The writer of the letter is a Minister of the Free Church and this circumstance may perhaps explain why, in presenting a paper on "Humanism and Sectarianism", I have that particular letter very much in mind.
Indeed, I am tempted to echo some words of T.H. Huxley at the Oxford debate with Bishop Samuel Wilbereforce - 'Soapy Sam" as he was called. When Sam made some particularly counter-productive allusion to Huxley's possible ancestry, that pioneer evolutionist muttered, in a triumphant 'stage whisper', "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." . . . . I only wish, Mr Chairman that I could say the same of the letter-writing Minister but I fear you would rule me out of order!
Let me give a brief account of where the modern Post-Christian Sceptical Liberal Secular Humanist stands so that the contrast between such a stance with that of sectarianism may be identified. I hope to bring out the implications of that contrast for the prospects of peace - which is, after all, what this Festival is all about.
The basic humanist idea is, contrary to most religious beliefs, that humankind stands in no need of guidance, authority or salvation emanating from sources outside of the perceived world of nature. Whether there is, or is not, any creative or intervening agency outside of that world is, in our view, incapable of absolute determination so, faute de mieux, human beings have to do their best individually, collectively, tolerantly and democratically in 'this' life - the only life we can be certain we have. (In humanist terms, therefore, the word 'this' in such a phrase as 'this life' is strictly redundant.)
There is nothing in modern humanism to discourage people from asserting that there is indeed an over-riding reality outwith that natural order but there is, in our view, no warrant for imposing such assertions upon people against their own free judgement. We are not against religion per se but we are against claims as to truth being imposed upon people. Therefore, we humanists have no quarrel with the more liberal elements in each of the main religious communities. No quarrel! But we do have decently arguable disagreements with reasonable believers. Indeed we often work happily with liberal Christians, in particular, on specific issues of public concern. That, broadly, is the liberal secular humanist stance - a stance by which we may be judged and perhaps, on occasions, found wanting.
It is important to understand the relation between mainstream humanism of the kind I articulate and some more militant variants of atheism. Nowadays, we do not often mount elaborate arguments to prove the non-existence of god any more than modern theists pay much attention to the classic metaphysical arguments purporting to prove that god is a reality.
We are not so much doctrinal atheists as laid-back atheists. We do not make 'no god' an article of negative faith; we simply do not see any sufficient prima facie reason to identify a god and so we pass the idea by as being of little first order interest to us. (The god-idea is, of course of enormous second-order interest to us; we are much engaged by the fact that so many good wise people profess theism, and yet do not attend church, and we are much interested in the implications - logical, historical and cultural - of belief in God).
It is our laid back atheism that enables us, so easily, to co-operate practically with liberal believers, people whose gut-feelings, that there is indeed God, we can respect. The only people we cannot work with are those who, by reason of their beliefs, debar themselves from co-operation.
As to the state of humanism in society, I think it is instructive to distinguish between what might be called default humanism and conscious humanism. Most people are now, I think, default humanists. When faced with a challenge, a decision, a problem, few people, I suspect, ask themselves such questions as "What is God's will in this matter?" or "What do the Churches say on this?" or "What has the Bible to tell us on the subject?" Rather, people tend to ask questions that relate solely to 'this' life, 'this' world (I retain the word 'this' for emphasis). These, essentially humanist-style, questions may range from those based upon the highest altruism to those based upon the meanest forms of short-term self-interest but they relate to 'this' life.. In so far as people think as I have suggested they do, and have mostly not even heard of humanism, they may be described as default humanists..
People are like this not because of the machinations of the rather small number of people like me but because the churches seem to them to be failing to talk meaningfully about life. People mostly 'believe in God' (many polls confirm this) but the poll that counts - church attendance and activity - suggests that what is taught by the Churches is unconvincing. It is at least arguable that adopting attitudes such as are found in the more overtly dogmatic religious tendencies may well contribute to popular disenchantment with religion. 'Shooting oneself in the foot' is often the penalty of piety.
The essential role of us conscious humanists is simply to reassure people that if they reject religion they are not necessarily doing wrong, not necessarily being inadequate, but they are exercising a free choice that can also lead to wisdom and virtue. Humanism can match the very best that religion can actually deliver in a world where people need no longer have beliefs - not even secularist beliefs - imposed upon them. The essential difficulty we humanists experience is that of our not being recognised, identified, as a legitimate ideological trend. Religious people, and less-than-religious ones who are in awe of the religious establishments, have no difficulty in recognising that most people are more or less non-religious. Indeed, the more enthusiastic religionists are forever asserting this; it is their raison d'etre, it gives them a stick with which to beat, what they see as the cowardice of liberal religion.
What the religious part of the community has to learn to live with is the idea that non-religious views can be as good and as wise as any others. Insistent persistent exclusiveness in belief is what I call sectarianism and it is not only in religious thought that it is found.
To put matters crudely, an explicit rejection of the First Commandment does not imply an automatic inability to see the value of any of the other nine. It is not true that " without God, anything goes". History shows that "anything goes" both with and without god. We only have to recall two chilling phrases to remind us that this is a historical fact; those phrases are 'Holy Inquisition' and 'Stalinist Terror'.
We laid back atheists think that, god or no-god, it is up to us all, whatever our beliefs, to make sure that the idea that "anything goes" is ruled out of order by all of us and is replaced by an ethic founded upon human needs, human achievement and human self-confidence unburdened by contrived guilt-feelings.
What are the characteristics of sectarianism and in what way do they militate against peace both in the community and at the international level?
The true sectarian is obsessed by verbal definition and the repetition of forms of words without much recognition that meaning is actually somewhat elusive because words, taken literally, can be very crude representations of thought. But it is of no use to go the other way and hide everything behind symbolism and metaphor. Words have to be used with proper regard for their normal meanings but tempered by the exercise of disciplined imagination.
Preoccupation with 'definition' (and by natural progression, the hankering after a creed - "you have to believe in something for which there is no need for any evidence") is a tell tale sign.
Sectarianism is an infantile disorder that is by no means always religious in the sense of spilling over from the natural to the supposed supernatural and back again. It is something which we in Scotland meet every day; it can be defined, at least operationally.
Its characteristics are: 1) we know the truth and if you don't then you are ignorant, stupid or perverse, 2) we are therefore deeply suspicious of outsiders - the enemy without, 3) our sect must be forever on its guard against backsliding in its own ranks - the enemy within, 4) possessing truth, we have a duty to impose it upon others and if 'our time has not yet come' we must close ranks and look inwards and stay pure until it does come, 5) when it does come, as come it must, we will re-cast the world in our image. Those five add up to sectarianism. Sectarianism Triumphant equals totalitarianism or, to coin a phrase, the Singular Society.
It is a sufficient definition of humanism to say that it is the direct opposite of all these five things because humanism values what is acceptably common to all humanity as against that which is necessarily divisive of humanity.
Sectarianism is always with us and, left unchallenged, will destroy us all. But, we believe, a plural society can function without being self-destructive if there is something to come between the sects, to soften them. That thing is humanism - the indispensable lingua franca of the plural society. Our scepticism is to tell people to go easy on their 'certainties' so that our wounded world can be made safe for us all. That is the humanists' job and it is one that we cannot do if we turn ourselves into just another sect "to identify with.". Our life-stance is one that begins and ends by confronting all life-stances (including our own) with optimistic scepticism - tempered with custard pies where appropriate.
Humanism means accepting human variety consistent with there being a stable plural society founded on shared values - with plenty of space for values that are not necessarily shared but which are not incompatible with stable plurality. Peace can scarcely be founded on anything else. Sectarianism means imposed values that would not necessarily be shared voluntarily. Sectarianism is ultimately incompatible with peace.