RELIGIOUS HUMANISM ??
15th July 2003
Is there really such a thing as 'religious humanism'?
This is a question about which humanists differ very markedly.
Some humanists will say that the phrase is a contradiction in terms others say that it is not.
In this essay the answer given is 'yes there is such a thing' and that, specifically, the Quaker religion is an illuminating example of it.
The simplest definition of humanism is that 'the human race has what it takes to exist satisfactorily without dependence upon any supernatural creator'. This formulation leaves open the possibilities of there being a creator or there not being one.
There are clearly two different general answers to this 'problem of existence' :
EITHER the universe including, ourselves, is a self-sufficient entity capable of developing of itself into many distinct entities, the human race being one of them ..........
OR the universe including, ourselves, is NOT a self-sufficient entity capable of developing of itself but rests upon an act or process of supernatural creation - a creative act that has 'given us what it takes' ....etc.
The one possibility is generally called Secular Humanism while the other possibility can properly be termed Religious Humanism simply because it rests upon belief in a supernatural act or process of creation.
These are both very difficult positions to defend.
A self-sufficient universe is difficult enough to get one's mind to accept - but at least we do know that we have an existing universe to explain. A created universe opinion is even more difficult to pin down because we have, on that hypothesis, to explain the existence and motives of the alleged creator - a being who in the very nature of the case is, or would be, vastly more complex and many-sided than we.
The universe .... we are stuck with it ..... is clearly there to be explained (if we can). On the contrary, we are not inexorably stuck with the belief that the universe is the work of a creator; we merely adopt that belief by way of persuasion, opinion, cultural pressure, indoctrination, unawareness of the very idea of a self sufficient universe or other reasons that may come to mind.
(I prefer the Secular Humanist position because of its simplicity and I also consider that once you postulate a creator there is endless scope for quarrelling among people who hold tenaciously to very divergent ideas about the perceived creator - ideas often presented as Absolute Truths and often poorly substantiated by hard evidence. But that, for present purposes, is by the way and, in any case, if we did not have religion to quarrel about then we would perhaps find something else as a rallying point it for mutual hostility).
In what follows, my source of ideas about Quakerism is in 'Advices and Queries' published by the yearly meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain. I am indebted to the Chaplaincy of the local Orkney hospital for this booklet (hereinafter referred to as A & Q) and quotes from this source are marked by. ''.......'
Referring to A & Q ..... I quote ....."Some find traditional Christian language full of meaning: some do not." This alone makes a close relationship between Quakerism and Secular Humanism perfectly possible because Secularists do in fact find much that is meaningless or positively misleading in customary Christian language. The secular humanist agrees with the religious believer on many issues but this agreement is often obscured needlessly by the use of customary Christian language.
In so far as Quakerism and Secular Humanism are both responses to the failings of conventional Christian religion, it is legitimate to think of Quakerism as a species of Religiuous Humanism - religious because, historically, it originated in Christianity and humanist because it does not get caught up in such dogmas as The Fall, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Salvation, miracles, the Holy Trinity and other staples of Christian discourse. (These are not even mentined in A & Q). Indeed one might say that the Reformation failed to produce a single Reformed Church - in that the Mother Church remains largely intact and, on the contray, set up beside it a plethora of different and competing Protestant splinters often bitterly against each other, .
It is also the case that Secular Humanism is most prevalent in countries where Christianity has been most influential and, although Secular Humanism owes much to other historic sources (such as the ideas of classical antiquity). Perhaps we can suggest that Quakerism is an attempted 'reformnation of the Reformation'.
"Remember the importance of the Bible ...." `this quotation makes The Quaker and the Secular Humanist mutually sympathetic. Note that "the importance of the Bible" is far removed from the supposed special authority of the Bible. Secularists recognise the Bible as "important". Everybody who thinks about things sees the Bible as important - it is a cornerstone of European culture - but the point is that "important" does not entail acceptance of the dogma of Biblical Inerrancy. Thus the Quaker position is in accord with Humanist thinking and is, implicitly, opposed to the notion that the Bible is privileged literature not open to the rough and tumble of searching independent critical appraisal.
Again .... "Do not allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements that are unfair or untrue. Think it possible that you may be mistaken." shows clearly similar mind sets to be present in both Secular Humanism and Quakerism and reinforces the idea that the Quaker version of Religious Humanism is indeed a reasonable position from a secular viewpoint.
It emerges very clearly from A & Q that Quakerism and Secular Humanism are equally far removed from anything rooted in dogma that might be called The True Faith or The Party Line .
On specific ethical issues there is much common ground shared by Quakerism and Secular Humanism as the following quotations from A & Q show :
"An intention to cherish one another for life" - referring to marriage - "if you undergo the distress of separation or divorce ......" clearly denies the dogma that marriage is, in the very nature of things, indissoluble and implicitly that divorce is simply inadmissible.
"... our testimony that war and preparations for war are inconsistent with the Spirit of Christ" is the one truly dogmatic statement in the A & Q and I happen to disagree with it. There is, I think, such as thing as just war - so do most Christians.
'Bear witness to the hunanity of all people including those who break society's conventions or its laws". That is good Secular Humanism as well as it is good Quakerism.
"Taking oaths implies a double standard of truth" ...... "choosing to affirm instead". That is good Secular Humanism and good Quakerism.
"Be discriminating when choosing means of entertainment and information ......" That is good Secular Humanism and good Quakerism.
"In view of the the harm done by the use of alcohol, tobacco and other habit forming drugs, consider whether you should limit your use of them or refrain from using them altogether". That also is good Secular Humanism and good Quakerism.
"Try to live simply .... Do not be persuaded to buy things you do not need and cannot afford." That is good Secular Humanism and good Quakerism.
"Are you able to contemplate your own death and the death of those close to you? Accepting the fact of death, we are free to live more fully". That is good Secular Humanism and good Quakerism.
And so on!
Shorn of time-honoured Christian language, it appears that the Quaker version of religious humanism is simply humble, questioning and open-minded benevolence under a traditionally perceived god - with a strong accent on actually living in that spirit with the minimum of dogmatic framework or superstructure. Any humanist might settle for that as an authentic form of humanism.
How individual Quakers might respond initially to this essay is an open question for "we do not seek a majority decision or even consensus ........ we shall be led into unity".
E.S.