Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
U AN EIS
S UM TH
N I
H DA
S
AN
D
T
A LD r
IN OR
ille
.M
aR
SM W
nic
NI IST
Mo
by
ed
MA AN
it
Ed
HU UM
H
N-
NO
Studies in Humanism and Atheism
Series editors
Anthony B. Pinn
Rice University
Houston, TX, USA
Jürgen Manemann
Forschungsinstitut für Philosophie
Hannover
Germany
Although numerous scholars and activists have written academic and pop-
ular texts meant to unpack and advocate for humanism and atheism as life
orientations, what is needed at this point is clear and consistent attention
to the various dimensions of humanist and atheist thought and practice.
This is the type of focused agenda that this book series makes possible.
Committed to discussions that include but extend well beyond the United
States, books in the series—meant for specialists and a general r eadership—
offer new approaches to and innovative discussions of humanism and
atheism that take into consideration the sociocultural, political, economic,
and religious dynamics informing life in the twenty-first century.
Humanism
in a Non-Humanist
World
Editor
Monica R. Miller
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA, USA
Specific thanks are owed to the Institute for Humanist Studies (IHS) in
Washington, D.C., and to its Director of Research, Anthony B. Pinn
for enabling such unique, robust, and formidable spaces for unfolding
dialogue, and extended engagement on Humanism. Over the years,
the research spaces afforded by the IHS have brought together unlikely
thinkers across field, occupation, and life philosophies from all over the
globe. These rare opportunities are ostensibly marked by the highest
commitment to thinking, debating, wrestling, and reasoning together.
I am thoroughly grateful for having had the wonderful opportunity to
have participated in several of these symposia—which have always left
me feeling affirmatively challenged towards something new, and some-
thing different. A special word of thanks is owed to series co-editor
Jürgen Manemann who co-edits this series on Studies in Humanism and
Atheism along with Pinn. In addition, my thanks to Palgrave Macmillan,
especially Philip Getz for his hard work with this series, as well as kind
patience and guidance as I worked through this volume. This book
sprang from the occasion of the 2013 IHS meeting in Houston, Texas
at Rice University which asked participants to consider the question,
“How should humanism relate to a Non-Humanist World?” This volume
draws from this meeting in 2013, and would not exist without Pinn’s
guidance and support at various levels. It was in and through his for-
midable work, unmatched mentorship, and constant challenge to remain
reflexive and ask the ‘hard’ questions of life that I first came into my
own voice in, and stance on, humanism. To him, and for his continued
vii
viii Acknowledgements
1 Introduction 1
Monica R. Miller
ix
x Contents
13 Postscript 261
Monica R. Miller
Index
265
Editor and Contributors
Contributors
xi
xii Editor and Contributors
Introduction
Monica R. Miller
I want to know if any of [the candidates] have received a word from god
on what they should do and take care of first [upon winning the election].1
Senator Ted Cruz said he was “blessed to receive a word from god
everyday” through the scriptures. He went on to politically nuance
his position by telling the crowd that god speaks through the Bible,
before he shifted gears to remind everyone that he was a “consistent
conservative.” Next up was Ohio Governor John Kasich, who led with
“I do believe in miracles.” He then offered a few mixed platitudes about
M.R. Miller (*)
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, USA
Our strength as a nation comes in our unity. We are the United States of
America, not the divided states. And those who want to divide us are try-
ing to divide us, and we shouldn’t let them.
problems and injustices that arise from, and whose solutions are often
complicated by, bad faith of many kinds. For many, the humanist task
of relating to a “non-humanist” world is akin to trying to relate to a for-
eign culture without knowing its language or customs. Doing so pro-
duces frustration, resentment, heartache, and at worst, apathy. Further,
the culture deemed non-humanist is often thought to be “guilty” of
indifference towards humanist and atheist voices (though these are not,
as many humanists know well, precisely the same categories of identifica-
tion). Nevertheless, the seeming durability of religious dogma (and their
attendant methods and myths of legitimation) and stagnant beliefs in the
irreducibility and immutable nature of difference across social categories
in the U.S. and across the globe, is such that humanists face a wide vari-
ety of challenges on social, legislative, and personal levels in the twenty-
first century.
Yet, the need for a forceful consideration of humanisms’ relationality
to a non-humanist world is likely as great as it has ever been. Though it
comes in many varieties, humanism(s) promote the value of human life,
the possibility for its flourishing, and believes it not robbery that humans
might see the world as it is—beyond fabrications—so that we might all
work to make it what it could be. One of these humanistic ‘truths’ long
relied on is that much of the world is simply non-humanist. Throughout
the pages that follow, this non-humanist world is respectively animated
and depicted in wide-ranging ways with each of the volume’s contrib-
utors focusing on different dimensions of the world as it presents itself
through the lens of humanism. But to begin, by the “non-humanist
world” we mean a couple different things: First, it is quantitatively non-
humanist, in that roughly more than 70% of the world holds some ver-
sion of a higher power in higher regard than humans. Therefore, to exist
as a humanist today is to find oneself a minority. Second, when consider-
ing global crises of starvation, water and food shortages, environmental
crises, the proliferation of identity-based wars, racism, patriarchy, homo-
phobia, and rampant greed, the world is also non-humanist to the extent
that it is largely anti-human: It doesn’t seem to have the best interest
of humanity in mind. While these characterizations can be viewed as
perhaps more traditional understandings of non-humanism (reliance on
traditional religious logics and reasoning, and lack of human rights and
social equitability), readers will also encounter unexpected, and uncanny
depictions of a non-humanist world that track in a different direc-
tion towards the limits and possibilities of expanding and complicating
4 M.R. Miller
Humanist Heritage—Beginnings
Despite strand of humanism today, most accounts begin, if not explic-
itly, at least conceptually and ideologically, with Enlightenment con-
ceptions of the world, the human, and ethical ideals such as equality,
freedom, and justice. What’s more, across the vast subjects, approaches
to, and practices of humanism, a consistent feature has been a devel-
oped embrace of science (or, the scientific method) over religion, evi-
dence over faith, skepticism over unfounded certainty, undergirded
by a somewhat collective suspicion of the supernatural and theism.
With (now) wide-ranging definitional variability, it seems that one
of the few, if not the only, unchanging principles of the subject(s)
of Humanism is the centrality, individuality, and attitude of thought
which centers the uniqueness of the human, the significance of being a
human.
Beginning with the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries which launched a forceful confrontation with theologi-
cal dogmatism and the rigid religious authority of its time, the ‘Age of
1 INTRODUCTION 5
The Manifesto then begins by noting that “the time has come for wide-
spread recognition of the radical changes in religious belief throughout
the modern world,”3 not as much an eschewing of ideas about religion,
or conceptions of the religious, but rather, with the intention to revise
and update traditional attitudes within religion according to scientific,
economic and cultural change. Of particular interest is the seventh point
developed in Manifesto I, which states:
And to this, the manifesto culminates with a larger word on the nature
and meaning of the theses on religious humanism, wherein “the quest
for the good life” remains what they refer to as the “central task” for
humanity, who is, as depicted here, “alone responsible for the realization
10 M.R. Miller
We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the
natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new
age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets.
Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer pov-
erty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our
behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development,
unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled oppor-
tunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.11
1 INTRODUCTION 11
Given the continued proliferation of many such social ills, humanist cir-
cles might find it difficult to declare this age as indeed having ushered in
the humanistic one as hoped for by signatories of these documents. We
hope in earnest that this volume, Humanism in a Non-Humanist world
serves as but a small contribution by way of this important consideration
raised in the last century.
Non-Humanist—Identifications
Seen together, Humanist Manifesto I and II drafted in 1933 and 1973
balance the promise and dangers of both irrational religious dogma and
authority, as well as, the progress of science divorced from an ethical
consideration. Building on shared concerns from the original, Manifesto
II argues that the survival of humanity, however, rests in “the extended
uses of scientific method” and the fusing of “reason with compassion”
which they refer to as measures that are as bold, as they are daring. Here,
the hazards and risks of “traditional moral codes and newer irrational
cults” as well as the noted “theism” and appeals to a “prayer-hearing
God” amount to a dangerous, harmful and affirmation-based salvation-
ism that has propensity to divert with distractions of “false hopes of
heaven hereafter.”12 Firm resolve, they assert, is to be found in “reason-
able minds” in search of other means for survival. Although cautions of
the “dangers” of unjust applications of the scientific method are noted,
it remains secondary to the identification of belief in traditional theism,
a “prayer-hearing God,” and an immature salvation premised on what
these authors describe as outmoded and unproved faith producing the
primary ‘non-humanist’ antagonism.
I want to suggest there is a more palpable non-humanist admonition
demonstrated in both Manifestos that exceed beyond the specter-like-dan-
gers of “traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults” which “…fail
to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. Something more than
false ‘theologies of hope’ and messianic ideologies, substituting new dog-
mas for old” which together, “…cannot cope with existing world realities”
because they “…separate rather than unite peoples.”13 Such an established
stance against traditional religious faith and theisms, as it were, have long
offered historic and contemporary depictions, definitions, and character-
izations of Humanism(s) most prized, and as I will gesture below, dan-
gerous non-humanist identity that is seldom confronted in tackling the
fissures among the humanist/non-humanist binary: humanity itself.
12 M.R. Miller
in the practicalities of life, were held across the vast geographical and his-
torical spectrum of Enlightenment philosophies. Hence, other systems of
authority (e.g., tradition, miracles, superstition, etc.) were subsequently
held in likely suspicion and hostility.
In a pointed, acerbic, and well-articulated piece for the New York
Times in 2013, philosopher Justin E.H. Smith discusses the tragic rea-
son why the genius, West African philosopher Anton Wilhelm Amo,
who successfully wrote and defended a philosophy dissertation at the
University of Halle in Saxony in 1734 would not, “…spend his final
years as successor to Augustine and Terence, but rather in the degraded
position where someone like Kant supposed he belonged: outside of his-
tory, philosophically disenfranchised and entirely defined by something
as trivial as skin color.”19 Despite that it would, as Smith points out,
take until eighteenth century Counter-Enlightenment thinkers (such
as Johann Gottfried Herder) to “formulate anti-racist views of human
diversity,” Smith goes on to rightly note that American culture would
continue to perpetuate such inerrant concepts and views of race well
after, “its loss of scientific respectability by the mid-twentieth century.”20
Worth quoting at length, Smith not only sharply reminds the philosophi-
cal enterprise of the Enlightenment of its ‘Race’ problem, and hence
‘Ours’ as noted in the title of his editorial, but also asks something more
pressing of his readers worthy of consideration in light of the topic of
this volume:
Scholars have been aware for a long time of the curious paradox of
Enlightenment thought, that the supposedly universal aspiration to liberty,
equality and fraternity in fact only operated within a very circumscribed
universe. Equality was only ever conceived as equality among people pre-
sumed in advance to be equal, and if some person or group fell by defini-
tion outside of the circle of equality, then it was no failure to live up to this
political ideal to treat them as unequal.
The question for us today is why have we chosen to stick with catego-
ries inherited from the eighteenth century, the century of the so-called
Enlightenment, which witnessed the development of the slave trade into
the very foundation of the global economy, and at the same time saw racial
classifications congeal into pseudo-biological kinds, piggy-backing on the
divisions folk science had always made across the natural world of plants
and animals.21
1 INTRODUCTION 15
In his text Racist Culture, David Theo Goldberg argues that method,
empiricism to be precise, and the obsessive import on rationality, con-
tributed much to the kinds of scientific classifications that would even-
tually culminate in what we still approach today, in varying ways, as
racialized categories. Here, Goldberg argues that:
demonstrate, were divided among none other than the ruling of reason
as the highest absolute in guiding and administering human affairs. And,
it is here where the most uncanny and curious of shifts lie: contrary to
what is often attributive of reason to the more mainstream face of the
Enlightenment (thinkers) that assume a hard break between reason and
religion, it was Radical Enlightenment thinkers who insisted on reason
reigning supreme, whereas the mainstream view tended to advocate for
the limits of reason by tradition and faith. While certainly such a bifurca-
tion of Enlightenment thought was much more complex, exhaustively,
on this representative point, Malik writes:
The distinction was to shape the attitudes of the two sides to a whole host
of social and political issues such as equality, democracy and colonialism.
The attempt of the mainstream to marry traditional theology to the new
philosophy, Isreal suggests, constrained its critique of old social forms and
beliefs. The Radicals, on the other hand, were driven to pursue their ideas
of equality and democracy to their logical conclusions because, having bro-
ken with traditional concepts of God-ordained order, there was no ‘mean-
ingful alternative to grounding morality, politics and social theory on a
systematic, generalised radical egalitarianism extending across all frontiers,
class barriers and horizons.’27
Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind
possess. There is no substitute: neither faith not passion suffices in itself.
The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natu-
ral and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in
the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humil-
ity, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any
guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet
critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method
that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with
compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled. Thus, we are not
advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition
to emotion, for we believe in the cultivation of feeling and love. As science
pushes back the boundary of the known, humankind’s sense of wonder is
continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music find their places, along
with religion and ethics.31
18 M.R. Miller
Perhaps the time has come for a deep, uncomfortable, yet necessary
look at one of humanisms longest, most durable, and unchanging beliefs:
human capacity to advance, rely upon and utilize science and therefore
human progress to mitigate the dangers of human incapacity and ethical
unaccountability. In so doing, we must consider that which has remained
the point of recursive orientation for such life philosophies so imbued
with the hope of producing and ushering in a more capable, competent,
and equitable version of the world: humans themselves.
In light of the inherited propensity towards reproducing the negated
(e.g., non-humanist) through negation (e.g., incapacity), what then of
the meaning of the topic Humanism in a Non-Humanist World con-
sidering the long-standing non-humanist dimensions so entrenched
among the humans that humanism so puts faith and hope in today?
Could it be that the god-like recursivity of the centrality and uniqueness
of the (rational) human (and our unwitnessed confidence in its capac-
ity toward good, benevolence, progress, and right and proper thinking)
stands as one of the greatest non-humanist impediments to humanism
today? Humanisms’ continued Post-Enlightenment over-reliance on
the mind, demonstrable through its longstanding emphases on (human
capacity for) reason and rationality towards humanisms’ open task of his-
tory’s’ fulfillment, continues to mark out the significant exceptionalism
for appropriate and rightful development of distinct intellectual facul-
ties: namely, the thinking and speaking subject of history. Hence, his-
toric and contemporary clarion calls rooted in education, and access to
it, as the “Great Equalizer” towards such a humanist fulfillment of his-
tory can be dated back to (and, even before) the work of humanist U.S.
Commissioner for Education and founder of the Journal of Speculative
Philosophy, William T. Harris, who advocated that the “Five Windows
of the Soul” (mathematics, geography, history, grammar, and art/litera-
ture) be made available for all children across social divides. Thus, he
located something of value within the five “subjects” of the “soul” in
their great potential towards projects of humanist-like-civilizing as neces-
sary for, and endemic to, the flourishing of Democracy.
In a January 9, 2017 interview in the New York Times Natasha
Lennard discusses the question “Is Humanism Really Humane?” with
scholar Cary Wolfe, wherein they riff on a wide variety of topics related
to violence and posthumanism, liberal humanism, social difference,
among other topics. Striking here, is the manner in which something
like posthumanism does not serve to connote an antithesis of humanism,
1 INTRODUCTION 19
or that which comes after the human, but rather is meant to denote an
intentional effort:
Here, the humanist tradition is not rejected nor discounted, but rather,
the fundamental axis mundi that holds humanist philosophies together—
the human itself—is affirmatively troubled for the inherent violence of
such hierarchical thought structures and ontological positioning that
enables its cohesion. Wolfe goes on to note the rich and significant cul-
tural legacy afforded us by the humanist philosophical tradition, but also,
remains hesitant as it concerns the manner in which it both manufactures
and relies on ontological distinctions among domains such as animal vs.
human, and mechanical vs. biological. Humanist taxonomies of old dis-
allow the kind of interdisciplinary thinking and language that enable us
to, “describe much more intricately and robustly how human beings—
not just their minds but their bodies, their microbiomes, their modes of
communication and so on—are enmeshed in and interact with the non-
human world.”33
We’d do well to recall what the Enlightenment thinkers of old were
so wont to remind, that humanism is as much a structure of thought
that enables and guides human practice in, and ethical reflection of, the
world in which we live, as much as it is an ethic, a way of being, a code
which regulates right and proper conduct. Here, Lennard raises a vital
point that humanism has been not so inclined to discuss: the seemingly
unchanging, “…hierarchical distinguishing between human and nonhu-
man animals based on a certain notion of ‘knowledge’ or ‘intelligence’—
is inherently violent and oppressive.”34 Appeals to humanity no doubt
have provided a strong, if not the strongest, platform for discussing and
addressing liberty and equality, universal human rights, environmental
destruction of the planet, and inequities among categories of social dif-
ference, yet do so by relying on appeals to the category “human.” Yet,
20 M.R. Miller
On the one hand, rights discourse is Exhibit A for the problems with phil-
osophical humanism. Many of us, including myself, would agree that many
of the ethical aspirations of humanism are quite admirable and we should
continue to pursue them. For example, most of us would probably agree
that treating animals cruelly, and justifying that treatment on the basis of
their designation as “animal” rather than human, is a bad thing to do. But
the problem with how rights discourse addresses this problem—in animal
rights philosophy, for example—is that animals end up having some kind of
moral standing insofar as they are diminished versions of us: that is to say,
insofar as they are possessed of various characteristics such as the capac-
ity to experience suffering—and not just brute physical suffering but emo-
tional duress as well—that we human beings possess more fully. And so we
end up reinstating a normative form of the moral-subject-as-human that
we wanted to move beyond in the first place.35
There must be, Wolfe asserts, a different kind of way to relate to, or
value, nonhuman life without relegating such species to a second-class
arrangement based on human primacy and development, not only
because such thinking maintains antagonistic hierarchical nodes of
knowledge and structures of thought, but also, because it consigns ethi-
cal considerations, action and reflection to biological designations of
“human” or “animal.” And yet, given the divestment of humanist con-
ceptions and individuated distinction of the human today, it is an impos-
sible task to separate hierarchical appeals to the human, or the self,
within legal and political institutions today. Such enduring import, capi-
tal and weight invested into notions of the self, and its unique distinc-
tions and appeals, as much part and parcel to the “Enlightenment idea
of the self,” and its attendant baggage of investment and belief, makes
it, as Wolfe argues, impossible to untether such an economy from the
advanced neoliberal enterprise. When asked if posthumanism has a role
in the great epistemological task of “undoing interspecies hierarchies
with structures of violence among humans themselves,”36 which ought
be a perennial task for humans today, in light of political fracture, endur-
ing racism, sexism, classism, among other grave social realities, Wolfe
advocates for “a posthumanist ethical pluralism” poignantly stating:
1 INTRODUCTION 21
…My position has always been that all of these racist and sexist hierarchies
have always been tacitly grounded in the deepest—and often most invisi-
ble—hierarchy of all: the ontological divide between human and animal life,
which in turn grounds a pernicious ethical hierarchy. As long as you take it
for granted that it’s O.K. to commit violence against animals simply because
of their biological designation, then that same logic will be available to you
to commit violence against any other being, of whatever species, human or
not, that you can characterize as a “lower” or more “primitive” form of life.
This is obvious in the history of slavery, imperialism and violence against
indigenous peoples. And that’s exactly what racism and misogyny do: use a
racial or sexual taxonomy to countenance a violence that doesn’t count as
violence because it’s practiced on people who are assumed to be lower or
lesser, and who in that sense somehow “deserve it.”37
On Relating—New Beginnings
How might we begin to calibrate and recalibrate the ways in which
we relate to each other and ourselves in a world dominated by classi-
fying, marking, and hierarchizing human social difference? We stand
in grave need of new frames for historical thinking that exceed beyond
divisive assumptions of capacity (to reason, thus to think, hence to be
26 M.R. Miller
Our Task
One helpful way of understanding the efforts of this book is by think-
ing of the theme that brought this volume together in the form of an
extended question: How should humanism relate to a non-humanist
world? Humanism in a Non-Humanist World does not settle any score
or come to any conclusions about what “should” should involve. For its
part, “should” connotes obligation, duty, or correctness; and, it often
carries a connotation that whatever should happen will likely happen.
This book consists of a number of humanist and non-humanist authors
who offer suggestions and ideas about how humanism should engage the
world, be engaged by the world, and think about itself. Not all of the
author’s claims or positions agree, neither should they.
Humanism is not immune to self-righteousness, assumptions about
duty, and ideas about who is right or wrong. Where normative claims are
concerned, the moral scale of injustice may balance (as this book does)
between humanism and a largely theistic, non-humanist world. But,
humanism is itself reliant on normative appeals. Consequentially, though
humanism’s guilt may be outweighed by the overwhelming weight of
a god idea that has seen so many killed throughout the centuries, the
hands of humanism, and its human subjects of capacity and great reason,
are nearly as bloody.
Perhaps, normativity—not god, not humanism, but should—is the
deadliest feature of human history. Readers might remember that this
collection of essays is the beginning of a discussion, not an end to one.
The question posed in our conference theme, and the distinction alive
1 INTRODUCTION 31
Notes
1. http://time.com/3988276/republican-debate-primetime-transcript-full-
text/. Accessed August 9, 2015.
2. Humanist Manifesto, 1933. https://zelalemkibret.files.wordpress.
com/2012/01/humanist-manifestos.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2017.
3. Humanist Manifesto, 1933.
4. Humanist Manifesto, 1933.
5. Humanist Manifesto, 1933.
6. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973. https://zelalemkibret.files.wordpress.
com/2012/01/humanist-manifestos.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2017.
7. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
8. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
9. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
10. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
11. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
12. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
13. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
14. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
15. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
16. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
17. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
18. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Enlightenment,” 2010. https://
plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/. Accessed March 2, 2017.
19. Justin E.H. Smith, “The Enlightenment’s ‘Race’ Problem, and Ours,”
The New York Times Opinionator, February 10, 2013. https://opiniona-
tor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/why-has-race-survived/. Accessed
March 6, 2017.
20. Smith, 2013.
21. Smith, 2013.
22. David Theo Goldberg, Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of
Meaning (Wiley Blackwell, 1993), 28–29. Cited in Kenan Malik, “On
the Enlightenment’s ‘Race Problem’.” Pandaemonium. 2013. https://
kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/on-the-enlightenments-race-
problem/. Accessed March 6, 2017.
23. Kenan Malik, “On the Enlightenment’s ‘Race Problem’.” Pandaemonium.
2013. https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/on-the-enlight-
enments-race-problem/. Accessed March 6, 2017.
32 M.R. Miller
24. Malik, 2013.
25. Jonathan Israel, cited in Malik, 2013.
26. Malik, 2013.
27. Malik, 2013.
28. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
29. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
30. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
31. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
32. Natasha Lennard and Cary Wolfe, “Is Humanism Really Humane?” The
New York Times Opinion Page, January 9, 2017. https://www.nytimes.
com/2017/01/09/opinion/is-humanism-really-humane.html. Accessed
March 5, 2017.
33. Lennard and Wolfe, 2017.
34. Lennard and Wolfe, 2017.
35. Lennard and Wolfe, 2017.
36. Lennard and Wolfe, 2017.
37. Lennard and Wolfe, 2017.
38. NASA website. https://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_
nasa_do.html. Accessed March 5, 2017.
39. Jon Mooallem, “Neanderthals Were People, Too,” New York Times
Magazine, January 11, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/
magazine/neanderthals-were-people-too.html?_r=0. Accessed March 2,
2017.
40. Mooallem 2017.
41. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relate. Accessed August 9,
2015.
PART I
World-Views as Options—Humanistic
and Non-humanistic
Matthias Jung
M. Jung (*)
Universität Koblenz-Landau, Campus Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany
but it should suffice to offer a general idea of what Dewey has in mind:
it is the des-integration of the dynamic unity between organism and
environment from which both the desire for causal knowledge and for
shared human values spring.
By starting with ordinary experience as a holistic way of interactive
relatedness, and by seeing science as an incomplete, albeit extremely
important part of the whole specializing in epistemic knowledge, Dewey
accomplishes a naturalistic re-integration of facts and values. The sub-
ject-matter of science is incomplete, but likewise is the subject-matter of
ordinary experience, so long as it fails to integrate scientific knowledge.
Such a task, however, is not as much a scientific one as it is humanis-
tic. That is, it needs to be performed by the subjects of ordinary experi-
ence, led in this task by the articulation of values inaccessible to science,
but elaborated and reflected upon in natural experiences. Dewey’s non-
reductive, naturalistic humanism encourages the subjects of these experi-
ences (e.g., all of us) to realize that science has no prerogative for the
disclosure of reality. On the contrary, science might be able to tell us
that the sun does not revolve around the earth and yet it cannot tell us
that a beautiful sunset is actually nothing more than atmospheric parti-
cles filtering out the red components of the light, or that human rights
are nothing more than clever instruments of maximizing the survival of
the species.
“If experience actually presents esthetic and moral traits,” Dewey
writes in Experience and Nature, “then these traits may also be supposed
to reach down into nature, and to testify to something that belongs to
nature as truly as does the mechanical structure attributed to it in physi-
cal science.”11 Since we are natural beings, and our interactions with our
environment happen within nature, the experiential and evaluative fea-
tures discovered in this process are as real as the laws of gravity or the
genetic code. Taking the stance of classical, Deweyan pragmatism thus
paves the ground for a naturalistic humanism. It allows us to cherish sci-
ence and humanistic values, since both are grown on the same natural
ground of our embeddedness in nature as interacting and articulating
organisms. If we dispense with the ironic and somewhat condescending
overtones of Kitcher’s phrase, we can confidently say: no spooks so far.
This is an important result since it demonstrates the manner in which
humanism, in the basic sense of a natural evaluative attitude towards
the achievement of universalistic values, is anthropologically situated,
so to speak, in the middle region of our life: above the level of scientific
44 M. Jung
of any religious believe in the traditional sense, saving the God-talk for
his secular humanism. “Use of the words ‘God’ or ‘divine,’” he writes,
“to convey … the union of actual with ideal may protect man from a
sense of isolation and from consequent despair or defiance.”23 But,
understandably, this attempt satisfied neither the more openly atheistic
of his followers nor the religious believers. Dewey seems to be insensi-
tive to the fact that the functional advantages of God-talk are dependent
upon the belief that there actually is a God. Furthermore, as I see it, he is
mistaken in another important regard in that he overlooks the difference
between his own quasi-religious world-view of naturalism-cum-human-
ism offered in A Common Faith and his non-reductive account of human
experience in nature.
Precision, I suggest, is necessary here: obviously, both aspects of
Dewey’s thought are closely connected, and for Dewey himself his the-
ory of action and experience expanded to a world-view quite naturally.
Nevertheless, the move from an account of experience which shows us
that values are no lesser part of nature than atoms and their interactions
to a comprehensive world-view involves the transcending of all experi-
ence towards a vision of the ultimate reality. Such move is entirely, no
doubt, legitimate but not, however, an unavoidable consequence of the
non-reductive theory of experience. As I have already attempted to dem-
onstrate, it is indeed possible to share the concept without necessarily
sharing the world-view. And this possibility creates common ground for
shared human values and -rights which are independent from religious
or anti-religious convictions. Independent but not wholly unrelated:
quite naturally, religious believers will see human dignity as rooted in
God’s creation. Such surplus does not, I believe, affect the main thrust
of my point here: many different and mutually exclusive world-views
or religions can share the minimal humanism of allegiance to, if I may
use Philippa Foot’s expression, natural goodness.24 In order to reach this
common ground, they have to accept that fertile sources of values and
norms can be found in ordinary human experience, conceived of in a
non-reductive naturalistic, but world-view neutral manner.
This is as far as we get so long as we put aside the human desire
for a unified world-view which integrates and inspires the search for
the securing of human values in a contingent world. Dewey wrote
A Common Faith because he realized the strength and importance of this
desire, but his solution is nonetheless faulted because—to put it quite
bluntly—he tried to have it both ways. As I see it, theistic world-views
2 WORLD-VIEWS AS OPTIONS—HUMANISTIC AND NON-HUMANISTIC 49
own their inspiring power at least partly to their use of concepts like
saving grace or redemption which can never be reconstructed in natural-
istic terms, since they presuppose some active instance beyond nature.
Dewey succeeded in enlarging naturalism over the limits of methodol-
ogy and thereby paved the ground for middle-range humanism across
the differences between the world-views and religions. But his attempt
to appropriate the powers of God-talk for world-view naturalism
remains a non-starter. If secular humanism needs transcendent consola-
tions, theistic vocabulary and grammar is certainly not where it is to be
found.
Thus far, I have attempted to sketch the possibility and limits of mid-
dle-range humanism through a critical assessment of Dewey’s attempt
to glide smoothly from a naturalistic theory of experience to a secularist
world-view. In what follows, I focus on the status of and mutual relations
among full-fledged world-views.
World-Views as Options
Notes
1. I refer to Heidegger’s famous “Brief über den Humanismus” (Letter on
Humanism) from 1946/1947.
2. David Gelernter, “The Closing of the Scientific Mind”, Commentary, March
2014, accessed March 31, 2014. http://www.commentarymagazine
.com/article/the-closing-of-the-scientific-mind/.
3. For a poignant critique of naturalistic reductionism from a non-
theistic standpoint see Raymond Tallis, Aping Mankind. Neuromania,
Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity (Durham UK:
Acumen, 2012).
4. Philip Kitcher, Science in a Democratic Society (New York: Prometheus
Books, 2011), 41.
5. Steven Pinker, “Science Is Not Your Enemy. An impassioned plea to
neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians”,
New Republic August 6, 2013, accessed March 31, 2014. http://www.
newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities.
6. John Dewey, Experience and Nature, The Later Works, 1925–1953,
vol. 1, ed. by Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1988), 28.
7. Ronald Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge MA/London:
Harvard University Press, 2011), 36.
8. To give just one example from popular neuroscience: David Eagelman,
Incognito. The Secret Lives of the Brain (Edinburgh: Canongate Books,
2011), chap. 6.
54 M. Jung
Herb Silverman
H. Silverman (*)
Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Mathematics,
College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA
Why are there so many nontheistic labels? Many people who are not
religious still identify with the religious tradition in which they were
raised. Some may adopt a nontheistic label popular in their community,
some might prefer identifying with a specific label, and others of us
choose the label that best enhances communication or goals when
talking to different kinds of religious people.
I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, later became an apathetic athe-
ist, and then an accidental activist atheist when I moved to the Bible
Belt in South Carolina and discovered overt discrimination against
atheists. There I learned that our state Constitution prohibited atheists
from holding public office. Since the U.S. Constitution prohibits reli-
gious tests for public office, I challenged this provision by running for
governor of South Carolina. An 8-year legal battle as the “candidate with-
out a prayer” ended for me in a unanimous victory in the South Carolina
Supreme Court, nullifying the anti-atheist clause in the South Carolina
Constitution. I described these adventures in my book, Candidate
Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt.4
Many of us tend to focus on our uniqueness, or at least on how we
differ from mainstream culture or one another. But however we identify,
as human beings we have more in common than sets us apart. In this
chapter, I will discuss ways for all of us to cooperate and improve the
human condition.
lunch, and dinner, along with inspirational sermons at other times. I told
Fuller he could attract more participants if he were inclusive, since we
were all building houses for people. Fuller said, “Not me! I’m building
houses for Jesus, and would stop if I thought that Jesus didn’t care.” I
much preferred Jimmy Carter’s viewpoint.
We would have dinner nightly in Atlanta at different African American
churches. Once I walked in with Carter, and there was a standing
ovation. I then whispered in Jimmy’s ear, “I hope you don’t mind, but
this happens to me wherever I go.” I still think Jimmy Carter is a great
human being, even though he didn’t laugh at my little joke.
Progressive Network
Our local SHL group benefitted in this way after joining the
South Carolina Progressive Network,21 composed of more than
50 organizations across South Carolina. It includes advocacy groups for
the environment, peace, and abolition of capital punishment, along with
rights for workers, women, African Americans, gays, and other social
causes. Most groups in the network either have no theological position
or are religious. What we have in common is that we are all outside
mainstream South Carolina and demonized by the religious right. We
understand that people are more likely to listen to a network of groups
than to one lone group, so we try to support one another’s issues.
Here’s an example of how this cooperative strategy worked in 2003.
The Charleston City Council started its meetings with an invocation,
almost always Christian. Through the Progressive Network, we
persuaded one council member to offer some diversity, and he invited
me to give a secular invocation. But as the mayor introduced me, half
the council members walked out22 because they knew I was an atheist,
and they didn’t return until the Pledge of Allegiance, where they turned
toward me as they said the words “under God.”
After the meeting, a reporter for our local newspaper asked the
council members to comment on the walkout. Those who heard my
invocation, including the mayor, thought it was fine. Here are some of
the reasons councilmen gave for walking out. One quoted Psalm 14:
“The fool says in his heart there is no God. They are corrupt, their deeds
are vile, there is not one who does good.” He then told me it wasn’t
personal. In other words, his religious beliefs compelled him to ignore or
demonize an entire class of people he was elected to represent. Frankly, I
would rather it had been personal.
3 US VS. THEM: BUT WHO IS US AND WHO IS THEM? 65
I read with disbelief the actions of our councilmen who walked out of an
official meeting during the invocation by Herb Silverman simply because
of his religious views. It is most difficult for me, a Christian African-
American female, who has probably experienced every kind of prejudice
and intolerance imaginable, to understand an act that was not only
disrespectful, but unquestionably rude by folks elected to represent all of
the citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, religion or sexual orientation.
It is most regrettable that during a time when the fight is so fierce to have
all citizens’ rights protected and respected, some of us would neglect to
do the same for others. When any elected official demonstrates such lack
of tolerance, especially while performing his official duties, those of us of
conscience must speak out and voice our outrage.
Here’s another case where the Progressive Network helped our SHL
group. We asked if they would support a Charleston Day of Reason,
coordinating with other national freethought organizations across the
nation. I expected opposition from some of the religious members
because it was the same day as the National Day of Prayer.23 I told
them that the day was picked because reason is a concept all Americans
can support, and that we wanted to raise public awareness about the
persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion
into the private sphere of worship. To my pleasant surprise, the vote
of support was unanimous and the Progressive Network convinced
the mayor to issue a proclamation. Members of the Network and
others joined us in a local park for a celebration of reason, tolerance,
democracy, and human rights. The celebration began with a member
of Charleston City Council reading the mayor’s proclamation.
66 H. Silverman
Activism and Apathy
Atheists have long been known primarily for criticizing religion and
protesting the intrusion of religion into government. Such actions are
often called for, especially when conservative religionists set a political
agenda that affects those who don’t share their religious beliefs. We must
confront and respond, and let the undecided judge who is more honest,
reasonable, tolerant, and fair.
There are many ways to increase the visibility of and respect for atheist
and humanist viewpoints. Recent books by atheist authors have created
media interest in atheism, if not its full acceptance. Best selling authors
Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the
Spell), Sam Harris (The End of Faith), and Christopher Hitchens (God is
Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) have given us more visibility
than ever before. We should now make the most of this opportunity.
Other minorities have had significantly more problems than
atheists and humanists. As a class, we are well educated, productive,
and prosperous. However, most atheists are in the closet about their
3 US VS. THEM: BUT WHO IS US AND WHO IS THEM? 67
religious views, and it’s relatively easy for them to remain there. Blacks
and women can’t be in the closet, and gays can only do so with great
personal sacrifice. Many atheists are afraid to come out of the closet, but
a lot of them are probably just apathetic about religion. They have full
lives, and can’t understand why some of us waste so much time focusing
on nonexistent deities.
I can empathize with such apatheists, since I used to be one,
myself, until open discrimination against atheists became for me a
civil rights issue. I’ve gone from religious believer in my childhood, to
apathetic atheist as a young adult, and finally to activist atheist because
of my concern that a well-organized religious right wants to move our
country closer to theocratic rule. At one time I saw no more need to
promote atheism than to promote a round earth. Though a Flat Earth
Society24 still exists, its supporters don’t have the political clout of a well-
organized religious right.
Religious Allies
We turn off potential allies when we assume all religionists are
fundamentalists, and ask them to justify passages in their holy books
that they find every bit as absurd as we do. Some atheists make the same
mistake as religious conservatives, treating the Bible as either all good or
all bad. While it contains many boring, anachronistic, contradictory, and
repetitive sections, it also has passages with rich and diverse meanings.
The same can be said for Greek mythology—fictional tales that were
once religious texts. For better or worse, the Bible and the many
religions it spawned have deeply influenced our culture and the world.
For that reason alone, the Bible is worth reading. Surveys have shown
that atheists and humanists rank highest in religious knowledge, but we
need to understand and appreciate why so many people love the Bible
even if they haven’t actually read it.
Progressive Christians are as appalled as we are by the merger of
Christianity and government, embarrassed by Christians who use their
religion for political gain, and annoyed that this brand of Christianity
grabs media attention. I think we must look for opportunities to bring
moderate religionists to our side. They are concerned that too many
Christians are neglecting the Christianity promoted by the likes of Martin
Luther King, who worked on behalf of the marginalized—the helpless,
the sick, and the poor. Such Christians are more “us” than “them.”
68 H. Silverman
Most “nones” don’t much care whether people have god beliefs. They
just don’t like to be around those who talk endlessly about religion,
and they resist being governed by other people’s religious beliefs. They
will probably not be joining atheist or humanist organizations in large
numbers, and I’m fine with that.
Unlike the religious right, “nones” are generally accepting of full and
equal rights for atheists, gays, women, and other marginalized groups.
If young people continue to be more interested in how we treat others
and what we do to make the world a better place, rather than equating
morality with religion, then we will finally realize an America that values
freedom of and freedom from religion. I hope we are evolving into
a world where deeds are more important than creeds, in which case
atheists and humanists will one day be part of a respected mainstream
culture, along with progressive religious allies. So “nones” are more “us”
than “them.” And when “us” combine forces and become influential
within our community, we can more effectively go after “them.”
So who is “them?” Is “them” the biblical literalists of the world?
Usually, but not always. We can occasionally find common ground,
even if we reach the same conclusion through different processes. For
example, Richard Land,30 former president of the Southern Baptist
Convention, quoted from Genesis, this chapter, where “man is put
into the Garden to till it and to keep it, with a divinely mandated
responsibility to develop the earth for human betterment and to protect
it and exercise creation care.” Humanists have other reasons to protect
the earth, but we can sometimes cooperate on selected issues even with
such Southern Baptists.
Since I always look for common ground, even among those with whom
I seem to have absolutely nothing in common, I was once asked if I agree
with Jerry Falwell about anything. I thought for a moment and replied,
“Jerry Falwell said that God doesn’t answer the prayers of a Jew.31 I agree
with Jerry Falwell.” Of course we agreed for very different reasons.
Humanist Evangelism
Do humanists have anything in common with evangelists? There are
many examples of ugly evangelism, and we don’t want to be ugly.
We do want to promote our values. Theist or nontheist, we are all
“evangelists” for issues that matter to us. The question isn’t whether we
70 H. Silverman
should proselytize, but how and how often? Were I on the other team
(soul saving), I would be embarrassed by a fellow believer who stood on
a corner shouting epithets at sinning passersby. We shouldn’t be scream-
ing atheists, nor should we go door-to-door spreading the word that
there are no gods. But each of us has to decide our level of evangelism.
Many of us are comfortable writing letters to the editor or to politicians,
participating in discussions or debates, running for political office, or sim-
ply coming out of our atheist and humanist closets at appropriate times.
But in the end, religious or not, silent evangelism might be the most
effective approach. People are likely to respect our worldview more for
what we do, than for what we preach.
I’m more of a counter-evangelist. I don’t usually initiate discussions
with religious people, but I do look forward to such conversations. In a
culture replete with religionists, engaging impassioned participants in a
conversation they never had before is for me the best kind of (counter)
evangelism. I especially enjoy public debates with conservative Christian
ministers, often the first opportunity for Christians in the audience to
hear an atheist point of view from an atheist, rather than from other
Christians.
One such debate topic was “Can we be good without God?”32 There
were over 800 in the audience, mostly from the minister’s megachurch.
During the debate, the minister and I got to question each another.
My favorite question for the minister was, “How would you behave
differently if you stopped believing in God?” The minister thought
for a minute and said, “Sometimes I’m tempted by other women and
might cheat on my wife were it not for my love of Jesus, knowing how
much it would hurt Jesus.” My response was, “Sometimes I’m tempted
by other women and might cheat on my wife were it not for my love
of Sharon, knowing how much it would hurt Sharon.” I looked at the
minister’s wife in the audience, and I think she preferred my answer to
his. Whether to base decisions on the needs of an imaginary god or on
the needs of real human beings is the essential difference in my mind
between conservative religionists and humanists.
Do’s and Don’ts
So how can humanists and atheists turn the country around? Skeptics
that we are, I have no magic bullets. However, I have some suggested
do’s—but first a few don’ts:
3 US VS. THEM: BUT WHO IS US AND WHO IS THEM? 71
Some of you are already doing many of these things. Some of you are
discouraged because we haven’t seen change fast enough. But we are
evolutionists, not creationists. Evolution takes a long time. Whenever
you feel discouraged by slow progress, keep this in mind: If we do
nothing, nothing will change. You don’t have to do it all, but I hope you
will all do something.
So who is Us and who is Them? Ideally, I think we should work for
all of us to become Us. Both theists and nontheists differ. While we
may differ on some issues, we must learn to respect our differences.
Practically, we can work toward becoming a majority. That would not
only include nontheists, but also progressive religionists, “nones,” and
supporters of secular government regardless of personal religious views.
We have countless allies and we need to find more ways to cooperate
with such “Us’s” of the world. And when “Us” combine forces and
become influential within our community, then we can more effectively
go after “Them.” Just make sure that “Them” is not “Us.”
Notes
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE. Accessed August
11, 2015.
2. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Without-God-Billion-Nonreligious/
dp/006167012X. Accessed August 11, 2015.
3. http://lowcountryhumanists.org/default.php?page=Principles. Accessed
August 11, 2015.
4. http://www.herbsilverman.com. Accessed August 11, 2015.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition. Accessed August 11, 2015.
6. http://secular.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
7. https://www.aclu.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
8. https://au.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
9. http://www.interfaithalliance.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
10. http://bjconline.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
11. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/12/22/US-belief-in-God-
down-belief-in-theor y-of-evolution-up/UPI-24081387762886/.
Accessed August 11, 2015.
12. http://www.habitat.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_Fuller. Accessed August 11, 2015.
14. http://lowcountryhumanists.org/. Accessed August 11, 2015.
15. http://www.fbcharleston.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
16. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=866365. Accessed August
11, 2015.
74 H. Silverman
17.
http://lowcountryhumanists.org/IRWT.php. Accessed August 11, 2015.
18.
h ttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html?_r=4&
Subscription Required; accessed August 11, 2015.
19.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bull_connor.htm. Accessed August
11, 2015.
20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964. Accessed
August 11, 2015.
21.
http://www.scpronet.com. Accessed August 11, 2015.
22.
h ttp://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2003/may/index.php?ft=silverman.
Accessed August 11, 2015.
23. http://nationaldayofprayer.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
24. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php. Accessed August 11,
2015.
25. http://www.shj.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
26. http://aeu.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
27. http://www.charlestonuu.org. Accessed August 11, 2015.
28. h ttp://www.salon.com/2013/12/03/atheist_churches_a_era_of_
secular_community_partner/. Accessed August 11, 2015.
29. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/09/nones-
religion-pew-study/1618607/. Accessed August 11, 2015.
30. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2006/11/17/november-
17-2006-e-o-wilson/3349/. Accessed August 11, 2015.
31. http://www.religioustolerance.org/falwell.htm. Accessed August 11,
2015.
32. http://lowcountryhumanists.org/default.php?page=videolibrary&vidna
me=gwg. Accessed August 11, 2015.
CHAPTER 4
Introduction
While secular humanists and atheists of all cultures and racial classifications
are subjected to discrimination based on their nonreligious identifications,
secular humanists and atheists of color are often also subjected to cul-
tural policing and social ostracization by family and friends. What’s more,
they are often routinely intra-racially targeted, harassed, and marginal-
ized due to their rejection of what is perceived to be an integral aspect
of “authentic” racial/ethnic identity: religious affiliation and traditional
religious belief. The threat of marginalization from family and community
often leads to secularists of color being ‘in the quiet’ about their stories
and their contributions to humanist thought and practice.
Within secular humanism, the voices of humanists and atheists of
color continue to be underrepresented and not as publicly visible as
that of their white male counterparts. Supportive secular institutions
often overlook or exclude humanists of color from participation in
E. Clay (*)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
C.M. Driscoll
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, USA
The internet plays an important role in facilitating more active and visi-
ble identities among atheist and secular groups via online social networks.
It helps people to communicate anonymously if needed and find support
from other atheist… in digital space, people are not simply media users and
consumers but prosumers as they co-create, both producing content and
using it.3
Tiara has further noted that while news media finds it convenient to
run stories on anti-religious atheists, it has found difficulty in covering
non-believers who have no interest in belittling religion.4 Norm Allen,
Jr., founder of African Americans for Humanism and well-known author
and speaker on the topic of humanists of color, reiterates this assessment
when he notes, “reaching out to show that atheists are not bad people…
that type of message is not popular in the media. The media is looking
for controversy. They are looking for that firebrand type of atheists…
that’s why New Atheists have been so big.”5
The online presence of secular humanists of color also includes a
variety of organizational websites and Facebook groups. Websites that
encourage online community among secular humanists of color include
African Americans for Humanism, African Americans for Humanism DC
(AAH DC), Black Nonbelievers, Inc., Black Freethought Discussion
Group, Atheist Nexus, Harlem Community Center for Inquiry, Minority
Atheists of Michigan, Black Nonbelievers of Dallas, Black Nonbelievers
of Houston group, with the Facebook groups Black Atheist Alliance
and Black Atheists of America, among others.6 Yearly events such as
A Day of Solidarity, founded by Donald Wright of Houston, TX and
annual meetings of various humanist and atheist organizations have also
become more visible as a result of their promotion through online social
networks.
There are several YouTube channels as well as thousands of user-
generated videos and video playlists devoted to the topic of black
78 E. Clay and C.M. Driscoll
Digital Storytelling
Since the 1990’s, digital technologies have been reshaping organizational
and social practices surrounding storytelling, including attention to the
regulative power dynamics of who functions as official spokespersons, what
can be said, and how it should be delivered to the public. A digital story
can be defined as a, “short, first-person video-narrative created by combin-
ing recorded voice, still and moving images, and music or other sounds.”8
According to media scholar Knut Lundby, digital storytelling, “not only
bypasses set forms of authority, but also invites new forms.”9 Lundby fur-
ther argues that, “The participatory potential in self-representational digital
storytelling may challenge established patterns of authority based on vari-
ous forms of institutional legitimacy. The authority of digital storytelling
depends on whether such stories and storytelling become recognized.”10
Hartley and McWilliam define digital storytelling as a media form, a
new media practice, an activist/community movement and a textual sys-
tem.11 Moreover, Hertzberg and Lundby (2009) have suggested that
digital storytelling “bridges the subjective ‘me’ focus of contemporary
culture and diffuse collective strands of society.”12 While some media
scholars have designated digital storytelling as a mediated process,13 oth-
ers have designated digital storytelling as a mediatized process.14 The
scholarly debate on mediation versus mediatization hinges on whether
one is arguing that mobile and information communications media are
agents of a systematic macro-level transformation of cultural or social
4 SECULAR VOICES OF COLOR—DIGITAL STORYTELLING 79
processes that depend on, “the logic of the media” or, whether one is
arguing that because the access and domestic appropriation of mobile
and information communications media is more heterogeneous than
homogeneous in its transformative effect, it is better to examine the ways
in which mediation transforms the types and forms of engagements par-
ticular groups of viewers, listeners, and users have with new media.
The concepts “digital storytelling” and “mediated stories” could be
used to describe an unlimited amount of content and digital forms on
the Internet. Although virtual ethnography is well beyond the scope of
this chapter, ethnography of digital stories would include vlogs (video
blogs), the blogosphere, virtual worlds, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, cor-
porate and alternative online news and magazines, and many other pos-
sible online sites for research. The videos featured in this chapter broadly
fit into three categories or genres: collective storytelling online, main-
stream media interviews of black humanists, and user generated content
from individuals.
Methodology
Drawing from data collected and analyzed among digital narratives from
the Secular Voices of Color Project on YouTube, as well as other user-
generated videos among selected humanists of color, we analyze a repre-
sentative sampling of the digital stories of secular humanists of color. In
particular, social media has been simultaneously utilized as a social “third
space” and hence, an alternative mode of political communication. The
YouTube material was thus analyzed using narrative and visual analysis of
select digital stories as a means by which to identify key topics in the vid-
eos and provide a foundation for future research into digital storytelling
productions by secular humanists and atheists of color. The stories tend
to be autobiographical in form, focusing on personal experiences of an
individual or a particular community.18
Our unit of analysis is video posts (images, speech and music/
sounds), including associated online content, such as YouTube videos,
hyperlinks and the video’s comment section. In terms of approach,
the videos are treated as texts. No contact with the content creators
for further analysis of videos was made. This decision was made by
considering the size of the YouTube search results (e.g., 18,900 results
for “black atheist,” 2710 results for “black atheism,” and a combined
total of over 1000 results for the search terms “black nonbeliever,”
“black h umanism,” “black freethinkers,” “black skeptics,” “black secu-
larism” and so on), the accessibility of already archived videos, and the
participatory mandate and motto of YouTube as a social networking
platform that invites users to “Broadcast Yourself.” Thus, the unfolding
data below collected from the videos were treated as textual resources
that reside in the public domain, or have been released under Creative
Commons license that permits fair use.
We were interested in the texts themselves, the contexts of the texts,
and the texts as video narratives shared among both supportive and
unsupportive publics. We considered the material conditions of the digi-
tal stories (scenic background, artifacts), texts (speech, video images,
4 SECULAR VOICES OF COLOR—DIGITAL STORYTELLING 81
of this deep questioning. Chase even likens the existential duress as “like
a bad break-up.” Thanks to a continued reliance on community in the
form of the Unitarian Universalists, she found her footing in humanism,
and has since “gotten past the point of trying to make other people non-
believers.” Drawing her interview to a close, Chase focuses on diversity
of belief. For Chase, what is of most importance for her is that everyone
has, “mutual respect…People are allowed to call something sacred and
to think that certain things are sacred, as I do in my personal life.” All
that said, Chase still finds a final moment to emphasize just how wonder-
ful it is to meet “all these amazing black non-believers, and it is a force to
be reckoned with.”
“It’s good. It’s good to finally be brave enough to just live instead of
hiding behind belief systems,” Abram tells viewers as the video draws to
a close. Finding non-belief opened her to the possibility of living in the
now, for today, in a way that religion’s ‘believing in tomorrow’ mentality
does not allow.
“so that people can understand” the stereotypes about atheists are not
true.
Whitelow emphasizes that in her experiences of speaking up, she has
often found common ground with believers as it relates to shared doubts
and questions. She meets a lot of people who are, “religious in name
only, in terms of how they think and how they really feel about doctrine
and the existence of a deity, they’re very similar to us.” In focusing on
openness towards believers and openness to personal story as atheists,
this common ground can promote acceptance and respect.
General Findings
In our analysis of the narratives of the humanists and atheists from the
Secular Voices of Color website, several themes emerged. The routes to
secular humanism we observed in our analysis can be coded using six
themes: (a) the ubiquity of Theism and the prevalence of early sociali-
zation into religious identity within non-white cultures, (b) question-
ing theism and the eventual decision to discontinue with theism, (c) the
transition to a new humanist/atheist subjectivity and the search for com-
munity, (d) the decision to either defang or debunk religious belief and
responses to hegemonic Theist culture in everyday social interactions,
(e) the difficulty of “coming out” to family, friends, and co-workers, and
(f) the triple jeopardy of overlapping racial, gender, and atheist stereotypes,
assumed religious affiliation, and hegemonic anti-atheism/humanism.
Black nonbelievers have to deal with backlash. If you disagree with certain
premises you are seen as against the [African American] community. ‘How
dare you be black and not believe in God! Religion is a part of our tradi-
tion…’ You are seen as selling out… looked at as race traitors because you
are exposing the issues in our community. ‘How dare you talk about the
issues of our [African American] community!33
Conclusion
With respect to media and nonbelievers, this chapter has drawn atten-
tion to an important body of data which has received scant notice in the
scholarship and discussions of contemporary Secular Humanism and
Atheism. Digital storytelling, as a low-cost multimodal form that eas-
ily uploads to online spaces, offers big potential for telling the stories of
secular humanists as everyday activists. Secular humanists of color are
employing YouTube as a site for their own mobilization and self-repre-
sentation. The results are both inchoate, yet substantial enough to do
what many dominant culture spaces of atheism and humanism fail to
4 SECULAR VOICES OF COLOR—DIGITAL STORYTELLING 93
…only within the last decade have explicitly atheist groups all across the
country proliferated and become conspicuous. These groups have become
increasingly interconnected, and an expanding network—an American atheist
community—is developing a more recognizable place in American culture.
The Internet and new social media have facilitated much of this expansion.
But the new atheist community is not merely an online or virtual one.38
Notes
1. “Secular Voices of Color.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/notes
fromanapostate/secular-voices-of-color/. Accessed February 28, 2017.
2. Ibid.
3. Tiara, Teemu. “Media and the Nonreligious.” In Granholm, Kennet,
Moberg, Marcus, and Sjö, Sofia, Religion, Media, and Social Change
(Vol. 5) (Routledge, 2014).
4. Ibid.
5. Quote from Norm Allen, Jr. 2016. African Americans for Humanism w/
Norm Allen Jr. Mythicist Milwaukee YouTube channel. Published on Oct
14, 2016. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuy_6x_J-
Ak. Accessed March 10, 2017. See, also, Norm R. Allen, ed., African-
American Humanism: An Anthology (Prometheus Books, 1991).
94 E. Clay and C.M. Driscoll
Digital Bibliography
Videos
African Americans for Humanism w/ Norm Allen Jr. Mythicist Milwaukee
YouTube channel. Published on Oct 14, 2016. Available at https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=kuy_6x_J-Ak. Accessed 10 Mar 2017.
Exodus, a forthcoming documentary about African-Americans leaving God and
the church. Trailer Sizzle Reel HD. Blue Checker Productions. Produced,
4 SECULAR VOICES OF COLOR—DIGITAL STORYTELLING 97
Websites
African Americans for Humanism. http://www.aahumanism.net. Accessed
1 Mar 2017.
African Americans for Humanism DC (AAH DC). http://www.meetup.com/
aah-dc. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
Black Nonbelievers, Inc. https://blacknonbelievers.wordpress.com. Accessed
1 Mar 2017.
Black Freethought Discussion Group, Atheist Nexus. http://atheistnexus.org/
group/blackfreethought. Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
Black Atheist Alliance. http://www.facebook.com/groups/blackatheistalliance.
Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
Black Atheists of America. http://www.facebook.com/BlackAtheistsofAmerica.
Accessed 1 Mar 2017.
98 E. Clay and C.M. Driscoll
Blogs
Kirabo, Sincere. “Secular Voices of Color.” Notes From an Apostate blog.
Available at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/notesfromanapostate/secular-
voices-of-color. Accessed 28 Feb 2017.
CHAPTER 5
Norm R. Allen
Humanist Approaches
Despite its long history, humanism today faces many challenges at
social acceptability. For one, it must compete with the social capital of
traditional religions that have long been around for millennia. As such,
humanism is confronted with a social world that largely believes that the-
ism, owing largely to its longevity, is pragmatic, successful, attendant to
concrete reality and as such, a logical resolution to the pressing concerns
of life. Complicating matters, the formalized structure of religion binds
people together and, in many cases, is set up to punish and ostracize
those that will not “get with the program.”
This is, however, a major advantage that humanism has over tradi-
tional religions: there are no popes, mullahs, and sacred texts to which
adherents must bow for acceptance and authorization. In most cases,
humanists offer their worldview freely, and no one is compelled to accept
it through tactics of fear and intimidation. Similarly, there is no humanist
N.R. Allen (*)
Buffalo, NY, USA
that those who know best the horrors of FGM are African women them-
selves. As it turned out, African women in twenty-five nations organized
themselves to combat FGM in their respective nations. Such efforts are
likely to be much more successful than even well intentioned efforts by
Western humanists to bring “civilization” to African people and their
presumed non-humanist worldviews. Regardless, secular charities would
do well to keep the needs of both the humanist and non-humanist world
in mind: giving blood, feeding the hungry, doing hospice work, visiting
shut-ins, providing money and materials to victims of natural disasters,
providing medical care to the poor. Relating to the non-humanist world
requires doing the work of humanism itself—it is often the case we want
to do the former without doing the latter.
One of the most impressive organizations in this regard has been
Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS), founded by Jim Christopher
in 1985. Christopher was put off by the emphasis upon a “higher
power” in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and the organization’s 12-step
program. Putting his frustrations to work, he started a secular alternative
to AA which has had incredibly productive results and a wide reach—
including an international platform. The organization is non-religious
and disagrees with the notion that looking to a higher power is the only
way to combat addiction, but SOS is not anti-religious and has religious
and non-religious members alike.
Messaging on Billboards has become a popular way and widely used
method of engagement with the world among humanists and non-the-
ists—which can be productive, depending upon the message. Members
of American Atheists report that their billboard campaign has enabled
engagement with non-humanist communities, resulting in an increase
in membership and participation. However, depending on the mes-
sage that is being promoted, billboard campaigns can negatively impact
the public impression of humanists as seen in the unfolding contro-
versy surrounding a billboard proudly highlighting the biblical injunc-
tion, “slaves obey your masters.” What’s more, American Atheists used
the image of a kneeling slave with his hands clasped in prayer. As one
would expect, atheists and theists of color alike found the image and
the use of the biblical quotation to be abhorrent. This was obviously
a culturally insensitive and in “in-your-face” approach to engaging the
non-humanist world. Conversely, another campaign celebrated highly
revered black historical figures accompanied by simple and straightfor-
ward messages.
5 WHERE HUMANISM IS, AND WHERE IT IS HEADED … 105
theft, was one such victim. After finding out that she had five children,
Dr. James Heinrich urged her to consider sterilization, to which she even-
tually agreed. However, she later said, “I wish that I would have never
had it done.” The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) issued a
report on the issue of sterilization in prisons in California, and according
to syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, the report
documented that: the California prison system in violation of state rules
sterilized as many as 250 women many whom were pressured to do so.
Reportedly, the state spent $147,000 on these cases of mass-sterilization.
According to Dr. Heinrich, this is a bargain. “Over a 10-year period,” he
told CIR, “that isn’t a huge amount of money compared to what you save
in welfare paying for these unwanted children—as they procreated more.”1
Thirty-two states have had laws on the books condoning the sterilization
of people deemed inferior, and such eugenics programs continued on more
than 60,000 U.S. citizens considered to be feeble-minded. According to a
story on BBC regarding a 1972 Supreme Court Decision that upheld the
laws, storied jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the
world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to
let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are mani-
festly unfit from continuing their kind.”2 The story estimated that roughly
2900 of the men and women sterilized in North Carolina between 1929
and 1974 could still be alive today. A plan to pay each surviving victim
$50,000 was rejected by the state in June of 2012.
In February of 2013, it was reported that Israel intentionally tried to
decrease birthrates among Ethiopian immigrants by giving Ethiopian
women Depo-Provera, a birth control method that is rarely administered to
other Israelis. As a result, the birthrate among Ethiopian Israelis has fallen
by over 50% in the past 10 years, causing some to label it as black genocide.
These are just a few examples of well-documented narratives that
many skeptics and humanists insist did not and could never exist in
ostensibly democratic societies.
How free are children to be what they yearn to be? They are under the
influence of their genes, environment, parents, family history, culture,
teachers, peers, and social, political and economic systems. Freedom seems
to be a relative concept. Though we are “free” to make many choices,
those choices are circumscribed by many unseen and unrecognized forces.7
Notes
1. Leonard Pitts, “Still Being Victimized,” Buffalo News, July 23, 2013, A7.
2. Daniel Nasaw, “Sterilisation: North Carolina grapples with legacy,”
accessed June 13, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-
13700490?print=true.
3. David Hoelscher, “Grown Up Idealist: Paul Kurtz on Economic Justice,”
The Human Prospect: A Neohumanist Perspective, 3, no. 2, summer 2013:
36–44.
4. Paul Kurtz, Neo-humanist Statement of Secular Principles and Values,
Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 2011: 41.
5. Norm Allen Jr., “On Moral Education for Children,” The Human Prospect:
A Neohumanist Perspective, 1, no. 3, December 2011/January 2012:
31–34.
6. Walter Sinnott Armstrong, “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide
an Adequate Foundation for Morality,” in Is Goodness without God Good
Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics, Robert K. Garcia and
Nathan L. King, eds., Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009:
101.
7. Norm Allen Jr., “On Moral Education for Children,” The Human Prospect;
A Neohumanist Perspecyive, 1, no. 3, December 2011/January 2012: 31.
8. Lindsay Beyerstein, “Why Secularism Needs Feminism,” The Human
Prospect: A Neohumanist Perspective, 3, no. 2, summer 2013: 30.
9. Ibid., 34.
PART II
Jürgen Manemann
J. Manemann (*)
Forschungsinstitut für Philosophie, Hannover, Germany
have.”5 That’s why they resist to think about otherworldliness. They are
afraid that such reflections will force us to escape the problems of our
present life. What counts for them is “[…] what’s before us—the rich
warp and weft of our worldly, human lives—that really matters.”6
This definition of humanism is very common, also in Germany where
the Humanist Association explicitly refers to Law’s characterization.7
But this definition is a form of reductionism which is in danger to cut
through the bonds to the non-humanist world, thus leaving us vulner-
able to the prospect of forgetting what humanity is all about. How so,
and why, we might ask. Take together, the definition of humanism in
its most narrow of conceptions is insufficient to meet human life in its
deep and often tragic sense. To be a human means to wrestle with the
dead, especially with our loved ones, who are dead, and with the vic-
tims throughout human history who will never be able to receive justice.
We humans dwell in stories which connect us to people who live with
us, who lived with us and before us. Therefore, humanism with a sense
for the tragic has to be worked out as humanism grounded in memories
and stories which ultimately bind us to the past. I refer to such human-
ism a memory-based humanism or, an anamnestic humanism. Humanism
without such an anamnestic dimension participates in self-deception by
forgetting the tragic of life and thus is in danger to become, in the end,
just another ideology of pseudo-humanism. Being human means feel-
ing solidary with the past, the present and the future. This anamnestic
dimension is a key-element for binding humanists and non-humanists
together in solidarity.
Being primarily occupied with working out a particular understand-
ing of humanism by pre-dominantly referring to and relying on science,
humanists are in danger to lose sight of the past because science is not
inherently interested in the past. On the contrary, science is a counter-
force to the past because it, at its base, destroys traditions. But, without
traditions humanism risks a ridding of the past, thus becoming a chal-
lenge for universal solidarity as solidarity with the past, the present and
the future. If humanism fails to be grounded in universal solidarity it will
eventually lose its connection to humanitarianism because it will leave
one of the most important aspects of humanity behind. The philosopher
Theodore W. Adorno put it in a nutshell by declaring if all of traditions
“are eradicated, inhumanity will begin its forward March”.8 As such,
we are in desperate need of an anamnestic humanism as a guarantor for
the solidarity with the past and the future because the idea of future is
6 HOW COULD HUMANISTS BECOME SOLIDARY … 119
then, after a while of being alone, after having seen the gaze of Josef and
after having again experienced the cowardliness of the people Bariona
watching at the villagers in front of the child declares: “They are happy
because they believe in beginning.” Thereupon Balthasar reacts with the
following statement: “You are much nearer to Christ than all the others
and your ears could be open in order to welcome the good news.” And
he continues: “He (Christ, J.M.) has come, in order to say to you: Let
your child be born; of course, it will suffer. But this does not affect you.
Have no mercy with his suffering you have no right to let this happen:
It alone will have to deal with that, and it will deal with it in that way,
which has its own purpose, because it will be free. You are not allowed to
resign from engender children. Even for the blind, the workless, the war-
prisoners and the challenged people there is joy.”
Finally Bariona decides to save the child by sacrificing his life, a sacri-
fice which is far from an interpretive posture of weary reaction. He justi-
fies it towards Sarah: “I don’t wanna die. I don’t like to die. I like to live
and to have joy in the world, which is revealed to me, and I would like
to help you, to raise our child. But I am going to prevent, that someone
will kill the messiah, and I believe, I have no choice: I will only be able to
protect him, if I devote my life.”
Here, it is important to emphasize that, “one of the most important
facets of Balthazar’s God is that He does not demand resignation: The
suffering of mankind, though universally shared, is not to be justified by
recourse to some preconceived divine order.”13 Balthazar “suggests that
since man is free he should revolt against his condition.”14
Quinn describes Sartre’s intention very well: “Sartre skilfully, yet
unmistakably, makes his hero equal to Christ, if not even more powerful.
Balthazar knows, as does Bariona, that the coming of Christ will not rid
the country of the occupiers, nor will flowers be made to grow on rocky
ground. Mankind must look beyond the pettiness and selfishness of
existence by exercising his freedom through meaningful choice.”15 Sarah
is very much in tune with this perspective when she makes the unequivo-
cal statement about her child: “Maybe he won’t change his life, but I bet
that he will transform it.”
Sartre indicates how humanists facing a situation of danger and threat
could relate to non-humanists in order to create solidarity between
both groups. He is much aware that, “the decision to engage in action
based on solidarity when faced with threats which can be averted only by
122 J. Manemann
collective efforts calls for more than insight into good reason.”16 He did
not offer a secular reading of the Christian nativity myth, but he likewise
certainly did not offer a religious and dogmatic reading of it. Rather,
Sartre holds tightly to a reasonable position comparable with someone
like the famous German philosopher Jürgen Habermas’ plea for keep-
ing distance from religion without at the same time excluding its per-
spective. Such a position, I argue, can be understood as an expression
of self-enlightenment, serving as a most necessary hinge in connecting
humanists and non-humanists, alike.
On April 9, 1991, a memorial service for Max Frisch was held in St.
Peter´s Church in Zürich. It began with Karin Pilliod, Frisch’s partner,
reading out a brief declaration written by the deceased. It stated, among
other things: » We let our nearest speak, and without an ‘amen.’ I am
grateful to the ministers of St. Peter’s in Zürich […] for their permission
to place the coffin in the church during our memorial service. The ashes
will be strewn somewhere. « Two friends spoke. No priest, no blessing.
The mourners were made up of intellectuals, most of whom had little time
for church and religion. Frisch himself had drawn up the menu for the
meal that followed. At the time the ceremony did not strike me as pecu-
liar. However its form, place, and progression were peculiar. Clearly, Max
Frisch, an agnostic who rejected any profession of faith, had sensed the
awkwardness of non-religious burial practices and, by his choice of place,
publicly declared that the enlightened modern age has failed to find a suit-
able replacement for a religious way of coping with the final rite de passage
which brings life to a close. One can interpret this gesture as an expres-
sion of melancholy over something which has been irretrievably lost. Yet
one can also view the ceremony as a paradoxical event which tells us some-
thing about secular reason, namely that it is unsettled by the opaqueness
of its merely apparently clarified relation to religion. At the same time, the
church, even Zwingli’s reformed church, also had to overcome its inhibi-
tions when it allowed this ceremony, given its secular character ‘without an
‘amen’,’ to take place within its hallowed halls.18
6 HOW COULD HUMANISTS BECOME SOLIDARY … 123
debt to it, if the past is past and the dead are finally and irrevocably
dead?”26 This is the “paradox of anamnestic solidarity,” a phrase coined
by Lenhardt in his generational typology of relations to the past in the
struggle for emancipation. Lenhardt criticizes a materialist notion of
total emancipation which is reduced “to a phenomenology of liberated
man, who is yet to be, but who, once he is, will embody all characteris-
tics of the human species in himself. In reality, mankind is an ensemble
of concrete historical beings, both living and dead, of whom only the
lucky few achieve the status of emancipated samples of a species which
has matured to full growth.”27
To elaborate on this point, Lenhardt introduces a “simple genera-
tional typology where G1 stands for the generation of enslaved predeces-
sors (Vorwelt), G2 for the generation of enslaved contemporaries who,
according to Marx, will emancipate themselves, (Mitwelt), and G3 for
the generation of emancipated successors (Nachwelt). It is quite conceiv-
able, albeit not likely, that Marx saw the solidarity of a liberated mankind
simply in terms of an interpersonal principle of harmony amongst the
members of G3. This would reduce the exploited predecessors (G1) and
those who struggle for the revolutionary cause (G2) to the status of non-
entities or dead wood in the evolution of mankind. And if G2 feels that
it has a debt toward G1 because the ancestors provided, however blindly
and unknowingly, the historical opportunity for a great cataclysmic over-
throw of the aggregate conditions of unfreedom, how much greater
must be the debt owned by G3 to the memory of G1 and G2, and yet G3
cannot pay it off in the same self-sacrificial manner in which G2 pays off
its debt to G1. The members of the humanized socialistic society enjoy
their social praxis, their labor becoming creative, and so on. But how can
this daily routine give rise to the same kind of intergenerational redemp-
tion of debts which G effected by making a revolution of vengence? If a
redemptive attitude is part and parcel of the idea of emancipated man-
kind, is it not rather an unenviable destiny to belong to the successor
generation (G3), for what can it do, practically and existentially, to equal-
ize the burden of injustice borne by its predecessors (G1 and G)? Must it
not passively accept the gifts of the dead, as gods were said to accept the
hecatombs of those who believed in them? If that were the point of the
revolution, its alleged humanization would be tantamount to the deifi-
cation of man: a perversion of the notion of species being. All concep-
tions of a ‘truly humanized’ collectivity, which do no more than project
a systematic synthesis of labor and play, of plenitude and self-restraint, of
126 J. Manemann
desublimation and a new morality, and what not, are plainly a-historical
and, I believe, un-Marxian. They operate with the premise that only vis-
ible suffering creates a barrier to happiness, and once this visible suffer-
ing is gone, a boundlessly affirmative appropriation and understanding of
the world become possible.”28
It is obvious that for Lenhardt, “evils of prehistory may have been
overcome but they will linger on in the collective anamnesis of liberated
mankind. They must so linger, or else the achievement of true solidar-
ity is just another form of one-dimensional experience where enjoyment
of the Thing and the Other is as unreflective as it is under conditions
of late-capitalist affluence. For posterity, gratification is mixed with the
guilt of those who » have made it.”29 In referring to Max Horkheimer,
with clarity Lenhardt points out that, “The suffering of dead generations
will find no recompense.”30 Facing the paradox of anamnestic solidar-
ity, humanists must renounce and untether the idea of perfect justice
accompanying the idea of permanent progress. What’s more, a humanist
has to look behind themselves and what, “he sees are desolate scenes of
human degradation. Unable to administer to his ancestors the traditional
comfort of redemptive certainty (‘you will be saved’), he cannot but
feel utterly helpless and hopeless. Somehow the compass of his acquired
sense of solidarity is too narrow to embrace what has disappeared from
view.”31
One does not have to refer to the category of redemption in order to
stand the paradox of anamnestic solidarity like the German theologian
Helmut Peukert maintains.32 But what could an anamnestic solidarity
mean from a humanist perspective?
Secular languages that simply eliminate what was once there leave behind
only irritation. Something was lost when sin became guilt. The desire for
forgiveness is, after all, still closely connected with the unsentimental wish
to undo other injuries as well. We are rightfully disturbed by the irrevers-
ibility of past suffering, the injustice that has been committed against the
innocently mishandled, debased and murdered, injustices that exceed every
human power of redemption. The lost hope of resurrection has left behind
a palpable emptiness.41
ccommitments which are my own but which are not the result of my
own will. Such humanism is critical to the idea of progress and to a vol-
untaristic understanding of moral action.46 Humanism inspired by these
philosophical perspectives has “sufficient strength to awaken, and to keep
awake, in the minds of secular subjects, an awareness of the violations of
solidarity throughout the world, an awareness of what is missing, of what
cries out to heaven.”47
Notes
1. Stephen Law, Humanism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press, New York 2011, 1.
2. Stephen Law, Humanism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press, New York 2011, 1.
3. Stephen Law, Humanism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press, New York 2011, 1.
4. See: Stephen Law, Humanism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford
University Press, New York 2011, 2.
5. Stephen Law, Humanism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press, New York 2011, 2.
6. Stephen Law, Humanism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press, New York 2011, 134.
7. Humanistischer Verband Deutschland/ Bayern, Humanistische
Grundsätze, in: http://www.hvd-bayern.de/dateien/PDF/
Grundsaetze_des_HVD_Bayern.pdf.
8. Theodor. W, Adorno, Thesen über Tradition, in: Ohne Leitbild,
Suhrkamp-Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. 1967, 29–41, 35.
9. Jean-Paul Sarte, in: Bernard J. Quinn, The Politics of Despair Versus the
Politics of Hope. A Look at Bariona, Sartre’s First “pièce engagée”, in:
The French Review, Vl. XLV, Special Issue, No. 4, Spring, 1972, 95–105,
96.
10. Jean-Paul Sartre, Bariona oder Der Sohn des Donners. Ein
Weihnachtsspiel, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Reinbek 122013. In the
following I refer mainly to the very good summary by Bernard J. Quinn,
The Politics of Despair Versus the Politics of Hope. A Look at Bariona,
Sartre’s First piece engagee, in: The French Review, Vl. XLV, Special
Issue, No. 4, Spring, 1972, 95–105. See also: John Ireland, Freedom as
Passion: Sartre’s Mystery Plays, in: Theatre Journal, Vol. 50, No. 3, (IL)
Legitimate Theatres (Oct., 1998), 335–348.
11. This summary includes quotations and paraphrases: Bernard J. Quinn,
The Politics of Despair Versus the Politics of Hope. A Look at Bariona,
130 J. Manemann
Sartre’s First “pièce engagée”, in: The French Review, Vl. XLV, Special
Issue, No. 4, Spring, 1972, 95–105, 96–97.
12. For the following quotations see: Jean-Paul Sartre, Bariona oder Der
Sohn des Donners. Ein Weihnachtsspiel, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag,
Reinbek 122013 (Translation J.M.).
13. Bernard J. Quinn, The Politics of Despair Versus the Politics of Hope. A
Look at Bariona, Sartre’s First “pièce engagée”, in: The French Review,
Vl. XLV, Special Issue, No. 4, Spring, 1972, 95–105, 102.
14. Bernard J. Quinn, The Politics of Despair Versus the Politics of Hope. A
Look at Bariona, Sartre’s First “pièce engagée”, in: The French Review,
Vl. XLV, Special Issue, No. 4, Spring, 1972, 95–105, 103.
15. Bernard J. Quinn, The Politics of Despair Versus the Politics of Hope. A
Look at Bariona, Sartre’s First “pièce engagée”, in: The French Review,
Vl. XLV, Special Issue, No. 4, Spring, 1972, 95–105, 103.
16. Jürgen Habermas, An Awareness of What is Missing, in: J. Habermas
et al. An Awareness of What is Missing, Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular
Age, Polity Press, Malden 2010, 15–23, 18/19.
17. Jürgen Habermas, An Awareness of What is Missing, in: J. Habermas
et al. An Awareness of What is Missing, Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular
Age, Polity Press, Malden 2010, 15–23
18. Jürgen Habermas, An Awareness of What is Missing, in: J. Habermas
et al. An Awareness of What is Missing, Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular
Age, Polity Press, Malden 2010, 15–23, 15/16
19. Th. W. Adorno, Über Tradition, in: Th. W. Adorno, Ohne Leitbild. Parva
Aesthetica, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp-Verlag, 1967, 29–41, 35.
20. See: Leszek Kolakowski, Der Anspruch auf die selbstverschuldete
Unmüdigkeit, in: L. Reinisch (Ed.), Vom Sinn der Tradition, München:
C.H. Beck-Verlag, 1970, 1–16, 1.
21. See: Darrell J. Fasching, Narrative Theology after Auschwitz. From
Alientation to Ethics, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, 96/97.
22. Darrell J. Fasching, op.cit., 118.
23. Darrell J. Fasching, op.cit., 120.
24. Herbert Marcuse, Der eindimensionale Mensch. Studien zur Ideologie der
fortgeschrittenen Gesellschaft, Darmstadt: Luchterhand, 221988, 117.f
25. See: Christian Lenhardt, Anamnestic Solidarity: The Proletariat and its
Manes, in: Telos 25/26, Fall 1975, 133–154.
26. Christian Lenhardt, Anamnestic Solidarity: The Proletariat and its Manes,
in: Telos 25/26, Fall 1975, 133–154.
27. Christian Lenhardt, Anamnestic Solidarity: The Proletariat and its Manes,
in: Telos 25/26, Fall 1975, 133–154.
28. Christian Lenhardt, Anamnestic Solidarity: The Proletariat and its Manes,
in: Telos 25/26, Fall 1975, 133–154, 134/135.
6 HOW COULD HUMANISTS BECOME SOLIDARY … 131
42. Metz quoted in: Max Pensky, Solidarity with the Past and the Work of
Translation: Reflections on Memory Politics and the Post-Secular, in:
http://www.binghamton.edu/philosophy/people/docs/pensky-solidar-
ity-translation.pdf, 1–42, 34.
43. Cornel West, Prophetic Thought in Postmodern Times, Monroe 31993,
4.
44. Cornel West, On my Intellectual Vocation, in: Cornel West, The Cornel
West Reader, New York 1999, 19–33, 25.
45. Cornel West, The Making of an American Radical Democrat of African
Descent, in: Cornel West, The Cornel West Reader, New York 1999,
3–18, 14.
46. See: Michael Sandel, Solidarität, in: Transit, 44, 103–117, 113.
47. Jürgen Habermas, An Awareness of What is Missing, in: J. Habermas
et al. An Awareness of What is Missing, Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular
Age, Polity Press, Malden 2010, 15–23, 19.
CHAPTER 7
Monica R. Miller
In 1965, the great American novelist, playwright, poet and social critic
James Baldwin in discussing the manner in which, “One can measure
very neatly the white American’s distance from his conscience—from
himself—by observing the distance between White America and Black
America,”1 poignantly asks a question as apt then, as it is today, “One
has only to ask oneself who established this distance, who is this distance
designed to protect, and from what is this distance designed to offer pro-
tection?”2 Here, Baldwin boldly animates the social legacies and contin-
ued motivations of travelers today, in seeking distance from—American
racism. Many black Americans have responded to the cultural and social
distances—noted by Baldwin above—those between black and white
America (economic, civic, and educational disparities, for instance)—by
placing geographic distances between their lives and the U.S. soil. Dating
back to the early nineteenth century, countless African Americans sought
refuge and escape from American racism by fleeing to places like France.
Black artists such as Baldwin, Nina Simone, and Josephine Baker, among
a host of others, imagined France to be a place where they could escape
M.R. Miller (*)
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
brings bodies long absent (think here: non-humanist) in the white gal-
leries (think here: humanism) to life—carving space for the promise of
relationality across great divides of human difference. With the ques-
tion “How should humanism relate to a non-humanist world?” guid-
ing the conference whose proceedings led to this volume—this chapter
explores how humanism can relate to, and learn from, the cultural rep-
ertoire of one of the largest “non-humanist” demographics in the U.S.:
black Americans. And by “non-humanist,” I mean it here as a double
entendre: in a strict sense, black Americans are not usually thought of
as humanist, and yet, at the same time, many Americans don’t tend to
consider them, or treat them like, humans at all. Yet, black bodies and
the double-consciousness of blackness have been, historically and today,
thrust into social realities that necessitate a more general stance of skepti-
cism, and long-held hermeneutics of suspicion, for everyday survival and
recognition.
According to the latest report published in May of 2015, “America’s
Changing Religious Landscape” conducted by the Pew Research Center
in 2014,—the size encompassing historically black protestant tradi-
tions has seen relative stability with nearly 16 million members. While
they noted a growing proportion of “Unaffiliated” across racial and
ethnic groups, whites were still seen as “more likely” than their black
and Hispanic counterparts to say that they have no religion. Among
other groups, blacks overwhelmingly identified with Protestantism
at 71% in 2014, and overwhelmingly comprised 85% of those identi-
fied as Christian in 2007. In 2007, African-Americans were considered
“markedly religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. popula-
tion as whole” with 87% of this demographic “describing themselves as
belonging to one religious group or another.”4 In terms of stated belief,
not much has changed in this recent report, on almost every measure
(barring a few) broken down by race/ethnicity has blacks outnumber-
ing their counterparts as it co ncerns belief in god (83%), importance
of religion in one’s life (75%), attendance at religious service (47%), fre-
quency of prayer (73%), frequency of religious education, scripture study,
etc., (39%), frequency of meditation (52%), frequency of feeling spiritual
peace and wellbeing (69%), religion as source of guidance for right and
wrong (43%), frequency of reading scripture (54%), literal interpretation
of scripture (51%), belief in heaven (86%), and belief in hell (73%).5 Of
course—differences among gender, age, class, sexuality, region among
other measures of difference cut across such numbers in varying ways.
136 M.R. Miller
agency and humanity, whites instead, killed them and enacted disen-
franchisement laws. Physical death, social death, and anti-black judi-
cial protraction made black humanity effectively invisible to whites—yet
omnipresent—to America and its cultural production. Violence erupted
again in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, when many of the Jim
and Jane Crow Laws were finally overturned. Perhaps, we are seeing
today another such moment of heightened white anxiety. And so, they
kill, as a response to their racial apprehension. Add to this the symbolic
and psychological social impact of the first black president, in tandem
with being told by social scientists that whites are losing some aspect of a
normative demographic footing sure to continue over the next few dec-
ades. Thus, there’s little left to wonder as to why so many black men and
women, and for so long, are being transformed into dead black men and
women. America’s preoccupation with securing and maintaining white-
ness effectively ensures we function as a social factory, anesthetized to our
principle product, of which we are drowning, in a surplus of black bodies.
To this point, much of my work thinks with‚ and has been influenced
by‚ two primary groups: one that tends to think there is something to the
idea of religion that we cannot see, something essential, sui generis about
religion, god, or race, etc. The other group is intensely skeptical of those
positions, and suspicious that claims about “faith” and “religion” all too
often end up “religious”—for instance, “god is good.” This skeptical
group has taught me much about how to study religion without being
religious and in what way to critically position myself as a human scientist
studying the stuff we call “religion.” Much like the humanist and non-
humanist, neither of these groups has taught me much about how to talk
about one to the other—how to relate. What has, however—are the skills
of dexterity in the creative tensions posed between absence/presence
in hip hop culture—where I frequently figure many rappers as “Outlaw
Humanists.” In the volume What is Humanism and Why Does It Matter
(2013) edited by Anthony B. Pinn, I argued that an “Outlaw Humanist”
is someone that is either “outlawed” by the larger society for ideologi-
cal reasons of one sort or another, and also “outlawed” by humanist
camps that for reasons of epistemological unfamiliarity‚ social and cul-
tural difference‚ etc., don’t easily fit into traditional definitions and cat-
egorizations of humanist‚ secular or atheist. Thus‚ Outlaw humanism is
animated by an embodied, felt, experientially based wrestling with life’s
messiness, with the “funk” of life, that despite grand claims to freedom,
reason, scientific rationality, agency and the like, those who have had
7 THE ABSENCE OF PRESENCE: RELATING TO BLACK (NON)HUMANISMS … 139
their freedom and agency truncated, are left with few options beyond
holding such ideas and platitudes as suspect. Being black in the Western
world has required a confrontation with slavery, Jim and Jane Crow,
skewed academic theories and establishments, a current prison industrial
complex assaulting black freedom and agency, along with the currently
(exposed) long-standing trend of police brutality and murder of black
bodies in the U.S. Are not these sorts of matters—of freedom, justice,
agency, and equity—issues important to both humanist and non-human-
ist alike beyond acceptance/rejection of theistic/anti-theistic standpoints?
Despite the social scientific portrait often painting communities of
color as overly religious (in terms of belief), much of what experts come
to count as “religious” among this demographic offers scant attention
to the manner in which religious vocabulary is often used as signifying
means of talking not about a metaphysical otherworldly place, but rather,
grammatical resource to call oneself into legibility. Many rap artists, for
example, don’t fear religious language or religious people—instead, they
play with it—often using and putting to work what they have cultivated
for re-mixed life options and the recognition of full humanity.
Manufactured Divides
Taken together, I approach the question framing this volume like I do
much of my scholarship in the academic study of religion: with a decon-
structive suspicion regarding what type of work, or heavy lifting, we
assume our categories (e.g., humanism vs. non-humanist) to be accom-
plishing in the varied work we set out to do in our respective spaces of
concern. Put differently, I am skeptical about the manner in which false
divides (e.g., meaningful vs. meaninglessness; good vs. bad; moral vs.
immoral) are perpetuated in humanist spaces, which maintain (and rely
upon) a hermeneutic of suspicion about ideas or groups deemed “non-
humanist.” What sorts of politics of distinction and orthodoxies are at
work in how humanists classify the classified of what we perceive to be
the non-humanist world? Is the majority of the world non-humanist, if
so by what account (philosophical standpoint, lack of appeals to assumed
reason, educational attainment, etc.)? Could it be that our classificatory
taxonomies; ethical normativities; overreliance on certainty; and stiff
“scientific” analytical frames are too firm, and shortsighted, to come to
grips with just how blurry the diverging and converging lines between
humanism and non-humanism are?
140 M.R. Miller
the Nation of Gods and Earths’ (Five-Percent Nation) radical and contro-
versial philosophy of god—understood as black people in their full human-
ity (arm, leg, leg, arm, head). Hip hop, in all of its wit and cleverness, is
extremely adept at flipping the script—much of which is learned through
its posture of uncertainty. Thinking back to the landscape and portrait of
unending black death in America sketched out at the beginning of this
chapter—any angst over the track’s christian-centric sensibilities is quickly
assuaged in the third stanza when Jay foregrounds the song’s “ultimate
concerns” for his listeners: “Knowledge, wisdom, freedom, understand-
ing—we just want our equality. Food, clothing, shelter—help a nigga find
some peace. Happiness for a gangsta ain’t no love in the streets.”
Between his lyrical construction of a heaven to “help a nigga find
some peace” and his bum rush of blackness into all-white galleries in
“Picasso Baby”—Jay-Z’s aesthetic manipulation of social distances com-
pellingly reconstructs the not-yet (absence) of blackness into full recogni-
tion (presence) through an amalgamation of lyrical, sonic, and embodied
uncertainty: “Question religion, question it all, question existence until
them questions are solved.” Can humanism discern the non-humanist-
illegible-black-gods-in-the-flesh among them? Even if, and when, the
language, source, and mode remain in opposition to the manufactured
antagonisms of what is‚ and isn’t‚ humanist/non-humanist, are human-
ist ears open enough to listen to what the other has to say? More prag-
matically put, if you are someone who would have avoided taking a listen
to Jay-Z’s track “Heaven” based on hostile antipathies of what is/isn’t
“properly” humanist—then these questions might be for you.
The altered and ever changing concerns over identity, authenticity,
and recognition entrenched in, and grappled among, much of hip hop
cultural products offers acute insight into, and a solid map of, what
humanists might consider navigating as they go about the business
of relating to the non-humanist world. Like Jay-Z’s turn to renowned
performance artist Marina Abromovic and the white gallery—consider
unlikely sites, improbable spaces, and unfamiliar people in efforts at col-
laborating and relationality.
In their respective crafts, black god-body Jay-Z and the one who
many consider the most high of performance art, Abramović—through
unsuspecting collaboration are able to bring together the familiar and the
strange; humans and those still yet-to-be considered fully human; high
art and low art culminating in a microcosm of what can be made of the
world when antagonisms of relationship are fused together. Notice how
7 THE ABSENCE OF PRESENCE: RELATING TO BLACK (NON)HUMANISMS … 147
Notes
1. James Baldwin, “The White Man’s Guilt,” Originally published in Ebony,
1965.
2. James Baldwin, “The White Man’s Guilt,” Originally published in Ebony,
1965.
3. Himanshu Suri, “Heems Reviews Jay-Z’s ‘Picasso Baby’,” August 3,
2013. http://www.spin.com/2013/08/heems-jay-z-picasso-baby-per-
formance-art-film-hbo-review/. Accessed August 10, 2015.
4. “A Religious Portrait of African-Americans,” http://www.pewforum.
org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/#2, Pew
Research Center, 2009. Accessed in November 2013.
5. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-
composition/. Accessed in June 2016.
6. “Man Who Killed Jordan Davis in “Loud Music” Case Sentenced to Life
in Prison,” by Ben Mathis-illey, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat-
est/2014/10/17/michael_dunn_life_sentence_jordan_davis_loud_
music_killer_given_indefinite.html. Accessed October 2014.
7. “Black death has become a cultural spectacle: Why the Walter Scott
tragedy won’t change White America’s mind, http://www.salon.
com/2015/04/08/black_death_has_become_a_cultural_spectacle_why_
the_walter_scott_tragedy_wont_change_white_americas_mind/?utm_
source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow&hc_location=ufi. Accessed
June 1, 2015.
8. William Edward Arnal and Russell T. McCutcheon. The Sacred Is the
Profane: The Political Nature of Religion. Oxford University Press, 2012,
27.
9. Ibid., 133.
10. Jacques Derrida and Elisabeth Roudinesco. For What Tomorrow…: A
Dialogue. Translated by Jeff Fort. 1 edition. Stanford, Calif: Stanford
University Press, 2004, 48.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 58.
13. Ibid.
14. Anthony B. Pinn, The End of God-Talk: An African American Humanist
Theology. Oxford University Press, USA, 2012.
CHAPTER 8
Christopher M. Driscoll
With the promise and peril of the Cold War’s impending end on the
world’s mind, a stoic (and by today’s standards, brilliant) Reagan
speaks here of a universal human “pilgrimage” linking all of humanity
in a quest for peace. Thirty years later, however, this quest has yet
to be achieved. Yet in these 1987 words invoked above, Reagan
seemingly gave rhetorical hope to the world that a particular brand of
C.M. Driscoll (*)
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, USA
Rhetorics of Exclusion
be “strong” humanists who have little time for dialogue with theists, or
patience for conceptions of theism.8 Others might self-identify more sim-
ply as “non-theists” for whom talk about god is simply confusing, and
therefore deemed illogical. Others may be agnostic skeptics, for whom
clan allegiance extends first to a critical skeptical method, with conclu-
sions serving as secondary effects. Whether framed in organizational or
ideological ways, we are composed of clans constituting a a much larger
tribal affiliation. For most of us, reason, science and critical thinking are
indeed the sacred objects we tend to glorify, dare we say worship. Such
“values” never have, really though, ensured the full humanity of those
seen without access to such critically-oriented “gifts.” Instrumentalizing
them (i.e. turning them into an object for our use and self-identification)
has never prevented human destruction and dehumanization, histori-
cally or at present. Belief in god or gods, religiously-motivated oppres-
sion, and other objects or ideas are those that must not come in contact
with our sacred objects, yet our identification as the antithesis of such is
reliant upon a negative dialectic9 that is constantly in tension with our
critique and disavowal of the legitimacy of such conceptions. God, and
religion, for many of us, pose risk to our sacred secular centers, risk-
ing the destabilization of a world incapable of legislating and living in
rational, reasonable and scientific ways. Of course, some aspects of these
profane (i.e. “outsider”) objects are worth fighting against, because they
pose acute risks to our hallowed objects of freedom, liberty and justice.
The teaching of creationism in schools, for instance, poses a clear risk to
not only the theory of evolution, but to our humanistic trust in a scien-
tific method we value as humanists and atheists. Talk of humanism as a
tribe, replete with sacred and profane objects, is not an effort to deni-
grate humanism. Following Maffesoli’s theoretical position, we can only
gain much knowledge about ourselves, and who we are, by beginning
to see ourselves as a tribe in a world of many other competing, and yet
overlapping, tribal affiliations.
And so, if we understand humanism as a tribe, what might it then
suggest about our particularist view of the world that we posit the
world as “non-humanist?” This would be akin to a tribe imagining itself
as alien to the world in which it finds itself, insomuch as whatever it is,
it believes the world to not, somehow be, constituted through similar
social registers. Such a position may have the effect of preventing
a rational outlook on the world as equally motivated by such tribal
impulses. Ironically, though, this effect is swiftly deconstructed when
158 C.M. Driscoll
Fermi’s Paradox
Named after the physicist Enrico Fermi, Fermi’s paradox is the product
of a thoroughly critical, scientific mind.13 The story goes that one day
while at lunch, the topic of aliens from outer space came up. Surely, to
deny the possibility of alien life on other worlds is to somehow over-
determine and privilege humans. There are billions of galaxies, each with
160 C.M. Driscoll
billions of stars, with billions and billions of those stars likely surrounded
by countless planets, many of which are located in what we now refer
to as the “goldilocks” position—that position perfectly distanced from
the star so as to promote the development of life. On top of this, the
universe is billions of years old. Statistically, these numbers would
suggest it would be a miracle if we were the only life in the universe.
By this estimation, it is not a matter of if we are alone, but when we
will have proof that we are not alone. If we conclude that we are alone
based on lacking empirical evidence then we, humanists, run the risk
of perpetuating a hyper-humanocentric approach grounded in an over-
certainty of the human (mind) as the all-knowing axis mundi—namely,
a humanist gospel of science. If we, on the other hand, leave open the
possibility that we might not be alone, then such skepticism over and
about what it means to be human and distinguish the non-human(ist)
among us must likewise persist. Either way, the certainty of empirical or
rational scientific data is lacking, thus leaving us only with the reliability
of skeptical and statistical uncertainty on both ends.
To the question of the possibility of life beyond this world, the physicist
Fermi wasn’t convinced. Spacetime, for Fermi, presented a challenge.
Legend has it that he quipped: “Where are they?” So was born the
paradox adjudicating for the lack of any quantifiable evidence that we are
(or are not) alone in the universe. Based on the number of possible planets
and the time that has elapsed for other civilizations to evolve and make
contact with us, there is undoubtedly life elsewhere in the universe. Yet,
that same statistical proof for the existence of that life also proves that we
will never make contact with that life, as the distances are simply far too
great to overcome. So goes Fermi’s Paradox.
Although humanists and many humanist organizations see something
defensible about the rationality and reliability of science (especially over
faith), as atheists and skeptics, we aren’t really “supposed” to believe in
aliens, after all. Yet, science tells us they likely exist. Moreover, NASA,
SETI, and other legitimate scientific organizations are actively engaged
in the search for life (complex or basic) in space, under the premise of
“what makes humans unique”, or wanting to know if other planets are
habitable (for extraneous eventualities necessitating we pack our bags
quickly). The debate about believing in aliens, rather than following the
logic of believing in god (though these debates often overlap—a topic
for another essay), is a matter of holding the complexity of the Fermi
paradox in balance. Many scientists today “believe” in extraterrestrial life,
8 RUDY’S PARADOX: THE ALIENATION OF RACE AND ITS NON-HUMANS 161
even though demonstrable proof has not yet been found. What they do
not believe in, saving a select few, is that we’ve made contact with them.
We are not supposed to “believe” that Area 51 and Wright Patterson
Air Force Base are holding little green men. It is bad form. We may
enjoy the television programs, with the big hair and even bigger claims
about contact, but there is simply no evidence to whet a humanist’s
empirically-motivated, rational whistle. Leave it to Fermi, and Reagan’s
rhetorical shout out to an “alien force” was purely political theatre.
Aliens do not walk among us, and they never will.
In steps Rudy.
alien personality that mounts the body of the German “Karl,” and then
Rudy (the alien) records himself offering biting social analysis on a wide
range of overlapping contemporary mythologies. Basically, in the person
of Karl, contemporary myths surrounding intergalactic alien races over-
laps with nineteenth century myths surrounding human racial categories.
By internet fame standards, Rudolf’s numbers are somewhat modest.
Yet, the thousands of subscribers to his YouTube Channel suggest that
many around the world (and maybe beyond the world) find uniqueness
and value in his messages. Could a humanist?
Rudolf published his first video onto YouTube on June 15, 2015
under the polemical title “White People Are Not Human. The Original
Confession.” As of February 2017, the video has over 700,000
views and 12,000 comments.15 Addressed to “dark-skinned people,”
particularly black Americans, Rudy offers them a strange sort of
confession in his German-accented English. In this commentary, Rudy
begins by confirming what he believes to be a long held suspicion of
many black folk: that “white people are not really human,”16 a claim to
which he offers this reply:
Proclaiming that all white people share a secret language, Rudy confesses
that he feels awful about our shared “white” effort to control the rest of
the world’s races. Rudy holds that we whites have “no good intentions”
and that “we do not want to share our wealth …or knowledge…with
you.”18 The video concludes with Rudy apologizing to black folks for
the “bad behavior” of white folks for the last hundreds of years.19 While
Rudy attempts to offer an account of white peoples’ dehumanizing and
colonizing behaviors over the years, here he likewise seemingly flips the
frame of human(ist)/non-human(ist) by inverting the long-believed
8 RUDY’S PARADOX: THE ALIENATION OF RACE AND ITS NON-HUMANS 163
A creole black woman said that you contacted her. I am annoyed because I
asked for [alien] contact years ago and never received contact. What steps
must I take to contact you. [sic]
Conclusion
Rudy offers a paradox to us in that he asks more from us than most are
willing (and maybe, able) to provide. As the world, the western one (par-
ticularly) continues to seemingly unravel through a wide array of shifts
in public sentiment, transfers of global power, and competing claims to
who the “West” represents, the notion of humanists giving serious atten-
tion to a self-proclaimed Alien in our midst seems a bit misguided. Don’t
the serious times require serious attention? Yes.
However, Rudy’s Paradox is serious, even if his rhetorical packaging
cuts against the better angels of our humanist sensibilities. Whether or
not we organize our humanist efforts in service of understanding aliens
(already among us), to say nothing of potential “alien forces” warned
of by Reagan, is perhaps no higher goal for humanists and humanisms,
today.
Continually, humanist organizations seek to make objects of the
other. How do we reach out to the LGBTQ community? Where can
we find more black humanists? These questions have practical answers,
and rightly, many humanists are interested in finding such answers. But
with respect to the white humanists among us, we’d do well to imagine
ourselves as alien—threatening to humans (unlike us) precisely because
we have such difficulty hearing voices and stories that press our rational
or cultural faculties. Listening to the wisdom of Rudy is not a h
omology
for listening to black or brown or queer voices inside or out of the
humanist and secular tribe. Tribal affiliations will organize according
to clan allegiances, regardless. Rather, coming to terms with Rudy’s
paradox involves accepting the limits of rhetorics and postures which
overemphasize the alienation we face as white humanists, and r esponding
to the antagonisms we promote in the world under service of “our”
168 C.M. Driscoll
humanism. This essay is but one small step in service to the giant leap
needed for any humanism worthy of its namesake, human.
Notes
1. Ronald Reagan. Address to the 42nd Session of the United Nations
General Assembly in New York, New York—September 21, 1987.
https://reaganlibrary.archives.gov/archives/speeches/1987/092187b.
htm. Accessed February 17, 2017.
2. Kailani Koenig. Flashback: Reagan’s vision for a unifying alien invasion.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/flashback-reagans-vision-unifying.
Accessed February 27, 2017.
3. Christopher M. Driscoll, White Lies: Race and Uncertainty in the Twilight
of American Religion (Routledge, 2016). See Chap. 3 for a discussion of
“uncertain humanism” for more information on this humanist posture.
4. Bernard Schweizer, Hating God: The Untold Story of Misotheism (Oxford
University Press, 2010).
5. J.L. Austin. How to Do Things with Words: Second Edition. Revised
(Cambridge: William James Lectures, 1975).
6. See Chap. 4 of this volume for more discussion of double and triple
jeopardy as it relates to humanism.
7. Michel Maffesoli, The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism
in Mass Society. 1 edition. (London; Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE
Publications Ltd, 1996), 21.
8. Anthony B. Pinn, Why Lord: Suffering and Evil in Black Theology
(Continuum, 1995).
9. Theodor Adorno, Negative Dialectics (Bloomsbury Academic, 1981).
10. Michel Foucault, “What is Enlightenment?” in Paul Rabinow, ed., The
Foucault Reader (Pantheon, 1984), 32–50.
11. Emile Durkheim. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Dover
Publications, 2008).
12. Ibid.
13. “Fermi’s Paradox (i.e. Where are They?) http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/
cosmo/lectures/lec28.html. Accessed February 17, 2017.
14. “Eternal life for you and your loved ones! Rudolf the tall white alien.
No. 276.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM-RIdsntew. Accessed
February 27, 2017.
15. Rudolf of Germany, the Tall White Alien. “White people are not human.
The original confession.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4eh
8Y2G90. Accessed February 27, 2017.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
8 RUDY’S PARADOX: THE ALIENATION OF RACE AND ITS NON-HUMANS 169
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX9977Q36-GvegkIt-3N5Ew/
discussion. Accessed February 27, 2017.
21. “The truth about Hillary Clinton’s coughing fits! Rudolf of Germany.
Part 167” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrsKJSj6Hc4. Accessed
February 27, 2017.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
CHAPTER 9
Figuring in Scripture
Prologue
As a biblical scholar I see in Holy Writ a rich if unlikely opportunity
for communication between humanists and non-humanists, or to bor-
row from the prophetic genius of thinker and writer Toni Morrison, a
moment which enables one to boldly proclaim, “Something is missing
there. Something rogue. Something else you have to figure in before you
can figure it out.”1 Free of binding commitments to dogma and doc-
trine, Scripture might offer us a figural language for talking about urgent
matters of common concern to those of faith, those without it, and
those, as philosopher Roberto Unger puts it, who “split the difference.”2
Admittedly, the Bible does not appear to be a likely candidate to ren-
der such service. “To be fair,” writes Richard Dawkins, “much of the
Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect
of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents,
composed, revised, translated, distorted and ‘improved’ by hundreds
of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly
unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.”3 A compendium of
literary arcana compiled by multiple, anonymous editors long ago and
A.D. Callahan (*)
Roxbury, MA 02119, USA
far away, the Bible is neither written to, nor written for, people who live
in a world of AIDS and drones and apps and melting ice caps. The pre-
sumption of preachers ancient and modern notwithstanding, the Bible is
not, and cannot be about us.
Reading the Bible, though, is all about us—because when we read it,
it is we who decide that it is about us—or not. We come to the Bible
the way the analysand relates a dream to the analyst; both agree that the
dream can ‘tell’ them something. That something is neither the past
nor the future, though it relates to both. It is not about the dream. It is
about the dreamer.
In his famous essay, ‘Odysseus’s Scar,’ the philologist and literary
critic Eric Auerbach characterized the Biblical narrative as “tyrannous,”
in that it demands that we submit to its “tyranny of truth” and “claims
of absolute authority”: our refusal to do so makes us “rebels” against
that authority.4 And yet if we so choose, we can read Scripture not as
authority but as artifact, wrought in human minds and written with
human hands. As such, we may choose Scripture; it does not, cannot
choose us.
We need not be judged by the Bible. It is we who judge.
Our reading properly begins not with our being judged, but with our
judgments. In his Truth and Method, the German philosopher Hans-
Georg Gadamer observed that we all come to Scripture with Vorurteilen,
translated often as “biases” or “prejudices,” though Gadamer’s German
is innocent of the necessarily pejorative sense that attends the English:
a Vorurteil is but a judgment (Urteil) that comes before (vor), a ‘prior
judgment.’ To come to a judgment about Scripture, Gadamer argued, we
come to it with judgments, a process of interpretation he famously called
the hermeneutical circle.5
Those prior judgments may be checked and transcended, in
Gadamer’s words, by “the priority of the question.” That is, our read-
ing can begin and proceed according to what Gadamer called a “logic of
question and answer” that serves as our agenda for arriving at interpreta-
tions subject to revision. We may come to Scripture with biases, but we
may also come with questions.
Guided by questions, our prior judgments are but points of depar-
ture: they make possible the acts of creative interpretation that transcend
them. The Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget discovered
that young children, who have yet to develop a sense of perspective in
their perceptions of objects at a distance, make sense of distant vistas
9 FIGURING IN SCRIPTURE 173
They tested God again and again, and provoked the Holy One of Israel.
They did not keep in mind his power, or the day when he redeemed
them from the foe; when he displayed his signs in Egypt, and his miracles
in the fields of Zoon. He turned their rivers to blood, so that they could
not drink of their streams. He sent among them swarms of flies, which
devoured them,
174 A.D. Callahan
and frogs, which destroyed them. He gave their crops to the caterpillar,
and the fruit of their labor to the locust. He destroyed their vines with hail,
and their sycamores with frost. He gave over their cattle to the hail, and
their flocks to thunderbolts. He let loose on them his fierce anger,
for his steadfast love endures for ever. (Psalm 136: 10–15)
Thus says the Lord God: On the day when I chose Israel, I swore to the
offspring of the house of Jacob—making myself known to them in the land
of Egypt—I swore to them, saying, I am the Lord your God. On that day
I swore to them that I would bring them out of the land of Egypt into a
land that I had searched out for them, a land flowing with milk and honey,
the most glorious of all lands. … Then I thought I would pour out my
wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the midst of the
land of Egypt. But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not
be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose
sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of
Egypt. So I led them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the
wilderness. (Ezekiel 20: 5–10)
When the priest takes the basket from your hand and sets it down before
the altar of the Lord your God, you shall make this response before the
Lord your God: ‘A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down
into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became
a great nation, mighty and populous. When the Egyptians treated us
harshly and afflicted us, by imposing hard labour on us, we cried to the
176 A.D. Callahan
Lord, the God of our ancestors; the Lord heard our voice and saw our
affliction, our toil, and our oppression. The Lord brought us out of Egypt
with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with a terrifying display of
power, and with signs and wonders; and he brought us into this place and
gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. (Deuteronomy 26:
4–9)
When your son asks you in time to come, “What is the meaning of the tes-
timonies and the statutes and the ordinances which the Lord our God has
commanded you?,” then you shall say to your son, “We were Pharaoh’s
slaves in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty
hand; and the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against
Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes; and he
brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land
which he swore to give to our fathers.” (Deuteronomy 6: 20–23)
Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top
of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, and the Lord showed him the whole
land: Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh,
all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the Negeb, and the Plain—
that is, the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar. The
Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac,
and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants’; I have let you see
it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there.” Then Moses, the
servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s com-
mand. (Deuteronomy 34: 1–5)
The entry of the Hebrews into the Promised Land effectively begins
with the repeated announcement of Moses’ death.
After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord spoke to
Joshua son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, saying, “My servant Moses is dead.
Now proceed to cross the Jordan, you and all this people, into the land
that I am giving to them, to the Israelites. Every place that the sole of your
foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses. (Joshua
1: 1–3)
The stories of Moses are the Bible’s attempt to convince us that he was
a great leader in spite of his famous failure to lead the Children of Israel
into the Promised Land; that though he was spectacularly ineffectual,
the Law that bears his name remains in effect; and that Moses left the
Hebrews a divine legacy even as he left them stranded on the Plains of
Moab.
But any great movement is greater than its leaders. Great movements
make great leaders—not the other way around. At the height of the
Civil Rights movement, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was being lauded
as “the Moses of his people,” the movement’s greatest strategist, Ella
Baker—a brilliant grassroots organizer and vocal critic of hierarchical,
messianic leadership—crisply chastened the young, star-struck activists
around her, “the Civil Rights movement made Martin, and not Martin
the movement.”
“Strong people,” Ella Baker insisted, “don’t need strong lead-
ers.” Some ancient Israelite griots knew that the Hebrews did not need
Moses, just as we do not need leaders who are greater than the move-
ments they lead, celebrities greater than their causes célébrés, and revolu-
tionaries greater than their revolutions.
178 A.D. Callahan
length of his spear, are all the features of legend. A diseased pituitary
gland is no more the cause of Goliath’s size than it is Paul Bunyan’s or
Thumbelina’s.
The story, then, bids us read it as the tall tale that it is—the way we
might read a fable of Aesop. Bees, primates, and cetaceans have their own
language, but that fact of biology does not help us to understand the gar-
rulousness of Aesop’s animals. In the same way that it would make little
sense to try to square Aesop’s story of a conversation between a scorpion
and a frog with the findings of contemporary scientific research on inter-
species communication, it makes little sense to try to square an Iron-Age
legend with the history and archaeology of Iron-Age Palestine.
The story of David and Goliath is just that—a story. It is not history.
Because we may recognize it to be a canny fiction, we need not, indeed
should not treat it as historical. Because we know it did not ‘happen’, we
need not expend all manner of sophisticated analysis and historiographic
ingenuity trying to figure out how it could have.
We also need not be troubled with theology. The episode of David
and Goliath is one of the longest discrete narratives of the Bible—and
one of the most secular. Yes, there is David’s pious rhetoric about “the
Lord of Hosts, the a God of the armies of Israel”; that “the battle is the
Lord’s” and that “there is a God in Israel.” But all the God-talk in the
story is found in the mouth of David, with the sole exception of Saul’s
lame benediction, “Go, and the Lord be with you” (1 Samuel 17: 37)
—little more than ancient Hebrew parlance for ‘good luck.’ The narra-
tor says nothing about God: there are no angels, no prophecies, and no
miracles. David is not divinely summoned to fight Goliath; he does so
entirely on his initiative. He takes the field without divine guidance, and
solicits none. At no time does David call upon God for help; when he
descends into the valley to fight Goliath, he does so literally without a
prayer.
If David is a hero—and the Bible is divided on the question—he is
a hero of desire. Psalm 23, popularly ascribed to David, begins, “the
Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (23: 1). David is quintessentially
a man who wants, sees what he wants, then risks everything to pursue
it. (Yes, all of David’s desires ultimately bring him to grief. But what is
the heart’s desire, if not the prelude to trouble?) And in this instance
David pursues his desire for wealth, status, and freedom by exploiting an
opportunity to tell, over and against the other stories told about him, an
assertive, grandiose version of his own story.
9 FIGURING IN SCRIPTURE 181
So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me someone who can play well,
and bring him to me.” One of the young men answered, “I have seen a
son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is skillful in playing, a man of valor,
a warrior, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence; and the Lord
is with him.” So Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, “Send me your
son David who is with the sheep.” Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread,
a skin of wine, and a kid, and sent them by his son David to Saul. And
David came to Saul, and entered his service. Saul loved him greatly, and
he became his armor-bearer. Saul sent to Jesse, saying, “Let David remain
in my service, for he has found favor in my sight.” And whenever the evil
spirit from God came upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his
hand, and Saul would be relieved and feel better, and the evil spirit would
depart from him. (1 Sam. 16: 17–23)
His eldest brother Eliab heard him talking to the men; and Eliab’s anger
was kindled against David. He said, “Why have you come down? With
whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pre-
sumption and the evil of your heart; for you have come down just to see
the battle.” (17: 28)
Then Saul, apparently in the light of first impressions (see 1 Sam. 17:
55–58), tells his own unflattering story about David:
182 A.D. Callahan
Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to
fight with him; for you are just a boy, and he has been a warrior from his
youth.” (17: 33)
But David said to Saul, “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father;
and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb from the flock, I
went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth; and
if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down, and
kill it. Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and this uncircum-
cised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the armies of
the living God.” David said, “The Lord, who saved me from the paw of
the lion and from the paw of the bear, will save me from the hand of this
Philistine.” (17: 37)
It is this last story that proves decisive—the story of a daring young man
who has a plan for his life when there is no sign that God does.
The story of David, then, is a story neither about history nor about
theology, but about stories. It suggests that those who dare to get what
they want must tell their own story. They must tell that story over and
against the stories told about them. In the story that they tell about
themselves, they must be victorious, infallible, unstoppable. And so
to tell their story the way they must tell it, they must say things about
themselves that are dubious, that are unsubstantiated, even exaggerated.
They must tell such a story about themselves, and then they must stake
their life on it.
David, the stripling with a sling, is the Bible’s poster child for such
audacious story-telling.
The Magnificat is the longest speaking part of any woman in the New
Testament, though in Christian iconography an image of Mary speaking
is very, very hard to come by. (Try finding one.) It is the first of three
songs in the opening chapters of the Gospel Luke that now number
among the greatest hits of ancient Christian hymnody. The second is
the “Benedictus” (Benedictus, ‘Blessed be’) of Zachariah, the father of
John the Baptist (Luke 1: 68–79); the third is the aged Simeon’s “Nunc
Dimittus” (Nunc Dimittus, ‘now you are dismissing,’ Luke 2: 29–32).
All three songs are paeans of praise to the God who is a savior (1: 47),
who has promised to save (1: 71), and whose salvation has been made
manifest (2: 30).
Many commentators have noted the Magnificat owes much in form
and content to the song of Hannah in the Hebrew Bible’s book of 1
Samuel.
184 A.D. Callahan
This lyric pastiche of antique hymnody is almost word for word stolen
poetry from the literary heritage of ancient Israel. The writer has com-
posed the Magnificat—as well as the Benedictus and the Nunc Dimittus,
which are also mash-ups of ancient Israelite hymnody—in much the
same way Thucydides and Tacitus composed the speeches that they put
into the mouths of the protagonists of their histories.
But unlike the protagonists in the histories of Thucydides and Tacitus,
Mary and Zachariah and Simeon are not independently attested in impe-
rial annals or court archives or archaeological remains: they are not, as
Pericles or Nero, figures of history. The Gospel writer is the librettist
here: these songs attest to the theology of the writer, not the theology
that may have been held by three people who have no historical exist-
ence. Unlike Pericles and Nero, they were not real people. There can be
no ‘search for the historical Mary’. The singer of the Magnificat does
not, properly speaking, have a history.
But the Magnificat does. And it is that history that is important here.
In many Christian churches the Magnificat is read a few weeks before
Christmas, when millions are spending billions buying what many want
and none need. Yet Advent originally celebrated a poor, unwed moth-
er’s positive pregnancy test; it is an affirmation that God has filled her
and those like her “with good things,” and an ominous warning to the
lords of Lord & Taylor that God “has sent them away empty.” The rhet-
oric does not mix well with the Muzak: it is a discourse on power far
removed from power shopping. And so, in the frenetic season of enti-
tled materialism that Advent has become, we hear few strains of the
Magnificat at the local mall.
Yet the Magnificat is one of the world’s oldest hymns, and has pro-
vided the lyrics for centuries of Christian hymnody. It is a canticle in the
Catholic office of Vespers, in the Anglican Evensong, and in the mag-
isterial oratorios of Monteverdi, Bach, Vivaldi, Rachmaninoff, and John
Rutter. Martin Luther insisted that Mary’s song “must be learned well
and remembered by all.” The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer
found her song “at once the most passionate, the wildest, one might
even say most revolutionary Advent hymn ever sung… the tones of
the… prophets of the Old Testament now come to life.” Too popular to
remain in Advent, the Magnificat has appeared under the hymnal rubrics
of “Praise,” “Justice,” and “New Creation” in contemporary Christian
hymnals, in the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins, and on the amulets of
devout Nicaraguan peasants.
9 FIGURING IN SCRIPTURE 187
Postscript
The Apostle Paul writes to the Romans, “whatever was written in for-
mer days was written for our instruction.” He is talking about “what-
ever was written” in the Scriptures of ancient Israel—the Law of Moses,
the Prophets, the Psalms. Speaking of a story he had read in those
Scriptures, he writes in one of his letters to the Corinthians, “all these
things… are written for our admonition.” The narcissism is so quaint, so
apt and urgent: “for our admonition,” “for our instruction”: the notion
that somehow, “all these things” in the Bible were written for us, even
though none of them were written to us, and none of them were written
by people who either knew us or knew of us.
But eschewing the narcissism—and the anachronism, and the sol-
ipsism—of readers like the Apostle Paul, Scripture in our time is ripe
to be read another way. The way the ancient Ionian philosophers read
Greek mythology and came up with allegory; or the way Freud read
Greek tragedy and came up with the Oedipus Complex; or the way Tom
Stoppard read Hamlet and came up with Rosenkrantz and Guilderstern
are Dead. That is to say, the Bible might be read as a book about us,
the living; not a book of history, but a book of stories—our stories. Its
figural language might yet be made to reflect “something missing,”
“something rogue” about our contemporary condition, which we all—as
people of faith, people without it, and people who split the difference—
are desperately trying to figure out.
9 FIGURING IN SCRIPTURE 189
Notes
1. Toni Morrison, Jazz (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 228.
2. Roberto Unger, The Religion of the Future (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2014), 123.
3. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Random House, 2009),
268.
4. Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western
Literature, trans. Willard R. Trask. Princeton, 1953, repr. 1974), 3–23.
5. See Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Seabury, 1975),
235–245.
6. See Jean Piaget, The Child’s Conception of the World (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1928).
7. E. D. Hirsch, The Aims of Interpretation (New York: University of Chicago
Press, 1976), 32–34.
8. Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of
Battling Giants (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2014), 13–14.
9. Chimamanda Aidichie, https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adi-
chie_the_danger_of_a_single_story/transcript?language=en.
PART III
Mike Aus
A Humanist Beginning
After working in various forms of Christian ministry for more than
20 years, in March 2012 I publicly came out as a non-believer in a tel-
evision interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. I fully expected Christian
friends not to understand my decision, and there was certainly plenty of
criticism that followed. However, I did not anticipate one development
and it caught me completely by surprise. Gradually, former church mem-
bers I had once ministered to began to approach me, expressing and con-
fiding in me about their own doubts about the faith. Several said they too
could no longer accept the dogmas and metaphysical claims of religion.
Indeed, some remarked they had not really believed the theology for
many years. They stayed in religion largely for the other benefits it offered,
or simply out of social decorum. One retired man, who had been an active
church member his entire life and had probably served on virtually every
conceivable church committee, stated the following, “I haven’t bought
into any of this for a long time. Long ago I concluded that Jesus was just
M. Aus (*)
Houston, TX, USA
States, Humanism is still not a household word, and the brand is cer-
tainly not as widely acknowledged as the Catholic, Baptist, or Methodist
brands—or, for that matter, the brand of just about any other Christian
denomination, or sect of traditional religious faith. The size of major
national freethought groups, such as the American Humanist Association
and Center for Inquiry, is not currently commensurate with a movement
hoping to have pervasive national significance. The membership rosters of
these groups are still in the thousands or tens of thousands, not hundreds
of thousands or millions. Not to in any way denigrate the significant work
these vital groups do, the size of their current membership would barely
qualify as small district or diocese in a mainline religious denomination.
The annual national conventions of these organizations also tend to be
fairly small, and certainly do not garner the same kind of national media
attention as the annual meetings of religious groups such as the Southern
Baptist Convention. National freethougtht organizations undeniably play
a unique and essential role, yet there are inherent constraints on the abil-
ity of such groups alone to convey their message to a broad cross-section
of mainstream America. The occasional billboard campaign or full-page
ad in the New York Times may raise some awareness of secular humanism,
but probably do not do much work towards generating robust enthusi-
asm or commitment to the Humanist movement at the grassroots level.
In his recent book Religion for Atheists, Alain de Botton suggests that
the cultural impact of skeptics, atheists and other freethinkers has been lim-
ited by their zealous efforts at critiquing religion and over-focusing on pub-
lishing books, rather than building secular institutions which could serve as
viable alternatives to religious institutions. In this text, De Botton notes:
While laying out ideas in books—which might sell anywhere from a few
hundred to a few hundred thousand copies at very best—may seem a
noble enough ambition, the medium itself claims a dispiritingly meagre
reach compared to the wide-ranging influence which institutions can wield
in the development and perpetuation of attitudes and behaviours….writing
books can’t be enough if one wishes to change things. Thinkers must mas-
ter the power of institutions for their ideas to have any chance of achieving
a pervasive influence in the world.1
social activity for many young people. Frequently, even young people
from freethinking families end up at Christian youth group events and
Bible camps by default. They go where their friends go, and there are no
enticing secular equivalents to those experiences. Having a viable secular
alternative to the neighborhood Christian youth group would be a posi-
tive development.
For some in the Humanist world all of this talk of building Humanist
institutions undoubtedly sounds too much like church, and anything that
smacks of religion should be avoided by secularists. But it would be a ter-
rible mistake to believe that the legacy of religion has been nothing but
an unmitigated disaster for humanity. While Humanists rightly reject the
metaphysics and superstitions of religion, over the centuries religion has
learned some important lessons about the art of effective community
organizing which anybody interested in creating intentional communi-
ties would do well to heed. Part of the genius of Christianity has been
its ability to adapt to and adopt local customs and culturally contextual
best-practices wherever it has gone. The stereotype of the culturally–impe-
rialistic helmet-wearing Western missionary converting the heathen is
only partially true. Religionists have also worked to preserve local cultures
and languages around the world, and religions have even borrowed freely
from other religions as it suited their purposes. Just as religionists have not
been reticent to borrow from other religions and other cultures, secular
humanist congregations can borrow effective community-building prac-
tices from religion without fear of jeopardizing their core secular values.
For instance, the fact that so many religions have the practice of meet-
ing for weekly services suggests that something about this weekly model
which benefits the creation of strong communities. In reality, most mem-
bers of any organization do not have perfect attendance records at every
meeting. If a group meets only once a month or so, members may actu-
ally only see each other once every 2 or 3 months, which makes build-
ing relationships more difficult. Such infrequency even makes learning
names of new members more difficult. Some secular humanist congrega-
tions have opted for a weekly meeting model not because they want to
imitate church, but simply because the model works. Also some groups
have their meetings on Sundays, not as any acknowledgment of the day’s
sacredness but simply because in our society, Sunday is the day most peo-
ple are available and it is easier to gather a critical mass of people.
The atmosphere and the contents of the local humanist congrega-
tion’s weekly meeting will naturally vary from place to place and will
10 A CASE FOR COMMUNITY: WITHIN AND BEYOND THE FOUR WALLS 201
talent in the Houston area and some of the best local singer-songwrit-
ers perform each week. Every attempt is made at finding music which
represents the diversity of the human experience and the diversity of the
city in which we live. The music one hears at a typical meeting might be
folk, alt country, blues, jazz, rock or Latin. Developing and maintain-
ing relationships within the music community has proven to be another
significant point of interaction with people beyond the Oasis group. We
are always very clear with the musicians about the nature of our group,
and our music director ensures that no music with religious themes will
sneak in under the radar. Occasionally, regular fans of the musicians will
follow them to a Sunday morning performance and end up becoming
part of the community. A few of the guest musicians have even used the
opportunity to declare their non-theistic, secular perspective for the first
time in public.
In addition to music, the community finds ways to celebrate other
creative arts. One member who is an art history professor, led a field trip
to a local museum, and more museum trips are planned. Community
members routinely share poems that have touched them, and some have
expressed interest in forming a small drama group. Currently the empha-
sis has primarily been on music because the community uses a rented
room for the weekly gathering, and our options for decorating the room
are limited. But once the group has secured a more permanent venue, we
would like painting, sculpture and other arts to have a more prominent
role in our community life.
Religions have long been patrons of the arts, and their patronage
has made possible some of the most stunning art, music, and architec-
ture humans have ever produced. In the past, many freethinking artists
and composers have, out of necessity, had to do their work for religious
institutions. For instance, the Italian Renaissance painter Raphael was an
atheist, as was composer Ralph Vaughn Williams who wrote the musical
setting to the most beloved All Saints’ Day hymn, “For All the Saints.”
As local secular congregations proliferate, grow and build local humanist
centers, perhaps they could provide more opportunities for artists and
musicians to freely do their work without the constraints of religious
dogma.
The idea of humanist communities as local centers for creative and
performing arts holds unique potential as school boards continue to
struggle with severe funding constraints. Over and again we have seen
too often that when local school boards face budget shortfalls, music,
10 A CASE FOR COMMUNITY: WITHIN AND BEYOND THE FOUR WALLS 203
arts, and drama are frequently the first subjects to be cut from the cur-
riculum because they are sometimes seen as non-essential. But what
could be more essential to the human experience than the creative
arts? From pre-historic hand axes and cave paintings to today, the crea-
tive arts have been inextricably linked to the development of humanity.
Local Humanist congregations could find ways to support and encour-
age young artists, musicians, and writers. Humanist centers could be
designed by visionary architects and filled with the best local art so that
visiting a humanist center would be a stunning, sensory experience. Such
a place would stand as a reminder that humans need more than facts
and pure reason to cope with life’s challenges. We also crave inspiration,
beauty and poetry to motivate us to strive for a better world and lead
better lives.
In response I might first ask, what is wrong with being “pillowy? That
sounds like a good adjective to me. We all need a good pillow to lay
our weary heads on from time to time when buffeted by the challenges
of life. Why does a secular humanism that finds its expression in local
community anything less than “real secularism?” And who gets to define
“real secularism” anyway?
204 M. Aus
divorce, re-marriage, and sexual orientation are still common reasons for
judgment in many religious groups. In the prosperity-gospel churches,
financial struggles or even illness are sometimes seen as marks of divine
disfavor. It is a sign of just how desperate people can be for commu-
nity and acceptance that they would often choose to remain in religious
communities while at the same time being subjected to the communi-
ty’s judgment. Many divorced Catholics would rather continue going to
Mass and not receiving Communion rather than rejecting the Catholic
label altogether. The need for a tribal identity still matters for so many
today.
Thus far, I have been suggesting that the emerging Humanist congre-
gations could provide a new kind of community freed from the dogmas
of religion while retaining some of the benefits that religious life typically
provided. But perhaps that is actually underestimating the potential of
what could be achieved. As communities guided by reason and dedicated
to protecting the dignity of all people, Humanist congregations could
be in a position to create an experience that transcends anything religion
ever accomplished, an experience of genuine acceptance based on our
common humanity and our common struggles. Humanist congregations
could finally deliver the goods that religious community so often prom-
ises but so rarely delivers.
Finally, as I stated previously, the emergence of local Humanist con-
gregations is in no way a threat to the excellent national freethought
organizations that already exist. On the contrary, there is the potential
for tremendous synergies between local and national groups. National
groups could be strengthened like never before through connections to
local humanist congregations. Brochures and membership information
for national groups could be displayed regularly at local weekly meetings.
Veterans of the freethought movement could contribute by reaching out
and making themselves available to speak at local gatherings. Making the
weekly gathering a high-quality experience worth the time of the partici-
pants is crucial for the growth of the community, and high-quality speak-
ers can help make that happen. Initially, nascent congregations will likely
lack the resources to contribute much towards travel expenses and hono-
rariums of well-known speakers. So local congregations and nationally-
known freethought speakers could work together to find creative ways
of facilitating guest speaking gigs. If a speaker is in the area for another
event, why not tack on an extra day of travel to stick around for the
weekly meeting of the local Humanist congregation? Members of local
10 A CASE FOR COMMUNITY: WITHIN AND BEYOND THE FOUR WALLS 207
groups could also donate excess frequent flyer miles to help underwrite
the speaker’s visit. When FFRF’s Dan Barker visited Oasis, he was already
in town at the invitation of a local Christian group for a debate on the
existence of God. Occasionally bringing in speakers with name-recogni-
tion can help raise visibility for the local congregation and provide an
incentive for new people to come through the doors.
These are exciting times to be a secular humanist in the United States.
A country that has been one of the most religious nations on earth is
becoming open to secularism in new ways. Courageous freethought pio-
neers of earlier generations have prepared the way, and now is the time
to build on that foundation to establish lasting Humanist institutions
that will appeal to the hearts and minds of Americans on a daily basis.
This task will be a marathon, not a sprint, and it will require Humanists
who are willing to make sacrifices similar to the sacrifices made by reli-
gionists who once covered this land with churches. I believe that human-
ist congregations will play a vital role in the future of Humanism.
Through a deep commitment to the well-being of the communities
where they are located, Humanist congregations will be uniquely poised
to interpret the Humanist message to Main Street USA.
The marketing team at Houston Oasis has recently been looking at
designs for the organization’s first t-shirts. This was in response to popu-
lar demand from the group’s members who are ready to broadcast their
Humanist perspective loudly and clearly for the world to hear. One of
the selected shirt designs simply says this on the front of the shirt, “Ask
Me About My Secular Humanist Community.” These are Humanists
who are eager to engage the world and start conversations with their
neighbors and friends because they know Humanism is too good an idea
to keep to themselves.
Notes
1. Alain de Botton, Religion for Atheists (Vintage International: New York,
2012), 278–279.
2. Fernanda Santos, “Some Find Path to Navajo Roots Through Mormon
Church,” The New York Times (October 30, 2013).
3. Sarah Krusleski in a presentation given at Houston Freethought Oasis,
November 10, 2013.
4. Tom Flynn, “Religious Humanism: Is It Dead, Alive, or Bifurcating—
Introduction,” Free Inquiry, October/November 2013, Vol. 33, No 6, 22.
CHAPTER 11
Eike Brock
E. Brock (*)
Ruhr Universitat Bochum, Bochum, Germany
but also, for whole societies. Given its’ numerous faces and expres-
sions, nihilism, as both concept and condition, proves to be a difficult
to understand which provokes trouble at different levels. In what fol-
lows, under recourse to Nietzsche’s reasoning, I attempt to examine
the core of nihilism. In other words, I want to give an answer to the
question what nihilism essentially means. The answering of this basic
question will, at the same time, provide information about what exactly
makes nihilism so threatening; and thus respectively, what makes it
so uncanny. Subsequently, I will also provide attention to West’s criti-
cism of society in broad outline, as his analysis addresses and is centered
around the problem of nihilism. The influences on West as a thinker are
undoubtedly influenced by Christian thought—not by chance he calls
his own philosophy a prophetic pragmatism.7 In contrast, todays’ human-
ist thought, organized in national and international societies like the
International Humanist and Ethical Union, seems, in its overwhelm-
ing majority, to be united by the rejection of the ‘concept’ of God.
Regardless of variations and differences between humanist positions, this
description seems to be valid and constant among them. To the basic
point of such humanistic thinking belongs a deep skepticism opposed to
religious belief (and superstition):
[H]umanists are either atheists or at least agnostics. They are also skepti-
cal about the claim that there exists a god or gods. They are also skeptical
about angels, demons, and other such supernatural beings.8
As finite beings, humans are indeed the starting point of West’s phi-
losophy.10 Consequentially, his thinking may offer insights applicable to
(believing) and (nonbelieving) humanists, alike as well as an opportunity
to broaden and think more complexly about the human at the center of
humanism. At the center of West’s philosophy, stand the living, not the
212 E. Brock
“dead” but the dying. These living human beings stand out because of
their recognition of their own mortality and hence, forthcoming death.
Plainly put, they know that they are humans subject to mortality. Again and
again, West’s work deals with the problem of being human, how one can
nevertheless live and, trusting in one’s wisdom or world-view, live well at
the sight of the tragic knowledge which radically questions the sense of life:
The question for me is, how do we love wisdom – philosophia – in the face
of impending catastrophe given the kind of thinking, loving, caring, lov-
ing, dancing animals that we are?11
What is Nihilism?
Whoever deals with nihilism unavoidably enters an icy as well as wide
field; it is to risk not just an unwanted parlor guest, but also akin to fall-
ing below the ice on a frozen lake in a snowstorm. It is easy to lose one’s
orientation, and the consequences of such a loss are usually tragic. This
loss of orientation is not itself an integral component of the problem of
nihilism in existential terms as it concerns both our being in the world
and as the world. But, if uncertainty is a motivating force behind the per-
ceived need for orientation, then nihilism can jar us away from any sense
of meaning. However, confusion also arises when in the first instance
it’s only the question to understand it more exactly from the conceptual
point of view. This is, I suggest, a result of nihilism’s colorfulness and
variability as it concerns meanings and implications. Consequently, it is a
mentor for totally different trends and points of view within the history
of philosophy, more generally.
11 UNCANNY NIHILISM AND CORNEL WEST’S TRAGIC HUMANISM 213
philosophy’, which deals with the (indeed difficult but bookish) prob-
lems of philosophers and risks forgetting human beings outside of these
purviews of exclusivity. In other words, it is not a long shot to wonder if
philosophical discourses about nihilism can only result in an intellectu-
alized naval gazing as such philosophies can only result in an elaborate
and ongoing monologue. Although it would be a gross error to declaire
Nietzsche and West as pessimists, conversely, they are both to a greater
degree, chiefly focused a version of existential nihilism which con-
cerns itself mainly with the question of meaning.17 Both thinkers seem
invested in a vociferous scrutinizing of the world that takes seriously the
unavoidable reality of harm endemic to life. And yet, they neither fall
into utter resignation nor wish the world at the devil. In fact, they seem
dedicated to a quest for meaning in a world which is under suspicion of
being meaningless, should such be without success, they seem commit-
ted to filling it with meaning.
With a brief working understanding of the different “nihilisms” that
show up in philosophy, the rest of this essay follows Nietzsche and West
to consider existential nihilism. My understanding of nihilism is based on
an extended involvement with Nietzsche’s overall philosophy, and builds
on his work as to understand nihilism as a radically negative judgment
of the world and of one’s self. In Nietzsche’s notation below, we find a
definition of nihilism, respectively of the nihilist, which shows a tendency
in this direction:
A nihilist is a man who judges that the real world ought not to be, and that
the world as it ought to be does not exist.18
Whereas a life in the world which indeed shall be but unfortunately is not
would be worthy to work towards, such a life becomes easy prey of the
verdict of senselessness in the world which shall not be but unfortunately
is; at least according to the nihilist. The nihilist concludes in direct con-
nection to his nihilistic judgment of the world: “According to this view,
our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning.”19
With this in mind, I propose to add to Nietzsche’s definition of nihil-
ism20 the following sentence:
His name says melancholia. Sadness of the mind. A burden lies on the
human being which presses him down so that he sinks down; so that the
tension of the limbs and organs decreases; so that senses, instincts, ideas
and thoughts wane; so that the will, drive and motivation for work and
fight get weak. An inner fetter from mind hinders everything that nor-
mally arises freely, moves and takes effect. The spontaneousness of making
decisions, the power of clear and sharp outlining, the courageous grip of
shaping – all this becomes tired, unconcerned. Man is no longer able to
manage life.25
So, here there is the destructive potential in nihilism to push the self into
desperation and thus set fire to the world. In this way, we get a vivid por-
trait of the great danger that nihilism is and can pose. Such is true for
those individuals fighting with it, as well as for societies overall which are
threatened by it. As the passive nihilist is too tired, too exhausted and too
fed-up with politics to fulfill his role as political subject honestly; the active
nihilist meanwhile doesn’t accept the democratic values. Treating them
electively with scorn or even fighting against them, nihilism is especially
toxic for, and to democracies. Whether attacked unconcealed or in open
sight, that he tries to undermine them in a concealed and conspiratorial
way is damnably tragic.26 In what follows next, I turn to a case study of
sorts that explores nihilism as particularly expressed in the United States.
11 UNCANNY NIHILISM AND CORNEL WEST’S TRAGIC HUMANISM 217
Economists often assume, that markets do not touch or taint the goods
they regulate. But this is untrue. Markets leave their mark on social norms.
Often, market incentives erode or crowd out nonmarket incentives.30
As more non-market alternative norms for social life fall prey to the
appetite of the market and disappear in its omnivorous stomach, the
more one-dimensioned our view of the world becomes. What’s more,
our world experience eo ipso becomes consequently a one-track under-
taking. With this in mind, consider the many commonplace phrases,
which have quietly risen to axioms, such as ‘time is money.’ Such a nar-
row view of the world coupled with the restriction of one’s world experi-
ence goes hand in hand with a decrease of the dimensions informing the
meaning of life. Thus, the question for the sense of life is pushed into
the Procrustean bed of the market. Hence, nihilism is, as West explains,
brought about by the “saturation of market forces in American life,”
which ultimately “generates a market morality that undermines a sense of
meaning and larger purpose.”31 By now, American society is in the grip
of unleashed market forces:
The dogma of free-market fundamentalism has run amok, and the pursuit
of profits by any legal (or illegal) means – with little or no public account-
ability – guides the behavior of the most powerful and influential institu-
tions in our lives.32
The democratic system in the U.S. is “corrupted all the way up” by the
nihilist, market-fundamentalist dogma. By targeting closer the political
sphere, West is able to link nihilism and power by recognizing a direct
connection between the powerlessness of the citizens and the superiority of
the leading political actors who through the permanent accumulation and
securing of such power have thrown the democratic principles over board:
The most painful truth in the making of America – a truth that shatters all
pretensions to innocence and undercuts all efforts of denial – is that the
enslavement of Africans and the imperial expansion over indigenous peo-
ples and their lands were undeniable preconditions for the possibility of
American democracy.41
once, amidst us. As such, nihilism was defined and approached as a radical
negation of the world, others and one’s self. Insofar as humans, according
to their character, always act in a self-referred way,42 such self-aspersion,
even as a slight possibility, is undeniably an anthropological fact. This nihil-
ism belongs to the realm of the Conditio humana, the human condition.
Furthermore, we gestured at the danger to be found within nihilism for
individuals and societies more generally. On the political level, it stands
to threaten one of the highest achievements of the latter political history
of mankind in its threat against democracy. With the context of the U.S.
in mind, West argues that nihilism, masquerading in different robes, has
infiltrated the realm of politics itself. By focusing more on power than on
democratic principles, the political elite do not tend to look after the com-
mon interests of the population symmetrically nor consider their pain and
fears in a serious manner, as a legitimate reality. In consequence of this,
the nihilism of the population is not contained by the domain of politics.
On the contrary, following West, American politics does more to inspire
and stimulate the condition and reality of nihilism. By focusing more
on economic expansion of the country than on the general education of
the citizens, the political elite hinder the growth of a sophisticated and
self-confident generation of citizens who carry in themselves the power
to confront the threat of nihilism. It is safe to assume that West’s socio-
critical diagnoses is applicable not only to the U.S. but also to Europe and
other parts of the world—especially to the so-called Western world.
To prevent nihilism from gaining speed and growing stronger, it is
of great importance to strengthen those who stand at risk of its pangs—
humanity. But such a responsibility cannot be held on the back of
individuals alone, as they too are in deep need of institutional recogni-
tion and help. In other words, there is an urgent need here of sweep-
ing change on the level of policy. The stark necessity of such a change
of thinking will only be understood by somebody who dares to seriously
consider the (many) abysses of nihilism, and the many at-risk of its dan-
gers, and those already affected by its violence. The illumination of this
nihilistic abyss also implies a need for a deep struggle with the deleterious
beginings and ongoing side-effects of democracy. To confront, and pos-
sibly overcome this current state of nihilism haunting U.S. culture and
society, Americans might consider confronting their legacy of race and
empire, patriarchy and homophobia, and the overwhelming manner in
which the desire for wealth accumulation—and, greed—causes many to
often ignore, disregard, and look upon the poor with disgust and scorn.
222 E. Brock
Taking stock of itself in this reflexive manner would unleash “our often-
untapped democratic energies of Socratic questioning, prophetic witness,
and tragicomic hope.”43 West goes on to further explain that “the aim
of this Socratic questioning is democratic paideia—the cultivation of an
active, informed citizenry—in order to preserve and deepen our demo-
cratic experiment.”44 Socratic questioning puts the self and the society in
which it is performed to a critical test. In accordance with West’s tragic
humanism, the Socratic questioning is especially aimed at the question
of what it means to lead a humane life, which is really to ask what does it
mean to lead a human life. It doesn’t take years and years of contempla-
tive exercise and a deep Socratic reflection to understand that a human
life is far more than the sum total of a person’s market compliant behav-
ior.45 To a greater degree, a human life deals first of all with love, hope,
responsibility and sense. Beyond that, the human life, as life (always
lived) together with other human beings means that it is never detached
from moral decisions and obligation. But for leading a (somehow) gen-
uine moral, satisfactory, hopeful life—what for some people may sound
kitchy, but what is of great importance—one carried in and by love we
must, to borrow from Carl Philipp Moritz, work towards the affirmative
development of “Selbstzutrauen” (self-confidence), which cannot grow
in isolation and without appreciation by others. In other words, it is not
something that comes into existence ex nihilo, able to alone sustain and
blossom like a seed which has always been inherent in us. Self-confidence
is something that only prospers as consequence of fulfilled love and assur-
ance that has been set and established through external processes of con-
fidence building. In other words, the inner traits and characterizations of
self-confidence demand external influence and recognition to burgeon.46
In his psychologically innovative novel Anton Reiser (4 Parts: 1785–
1790),47 Moritz narrates the mournful story of the childhood and youth
of the protagonist Anton Reiser, who is confronted with different kinds
of suppression and humiliation right from the cradle48; a circumstance
which urges him more and more into a state of nihilistic self-denial. In
view of an especially deeply humiliating experience of the protagonist, it
is said in the novel:
In such a moment you feel like destroyed and would risk your life for con-
cealing from the world. – The self-confidence [Selbstzutrauen], which is
as necessary for moral activity as the breathing for bodily movement, gets
such an enormous push that it is difficult to get well again.49
11 UNCANNY NIHILISM AND CORNEL WEST’S TRAGIC HUMANISM 223
Against the odds, Reiser uses his poetic talent for getting back on his
feet by placing reliance upon the meaningful occupation of reading and
writing as well as the glorifying power of the theatre.50 Thus he refers to
cultural resources for winning self-confidence which is so direly needed
for a humane life among humans in a not yet humanist world. For but
a moment in the book, it appears that he has found himself and a per-
sonal exit out of the existential impasse of nihilism. In the end, however,
fate (once again) seems to play a dirty trick on him, so that the in what
remains of the novel is not-so-much a story of the healing power of art,
but rather, one of an existential failure. In contrast to this narrative, West
puts great confidence in the anti-nihilistic power of art throughout his
work. What for Anton Reiser’s theatre could have been ideally a kind of
existential lifeline, music, for many people of color who like Reiser have
found themselves in similarly mangled situations of humiliation, music
has become a palpable social salve.
In particular, as West so aptly bears witness to, Afro-American music
like Bebop, Soul, Funk or Rap is namely “first and foremost […] a coun-
tercultural practice Counter-Cultural Practice with deep roots in modes
of religious transcendence and political opposition,”51 which is why it
works well for fostering points of connection useful for identity, espe-
cially for disoriented, disappointed young people across racial and ethnic
difference, in search of meaning and contact. “Therefore,” West notes,
“it is seductive to rootless and alienated young people disenchanted with
existential meaninglessness, disgusted with flaccid bodies and dissatis-
fied with the status quo.”52 For Afro-Americans especially, it is a source
of pride of the own cultural heritage. As a result, it heals open wounds
caused by the dehumanizing invectives of racism.53 What is valid for
music54 is generally applicable to the cultural practice across social strata
and ethnic groups: it offers plenty of anti-nihilistic potential. Yet precisely
the cultural bulwarks which offered resistance for a long time against
nihilism are eroding increasingly. Hence more and more people, seen in
cultural terms, find themselves, in a way, naked:
[T]he cultural buffers that sustained people and countered despair in past
generations, namely church, family, and civic institutions, have been under-
mined by the predominance of market values. People have become ‘cultur-
ally naked.’55
224 E. Brock
West does not simply write about the significances of culture, he himself
bears witness to his own situativity as firmly rooted in culture, as such.
Not only does the philosophical-humanistic heritage give him the nec-
essary power for resistance to restore hope in the face of nihilism, but
also aids in restoring the representational hope of others. Additionally,
as a self-identified Christian of the prophetic ilk, West does not divorce
religion and culture, as if one is sacred and the other, profane. He is con-
scious however of living in an era—in a Secular Age (Charles Taylor)—
in which, for many, the bridges to religion are ultimately broken down.
On this point, West brings a realistic understanding to his humanist
Christianity, and Christian humanism such that underprivileged young
people who will not find their salvation in the likes of Chechov, Kafka
or Nietzsche, can do so through a prophetically pragmatic mode that
takes serious humanism’s potential for religious weight, and vice-versa.56
Because we occupy a culture saturated by nihilism—“permeated by sci-
entific ethos, regulated by racist patriarchal, capitalist norms and per-
vaded by debris of decay”57—the time is ripe for “a new world view, a
countermovement, ‘a new gospel of the future.’”58 In light of such intri-
cate circumstances there may be little hope for optimism, but still, reason
enough for a new model that has as much potential for circumstantial
flexibility as it does space for utopic possibility.
West’s prophetic pragmatism, respectively his tragic humanism, is
designed to act as such a utopian “countermovement” and “new gos-
pel of the future.” As West so earnestly acknowledges, in order for the
future to not collapse into an unfettered period of darkness, despite all
nihilistic tendencies, a profound societal change of attitude and outlook
is necessary. Among others, Rosemary Cowan has tried to examine how
the pragmatic possibilities of West’s framework as it concerns such a
largescale change in thinking can take place in concreto. At first, every
individual is asked to examine and put their life plan to the test through
Socratic questioning, Cowan writes:
[P]eople must individually reform their attitudes. They must question their
personal addiction to market values of stimulation and titillation and the
way in which this addiction has displaced human interaction with others.59
values as nihilistic, by the devaluation of the (old) values after all, the
ground for the installation of new values is prepared:
From this premise people can advance to the second stage, where non-
market values of equality and community can be articulated through inter-
personal toleration and the creation of bonds of trust that will enable one
to treat others with respect despite the presence of strong ideological dif-
ferences.61
As worthy as this might be, this is neither sufficient nor realizable in a soci-
ety where Socratic questioning (with its awkward tendency to rigidity) is
not figured prominently in the public sphere, especially among discussion.
As a result, urgent social problems require more than rhetorical appeal and
finesses. Rather, an approach to social fractures necessitates much more
than lip service, and open itself up to a more basic attitude of open and
ongoing discourse. On this point, Cowan discerns a deep need for some-
thing much more than respect or regard opting instead to understand it as:
Taken together, one can hear and feel West’s influence on Cowan’s
claims, but West’s ideas seem to have capacity for further reach consid-
ering his aims and demands for largescale policy of conversion which
requires, and is not possible without, moral basis, namely an ethic of
love. At first glance such a demand might appear too eager, but in light
of the tremendous threat posed by nihilism, perhaps not. If the core of
nihilism is truly animated by, and consists of, the negation of the self
(and thus, the world) therefore depicting a kind of poisoning of the soul,
then love as the origin of self-affirmation, itself the originator and foun-
tain of a new kind of love, then such benevolence might in fact be the
most promising antidote:
The idea of the reversal or redirection of the soul, so important for West,
is profoundly at its core, Socratic. In fact, the concern about the soul,64
respectively the self65 which leads to the reversal of the (mislead) soul
is no less than the very foundation of a Socratic philosophy. Especially
with its concern for self-care as being furthermore of the highest politi-
cal relevance. It is the merit of Plato, Socrates’ most important student,
to have made the political significance of self-care, being above all the
concern about one’s own soul, into a philosophical topic.66 He did so
in contrast to the predominant idea of self-care as being identical with
the concern about creature comforts and the provision of essentials, an
idea already apparent and propagated in ancient Athens. Only the one
who, as a result of Socratic self-care, has become virtuous, can really cope
with the core business of the true politician striving for justice, has capac-
ity to convey virtue.67 In this way, the politician does not only provide
the single citizen a service, but also pushes forward to a high degree the
matter of justice, on a level which concerns the development of society as
a whole. Here, the politician, who for Plato is at once the philosopher,
puts himself eagerly in harm’s way.
In his famous allegory of the cave, Plato impressively illustrates the
brisance of the political-pedagogical enterprise. The setting of the alle-
gory of the cave is sufficiently known, so I will not describe its details
in full here.68 But significant for the contemporary context is the man-
ner in which the cavemen are bound, and, in such a way, cannot avoid
(and do not perceive the compulsion) to look in a predetermined direc-
tion, namely in the way of the wall of the cave. On this wall (illuminated
by a burning fire behind the caveman) a shadow play is taking place
(objects are being carried around behind the backs of the cavemen—
by whomsoever—casting shadows) in which those bound by childhood
take as reality. But beyond the cave, there is a world, a real one com-
prised of incessant sun-drenched ideas, the location of origin for all truth
and beauty. Notwithstanding, the meaning of the allegory of the cave
is indeed complex and chock full of variable meaning. In it, the philo-
sophical threads of ontology, epistemology and ethics converge, making
it as much artful as it is complicated concurrently. Furthermore, together
with the sun and line-parables, it creates the climax of a parable-triad
which, so to speak, contains Plato’s philosophy in a nutshell. With admi-
ration, we notice but yet can only follow up on Plato’s idea that some-
one among the group of the bound cavemen has become, inexplicably,
free and notices that he is situated in a cave where the wall of the cave
11 UNCANNY NIHILISM AND CORNEL WEST’S TRAGIC HUMANISM 227
is not the world, but rather, a dead-end street. Because of this aware-
ness, the freed person dares to climb up out of the cave into the wide
open. Exhausting as this climbing out is, in the end, there is a reward.
The outside of the cave is indeed much more expansive, and aestheti-
cally pleasing than within the cave itself. Despite this however, and given
the descent back into the cave will presumably prove similarly exhaust-
ing as was the climb out, the individual opts to go back into the cave
because he feels obliged towards those cavemen left-behind, indebted to
show them the ways of the real world. Here, the person is conscious of
the probability that he will meet opposition, but namely how probable
it will be that he will be received with open arms as a liberator remains
an open question. Sedimented in their ways, the cavemen have become
used to the cave, routinized by it, any elaborate change of their way of
living may not appear, at first glance, a welcoming supposition. If too
insistent, the potential liberator could find themselves in harm’s way. But
the person, driven by a sense of commonality, nevertheless decides to go
back and climb down towards the others. As you can understand from
the reflections of the Politeia, the matter in question in the allegory of
the cave is the graphic statement of an educational process which ena-
bles the human being to free himself from the addiction to unreal things,
in order to better recognize the ways in which reality ought invoke the
true, the beautiful, and the good. The very middle of this process is the
reversal or converting of the soul.69 The allegory of the cave makes clear
that this process is time consuming, painful and laborious. It also dem-
onstrates that through an epistemological process, the existence of a new
world view is possible where values attached to the old and familiar must
be examined critically and often enough, even thrown overboard. In this
way, the educational process also becomes one of deep acquisition and
refutation. But, in the end, order for progress to proceed and be made
successful, help from the outside is vitally necessitated. That is, some-
body must accompany and loosen the cavemen’s chains, and assist the
now freed ones during their ascent. Plato’s allegory demands much from
us. But this objection doesn’t change anything concerning Plato’s con-
viction that the realization of the dream of an upright society is only pos-
sible by going along this weary path of education.
Overall, Plato’s philosophy in the same way as West’s thinking aims,
in ethic-political ways, at a conversion of society as a whole. Naturally,
West’s policy of conversion is decidedly democratic and because of that is
not compatible with Plato’s authoritarian-aristocratic draft of a state. But
228 E. Brock
there are remarkable parallels regarding the fires which get enlightened
by the common focal point of self-care (epimeleia). Both thinkers are
Socratics and situated in a particular iteration of eros. But as an entrance
to truth, West’s eros is more focused on the human being than on sci-
ence and philosophy as in Plato’s worldview. In no abstract terms, West
prefers and emphasizes truth as concrete of being human being, with all
his weaknesses and possibilities. Thus, West’s philosophy, as put forward
at the beginning, is indeed, a tragic humanism.
Notes
1. Nietzsche, Friedrich (1988): Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe
(= KSA), 15 Bände, hrsg. von Giorgio Colli und Mazzino Montinari, 2.
durchges. Aufl., München/Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. (NL 1885–
1887, KSA 12, 2[127], 125) “Der Nihilismus steht vor der Thür: woher
kommt uns dieser unheimlichste aller Gäste?”
2. Nihilism primarily means the absence of meaning and significance. It
negates the (especially metaphysical) validity of our highest values (see
Nietzsche, NL 1885–1887, KSA 12, 9[35], 350) Consequent nihil-
ism leads directly into valuelessness resp. worthlessness. Thus, it can be
understood as a crisis of orientation. One essential landmark in the his-
tory of nihilism is the death of God, prominently featured in Nietzsches
work (see especially Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft, KSA 3, § 125). Secular
societies such as the US-American society, or the societies of large parts
of Europe, thus naturally have to struggle with nihilism, as the high-
est moral authority and the guarantee for a meaning that transcends
the profane earthly existence, have with God vanished from said exist-
ence. Certainly, I do not claim, that secular societies automatically fall
victim to nihilism. However, for the reasons stated, they will have to
deal with it. Furthermore, the increasing technization of all aspects of
life and the hegemony of the neoliberal zeitgeist in late-modern socie-
ties play into the hand of nihilism in some respects. Byung-Chul Han,
an important figure in the German philosophical discourse, has tried
to prove in a series of much-noticed cultural-critical essays, that we live
in a world, from which the resistive and the negative increasingly fade
away. This world is arranged to enable an unimpended consumption of
commodities and a free, smooth flow of capital, data and information.
Transperency has become an ideology. However, transparency and tran-
scendence do not seem to be reconcilable. They even seem to contra-
dict each other. According to Han, this leads to significance’s and deep
meaning’s gradual disappearance from human life. The disappearance
11 UNCANNY NIHILISM AND CORNEL WEST’S TRAGIC HUMANISM 229
proposition implies to not lose faith in philosophy (and to fall into “miso-
logy” cf. ibid., 89d) in defiance of the mortality of man and the perish-
ability of everything on earth.
12. Humanism in its classical form seeks to foster the best qualities in the
human being. By means of a special program of education (reading the
Western classics) the rational and emphatic aspects of the human being
as animal rationale shall be invigorated against its brutish nature. West’s
version of humanism too aims for the education of the best in the human
being—he is convinced that this would be the best for the human being
as well. Like William James, West understands happiness as the best for
the human being; but he places a stronger emphasis than James on the
tragic dimension of life and the philosophy of pragmatism in general
do. The focus on the tragic character of being is something West shares
with the prophets of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Considered from
this angle, West’s humanism deserves to be called prophetic or tragic.
In conclusion one could say that West weaves a new and unique version
of humanism out of classical humanistic, pragmatist and prophetic com-
ponents—a tragic humanism that is born by human kindness and which
deserves our (philosophical) attention.
13. If it is true that nihilism is an anthropological fact there is no permanent
solution to the challenge of nihilism. Thus I prefer to speak of an “ade-
quate dealing with” nihilism, rather than of a solution to it.
14. Müller-Lauter, Wolfgang (1984): Art. “Nihilismus”, in: Ritter, Joachim/
Gründer, Karlfried (Hrsg.): Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Bd. 6
(Mo–O), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 846–854, 846;
transl. E.B.
15. Crosby, Donald A. (1998): Art. “Nihilism”, in: Craig, Edward (Hrsg.):
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 7, London/New York:
Routledge, 1–5, 1.
16. Große, Jürgen (2005): “Nihilismusdiagnosen. Ihr theoretischer und ethis-
cher Status”, in: Dialektik: Zeitschrift für Kulturphilosophie 2005, Heft 1,
97–122, 99; transl. E.B.
17. A convincing analysis of different patterns of nihilism can be found
at Crosby, Donald A. (1988): The Specter of the Absurd. Sources and
Criticism of Modern Nihilism, Albany: State University of New York
Press, 8–36.
18. NF 1885–1887, 9[60], KSA 12, 366 “Ein Nihilist ist der Mensch,
welcher von der Welt, wie sie ist, urtheilt, sie sollte nicht sein, und von
der Welt, wie sie sein sollte, urtheilt, sie existiert nicht.”
19. Ibid. “Demnach hat dasein (handeln, leiden, wollen, fühlen) keinen
Sinn.”
232 E. Brock
20. In Nietzsche’s corpus remains (notations) you will certainly find numer-
ous attempts to define nihilism as exactly as possible in an effort to get
to the bottom of the phenomenon ‘nihilism’ in his entire spectrum. I
have made an attempt to analyze each and all of Nietzsche’s definitions in
Brock 2015, chapter VII, 288–311.
21. It becomes really nihilistic only then when the realization of the world as
it should be, respectively, the self as it should be is excluded or at least is
regarded as impossible.
22. Gillespie, Michael Allen (1995): Nihilism before Nietzsche, Chicago/
London 1995, 180.
23. Gillespie 1995, 181f.
24. Thus Nietzsche defines the passive nihilism as “tired nihilism which
doesn’t attack anymore” (as “müde[n] Nihilism, der nicht mehr angreift
[…]” (NL 1885–1887, KSA 12, 9 [35], 351).
25. Guardini, Romano (2003): Vom Sinn der Schwermut, 8. Aufl., Kevelaer,
24; transl. E.B.
26. One textbook example for this would be the anti-democratic New Right
that is at the moment gaining grounds in different European countries.
While talking in the jargon of democracy, far right parties push for anti-
democratic and inhumane policies against refugees.
27. And, as I want to add, for the nihilism in all western industrial countries.
28. Sandel, Michael (2012): What money can’t buy, (New York: Penguin
Books), 8. Sorrowfully Sandel states: “[W]e have drifted from having a
market economy to being a market society,” 10.
29. Sandel, 8.
30. Sandel, 64.
31. West, Cornel (2004): Democracy Matters. Winning the fight against impe-
rialism, New York: Penguin Books, 27.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., 28.
34. Ibid., 30.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., 38.
37. Ibid., 38f.
38. A completely similar diagnosis is made for the German media scene by
Ulrich Greiner, the longtime chief editor of the renowned German news-
paper DIE ZEIT. Today media ought to be not only critical but, more
than that, also “optimistic and full of empathy” (Greiner, Ulrich (2014):
Schamverlust. Vom Wandel der Gefühlskultur, 2. Aufl., Reinbek bei
Hamburg: Rowohlt 2014, 320; transl. E.B.). Hiding behind this heavy
word ‘empathy’, as it is used by the media, isn’t any real compassion, as
you could think, but rather “pure sentimentality” (ibid., 321).
11 UNCANNY NIHILISM AND CORNEL WEST’S TRAGIC HUMANISM 233
T. Van Pelt (*)
Institute for Science and Human Values, Tampa, FL, USA
Defining Humanists
An apt definition that animates the thinking of this diverse group might
be found in “an outlook or system of thought attaching prime impor-
tance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanists’
beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, empha-
size common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving
human problems.”3 Many Humanists agree with “The Affirmations
of Humanism, a Statement of Principles”4 offered by Paul Kurtz,
who is commonly known as the father of secular humanism.5 As the
Affirmations outline, Humanists:
These beliefs are the basis for, and foundation of, secular humanist val-
ues. With this in mind, for brevity, people who hold these beliefs shall be
referred to as Humanists throughout this chapter.
12 RELATING TO A “NON-HUMANIST” WORLD: PARTICIPATING … 239
Goals
This chapter explores the U.S. landscape as it stands with regard to state
and religious entanglement and considers what Humanists, recognizing
the assault against secular government is intense and on-going, can do to
bring about social change. Here, I want to suggest that there are three
broad initiatives Humanists need to focus on to amend government
accordingly: (1) lobby to stop the corrosion of the U.S. Constitution
and the subversion of the secular, democratic government; (2) root out
and reverse overtly and covertly religious influence and interference in
policy; and (3) advocate for law and evidence-based policy based on the
scientific method and the common moral decencies of secular humanist
values, (the most fundamental principles deeply ingrained in long-stand-
ing social traditions supported by habit and custom, enacted into law
and even considered sacred by various religions).8
In what follows, I endeavor to convince the Humanist reader of the
importance and necessity for U.S. democracy, indeed, representative gov-
ernment worldwide, of changing the current paradigm of absence and
indifference by taking action and participating actively in government.
Keep in mind that bringing about societal change requires acquiring pas-
sion for the electoral process, law, and public policy.
12 RELATING TO A “NON-HUMANIST” WORLD: PARTICIPATING … 241
official state religion, nor is one religion’s beliefs entwined in law and
public policy to the disadvantage of others. Thus a secular governing
body recognizing the rule of law is the ideal democratic government
sought by both Humanists and these religionists.
To have Humanists’ values taken seriously in the political arena,
Humanism must become known for its grassroots organizing. Local
groups will bring acclaim to the movement as they are recognized by
the media and government officials as active, dynamic participants in the
democratic process. In this way, Humanists will be able to influence out-
comes in law and policy to advantage social justice based on their secular
humanist values.
The aim is to imprint secular humanist values to benefit humankind
within law and public policy, while at the same time advocating for
and maintaining a secular government separated from religion, thereby
ensuring a culture that is neutral when it comes to religion. In principle,
this is in direct opposition to the Theocrats’ wish to force all citizens to
abide by the dictates of a particular God considered the ultimate ruler
and creator. Citizens must become aware that, since the introduction of
the Religion Freedom Restoration Act, religious doctrine has been and
continues to be infused within government law and policy at a very rapid
pace. It is like an ivy vine winding its way up and around each branch
of government, choking off science and reason. Theocrats cite various
objections when accusing government of regulations that burden reli-
gious practice as opposed to remaining neutral. These include: opposing
civil and human rights for those who disagree with these religious dicta,
refusing to abide by civil law, denying tolerance of others’ philosophy,
and ignoring scientific discovery and data that conflicts with the per-
ceived word of God as interpreted by religious leadership. It is urgent
that Humanists join forces with others of like mind to counter these
growing, successful theocratic attempts to pervert democracy in whatever
way and on whatever level they are able.
Humanists should sustain activism in three areas: local, state, and fed-
eral. In addition, experienced citizens and professional lobbyists teach
that the best way to be effective and influential is to work in coalition
with others. Outlined below is an example of successful coalition lob-
bying: a case study of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination
(CARD) working in opposition to the concept of charitable choice, an
attempted tactic to implant religious doctrine into law at the end of the
twentieth, beginning of the twenty-first century.
12 RELATING TO A “NON-HUMANIST” WORLD: PARTICIPATING … 243
on affiliation and the beliefs of the FBO, and to allow taxpayers’ dol-
lars to be mingled with religious funds without oversight. If instituted,
charitable choice provisions would effectively give religious organiza-
tions special status, while secular groups would be required to continue
to follow the original regulations. In 1996, then President Bill Clinton
agreed to the concept and deployment of charitable choice in law. It was
an election year, and both men wanted to demonstrate political biparti-
sanship. However, President Clinton decided to use presidential signing
statements to limit the scope of charitable choice provisions, essentially
declaring that he had little or no intention of fully implementing the
bills he was signing into law. The problem with this compromise on the
President’s part was that future Presidents could and, in this case, did,
decide not to honor the statements.
Faith-Based Initiatives
Because Congress failed to pass the Charitable Choice amendments,
the George W. Bush administration decided to change the name and
the strategy by implementing Charitable Choice provisions via execu-
tive orders and departmental regulations. President Bush, determined to
satisfy Theocratic supporters, opened the first office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives12 in the White House to fund religious organiza-
tions to provide social services with taxpayer dollars through federal gov-
ernment agencies.
CARD members believe churches and other houses of worship have
the right to perform their religious mission with the use of their own pri-
vate funds. They also believe that federally funded religious discrimination
is always wrong. The coalition believes, as do a majority of Americans,13
that faith-based organizations receiving government funds must be held
to the same civil rights standards as other social service providers. The
concern for Humanists is that these standards are slowly being stripped
away. Proposals to funnel government dollars directly into houses of
worship and other religious organizations endanger both the sanctity
of religion and the integrity of government. The government is prohib-
ited by the Constitution of favoring one religion over another. However,
Humanists must acknowledge the divisions within the U.S. population,
and that this situation is causing the walls of separation to crumble.
Furthermore, charitable choice and faith-based initiatives do not pro-
tect the religious freedom of program beneficiaries. The religious free-
dom of beneficiaries may be violated by subjecting them to religious
indoctrination while they are participating in programs to obtain their
government benefits. Currently, religious organizations are able to com-
bine government funded social services with various forms of religious
indoctrination, such as religious teaching or the display of religious icons
or symbols.
246 T. Van Pelt
It was CARD’s hope that President Obama would end this cozy relation-
ship between government and religion. Instead, he put his own stamp on
it: first by changing the name to the White House Office of Faith-Based
and Neighborhood Partnerships and then by establishing the President’s
Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.15 The
President tasked the Advisory Council with the creation of several initia-
tives to ostensibly find new ways for both secular and faith-based organi-
zations to better serve their communities. Although the terms “secular,”
“neighborhood” and “community” are frequently included in these
presidential committee names and instructions, the outcomes and deter-
minations appear to empower and favor theocratic, religious organiza-
tions to the exclusion of others.
The Advisory Council created task forces in six key areas16:
All of these goals have the intent of ensuring that all federal assistance
complies with constitutional requirements of separation of church and
state and the Establishment Clause. In the end, the lone voice for rea-
son, Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State (AU), a member of the task force and CARD leadership, did not
prevail. After all it cannot be expected that one person alone will be able
to quell the religious fervor that has the United States and the Advisory
Council in its grip. This is a very important reason the Humanism move-
ment must coalesce and take vigorous action. CARD’s voice, presence‚
and strength relies on its member organizations’ grassroots visibility and
vocal support.
We ask that the Administration fulfill its campaign promise and end
taxpayer-funded employment discrimination through the actions listed
below.
Coalitions and Grassroots
Federal coalitions like CARD are very important because they provide
the staff, finances, networking and experience it takes to advocate and
lobby for the protection and maintenance of a government necessary
for a robust democracy. Yet federal coalitions cannot do this job alone.
The Humanist community must add its heft to these struggles. Its mem-
bers must participate in and be recognized for grassroots organizing as a
movement. This requires vibrant activism, and activism requires involve-
ment, starting with registering new voters.
• “Fewer than half of all adults, 45%, say political leaders should rely
somewhat or a great deal on their religious beliefs when making
policy decisions. But again the range is wide: six in 10 conservatives,
as many Republicans and 65% of conservative Republicans hold
this view. That falls sharply to 39% of Democrats and independents
alike, four in 10 moderates and 32% of liberals.
• On the role of religion, not surprisingly, a broad 74% of evangeli-
cal white Protestants say political leaders should rely at least some-
what on their religious beliefs in making policy decisions. That falls
to half as many non-evangelical white Protestants, 37%, and drops
further, to 16%, among Americans who profess no religion.
• [Millennials] are 12 points less apt than their elders to say politi-
cians should base policy positions on their religious beliefs, a result
that fits with customarily lower levels of religiosity among young
adults.
• There’s another difference among millennials vs. older adults,
reflecting another longstanding attribute of young Americans:
their comparative lack of engagement in politics. Among adults age
18–31, just 54% report that they’re registered to vote. That soars
to 87% among those 32 and older. Indeed it increases steadily with
age, peaking at 94% of seniors.”18
252 T. Van Pelt
These numbers are both a warning and opportunity for the Humanist
movement. Yet these views are seemingly not being taken seriously by
U.S. government officials. This one fact alone is why Humanists must
devote time and attention to the work of registering new voters. We can-
not, after all, win if we do not do our part to register voters and drive
new voters to the polls. As can be seen during our last presidential elec-
tion between candidates Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, voter turn-
out is essential to success in an election. The statistics cited here and in
other articles and reports demonstrate that a majority of U.S. citizens
back the removal of at least some religious influence in governance.
the State Department’s portal for engagement with religious leaders and
organizations around the world. Headed by Special Advisor Shaun Casey,
the office reaches out to faith-based communities to ensure that their
voices are heard in the policy process, and it works with those commu-
nities to advance U.S. diplomacy and development objectives. In accord-
ance with the U.S. Strategy on Religious Leader and Faith Community
Engagement, the office guarantees that engagement with faith-based com-
munities is a priority for Department bureaus and for posts abroad, and
helps equip our foreign and civil service officers with the skills necessary
to engage faith-communities effectively and respectfully. The office col-
laborates regularly with other government officials and offices focused
on religious issues, including the Ambassador-at-Large for International
Religious Freedom, the Department’s Office of International Religious
Freedom, and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood
Partnerships.”
And
Civil liberties and religious organizations opposed to the rule have spent
the past four years since Obama launched the OFBNP urging the president
to require these groups to comply with anti-discrimination laws if they
accept taxpayer money, to no avail.
Next Steps
Once your group and its allies have identified common areas of inter-
est, the coalition can take action by coordinating and participating in
advocacy efforts and promoting active engagement on priority issues.
It is helpful for local coalitions to meet with both state and federally
elected officials in their hometowns. The two most significant concerns
of elected officials are votes and money, with votes being the number
one concern. Because officials want to be re-elected, they are driven by
the voters at home. They need to hear from the Humanist community in
person on their home turf.
• Work the polls. Hand out palm cards, wave signs, give voters a lift
to the voting place
• Run for office. We must field candidates that hold shared secular
humanist values.
Notes
1. John J. Stuhr, “Dewey’s Social and Political Philosophy,” in Reading
Dewey: Interpretations for a Postmodern Generation, Larry Hickman, ed.
Indiana University Press, pp. 85–86.
2. “Evidence-Based thinking”, Accessed April 21, 2015, http://www.issue-
pedia.org/Evidencebased_thinking.
3. “Humanist”, Dictionary, Apple, Version 2.2.1 (156).
4. Paul Kurtz, “The Affirmations of Humanism, a Statement of Principles”,
Human Prospect: A Neohumanist Perspective, Summer 2014, Vol 4 #1, 70.
5. “Paul Kurtz - The New Atheism and Secular Humanism”, Point of
Inquiry Podcast, September 14, 2007, http://www.pointofinquiry.org/.
6. “Theocracy,” Accessed April 21, 2015, http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/Theocracy.
7. Paul Kurtz, “Mission Statement”, Institute for Science and Human Values,
Accessed October 18, 2013, http://instituteforscienceandhumanvalues.
com/articles/mission%20statement.htm.
8. Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Secularism (Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2008), pp. 133–170.
9. Paul Kurtz, Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Principles and Values,
Institute of Science and Human Values, http://instituteforscienceandhu-
manvalues.com/articles/neohumaniststatement.htm.
10. Signing Statement, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Accessed April 22,
2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement.
11. American Bar Association “Blue-Ribbon Task Force Finds President
Bush’s Signing Statements Undermine Separation of Powers” Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia, Accessed April 22, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Signing_statement
12. Executive Order 13199, 29 January 2001, Establishment of White House
Office of Faith- Based and Community Initiatives Delivered, Office of
Federal Register, Accessed April 22, 2015, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/WCPD-2001-02-05/pdf/WCPD-2001-02-05-Pg235.pdf.
13. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Surveys, http://www.pewfo-
rum.org/2009/11/16/faith-based-programs-still-popular-less-visible/
14. Executive Order 13498—Amendments to Executive Order 13199 and
Establishment of the President’s Advisory Council for Faith-Based
and Neighborhood Partnerships, The American Presidency Project,
Accessed April 29, 2015, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.
php?pid=85734.
15. “Inaugural Advisory Council,” Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood
Partnerships, Accessed April 28, 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
administration/eop/ofbnp/about/2009-2010.
12 RELATING TO A “NON-HUMANIST” WORLD: PARTICIPATING … 259
Postscript
Monica R. Miller
M.R. Miller (*)
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, USA
From this we must not conclude that everything that has ever been linked
with humanism is to be rejected but that the humanistic thematic is in
itself too supple too diverse too inconsistent to serve as an axis for reflec-
tion. And it is a fact that at least since the seventeenth century what is
called humanism has always been obliged to lean on certain conceptions of
man borrowed from religion science or politics. Humanism serves to color
and to justify the conceptions of man to which it is after all obliged to take
recourse.5
13 POSTSCRIPT 263
Notes
1. Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press, 1986, 118.
2. Williams, 1986, 118.
3. Foucault, Michel. “What is Enlightenment?” The Foucault Reader. Edited
by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984.
4. Foucault, “What is Enlightenment?”, 1984.
5. Foucault, “What is Enlightenment?”, 1984.
6. Foucault, “What is Enlightenment?”, 1984.
Index
A African American
Ability, 5, 13, 25, 28, 45, 134, 147, African American churches, 62
166, 195, 199, 200, 219 African American secular human-
Abolition, 64 isms, 76
Abramović, Marina, 134, 146 African Americans for humanism,
Absence, 88, 91, 136, 138, 145–149, 28, 77, 101, 110
179, 219, 240 Afro-American
Abstraction, 25 Afro-American music, 223
Abyss, 128, 221 Agnosticism, 17, 58
Academia, 4 Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), 104
Accountability, 156, 218, 246 Alien
Activism alien force, 29, 151–155, 161, 164,
Everyday activism, 79 167
Adolf Hitler, 9 alienhood, 163
Adorno, Theodor W., 118, 123 alien wisdom, 164
Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Rudy the tall white alien, 161, 164,
Neighborhood Partnerships, 247 166
Advocacy, 64, 66, 244, 253, 255, 256 Alienation
Aesthetics modes of alienation, 158
aesthete, 148 Alternative
Affiliation, 75, 81, 157, 159, 167, alternative fact, 2
244, 254 alternative religious institutions, 195
Africa America
African humanists, 103, 108 American
African women, 104