Humanism: Everything For Everybody

Roy Speckhardt promotes his humanism at HuffPo:

”While religious movements generally depend on convincing their adherents that they are part of a divinely chosen in-group and all others are not, humanism is founded on the consensus that we are all human and that the notion of an out-group in and of itself is an obstacle to our advancement. Though religious people may strive to better the lives of all, their efforts are often limited by the existence of an unavoidable hurdle: all who don't follow their faith are part of the out-group. So no matter how much one faith may wish lower the wall that separates them from another, there will always be a tripping stone between them -- it is exactly this block that a humanistic approach helps us step over.

Overcoming barriers put in place by religion, ideology, geography, and the like, is frequently attainable. In fact, it is the sort of feat often repeated in history. In hunter-gatherer times, humans extended the circle of empathy to their family unit alone. Over generations, this circle has grown, from family, to tribe, to nation-state, and even further. The events in Norway are a reminder of the desperate need for humanity to continue evolving our ability to empathize until we view our world as inhabited by one people.”

Which Manifesto will this coming Humanist conference choose? Maybe a new one, one that will explain how human nature will magically be morphed into a compliant, altruistic one which voluntarily gives up considering its own needs and issues first? Because if they have a plan for that, I certainly am interested in hearing it.

The most recent manifestos, however, merely bleat on about how it would be so nice if folks would just co-operate and be more, you know, empathetic. If folks would just behave differently from how they have always behaved and start to behave how they have never behaved, wouldn’t the world be… humanist? As my friend says, if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts.

Humanism is based on the idea of the perfectibility of humans, where perfect is defined by, who else, the humanists. The understory is that humans can be without sin, and if all humans would just do that, then the earth would be inhabited by a race of gods. The humanists are the prophets and priests, of course. The belief in the perfectibility of humans is without any evidence to support it, and with thousands of years and billions of humans which disprove it; it is a belief held blindly, a fatuous religion with magical miracles and the longing for deity status.

The more well defined Humanisms do not eliminate “in groups” contrary to Speckhardt’s claim. Under Comte, humanism was to be run by brilliant scientist-philosophers as the combination priesthood and governing body over the masses. Under Nietzsche, the “herd” was to be formed into a single class under the ruling of those with the “will to power”. Under the “New Man” humanisms, from Lenin to Che, well, we know what happened there. The First “Humanist Manifesto” is explicit: institutions will be seized and morally reformed for equalization; the later manifestos become foggy quickly on the details, the plan. Humanism is attractive only to those who are history impaired.

To those who complain that “this new humanism is different from those others”, one need only to ask, “how are you going to cause this miraculous change in human nature to occur universally? What is your plan? Will it include Hell’s Angels and Chinese communists and Muslims (both Sunni and Shiite will become transformed into altruism for not only each other but for the Jews)? What about skinheads and politicians? Why do I doubt your ability to recruit Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists and Hindus? Why should I feel empathy for pedophiles? Your plan please!”

Perhaps the humanists will claim that we humans will evolve. To that we’ll ask, since when has evolution been declared directional, teleological, marching toward perfection with your preferred outcome in its sights? Why would humans as a group select to submerge their own needs in favor of others – biologically? What actual evidence (not Just So evo-devo stories like the fantasies in Speckhardt's statement above) can you present in your favor? It would truly take a miracle to get humans to randomly evolve away from their own self-interest. Or would this evolution be forced?

At best humanism is magical wishful thinking. At its worst, and we have seen it at its worst, it is deadly. Either humanists have entranced themselves with visions of their own perceived goodness, or they have not and are cynically involved for the inevitable takeover from within. Either way humanism is neither beneficial nor even benign. It is a social malignancy waiting to metastasize.