent nature of humankind? Are we inherently good or inherently bad?
A: There is no simplistic answer. Evolution has no moral design. We evolved both to cooperate and to be selfish. Humans continue expanding the circle of human concern, as argued by Peter Singer and Martha Nussbaum. We are trying to become conscious of our own evolution. And we are imperfect in this attempt.
Humanism isn’t about human perfection or human perfectibility; it is recognizing that we are only human.
Bottom Line:
After the interview, I unexpectedly spent a lot of time thinking about the question: “How Western is humanism?” And I am very grateful to Epstein for bringing this question to my attention. My view on this question has evolved and is still evolving. I currently believe that humanist-like ideas are extremely widespread (historically and globally), but that humanism as a belief system and as a way of life is primarily contemporary and Western.
My primary concern is the applicability of translation; Eastern religions often have different metaphysical systems (underlying assumptions about the universe) than Western ones. For instance, Confucianism’s cosmology/metaphysics starts with the individual and addresses their participation in the cosmos. In Confucianism, there is no God, and perhaps not even a static order to the universe. Epstein’s Humanist Hub is a ‘godless congregation,’ in the context of a God-filled society.
What would such an organization look like inside a context that stresses God/gods less (i.e. many Eastern societies)? Would one call less theistic traditions ‘humanistic religions’? How would/does humanism change these less theistic religious cosmologies? How would/do less theistic religious cosmologies change humanism?
All of these questions point to the difficulty of translating abstract concepts, like humanism, from one context to another. These questions are potentially answerable and likely someone has already written on these questions. (If you know of someone working on the translation of humanist concepts and worldviews between Eastern and Western traditions, please comment).
These difficult questions are the beginning of a conversation, not the end; I welcome responses.
No comments:
Post a Comment