Secular Humanism Doesn't Compromise Moral Comfort

[rug]

BY GENAE MATTHEWS
OPINIONS
MAY 5, 2017

One look at 21st century religious extremism is sufficient to give today’s atheist an ego boost. As religious based violence, discrimination on the basis of religion, and radicalized religious doctrines become more prominent, it is undeniable that theism continues to be a source of global conflict. This phenomenon does not represent a change in historical trend. The impetus for some of the world’s most violent wars has been religious disagreement, and religious doctrines have historically been invoked as justification for violence.

This is not to say that it is religion that has solely wreaked havoc over the course of human history. Some of the most successful social justice movements have grounded themselves in religious thought, and religious gatherings oftentimes are catalysts for acts of admirable benevolence. The majority of great authors adhered to a religious sect and the idea of God plays a critical role in a myriad of revered academic works. In the 21st century, however, academics and intellectuals alike tend to turn their backs to religious dogma.

This trend has as much to do with modern empiricism as it does with the sociocultural evolution of religious practices. With the positivist era has come an ever growing sect of radical atheists. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others are only a sampling of those whose arguments against religion have become widespread. Their writings indicate that the world would be a much more pleasant place if all religious thought was immediately ameliorated. There is one sense in which this thesis is compelling. If religion is only continuing to radicalize itself, then it is tempting to just call it quits on the whole enterprise.

Immediate abandonment of religion is not the answer. I do not intend to argue that religion is inherently bad, nor do I intend to endorse Dawkins and Harris and argue that religious thought should immediately and forcefully be abandoned. Rather, I aim to lay secular humanism on the table as a viable option for upholding the moral comfort of religion while mitigating any potential for radicalization.

http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/05/05/secular-humanism-doesnt-compromise-moral-comfort/

[Eko]

1. As an Atheist

I don't think that secular humanism necessarily mitigates any potential for radicalization. I will agree it tends to or seems to but correlation is not causation. I also think the use of "any" for "any potential" is incorrect, it would be phrased better and more logical to take out any.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. What do *you* think of Secular Humanism? n/t

[rug]

3. I think it's fine but it is limited.

It's a good social model and a good personal model but it is not suited to mimic religion as the author suggests. I think it is mute on questions of religious belief. But, as a species of free speech it must support religious expression. Nor does one need to be a nonbeliever to be a secular humanist. There are many religious people who adhere to a secular humanist view of society.

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. Indeed, there is much humanistic religion.

In fact, I might even venture to speculate that humanism characterizes liberal religion, being concerned with genuine human flourishing rather than arbitrary obedience to "traditional" social hierarchies as the chief virtue to be rewarded in the afterlife.

[rug]

5. I never understood the argument that belief in an afterlife detracts from a full life.