Christianity begets Humanism?

[Pebble]

Santayana (1863 - 1952) apparently proposed that the true 'limited' nature of the human condition was recognised by the Greeks and Romans, thus humans knew their place in the world and consequently had limited ambitions for personal freedom. He argued that the Enlightenment was flawed in rejecting the role of tradition, and in giving rise to the belief in progress toward human perfection. Now while one can debate whether individual perfection is thought to be one of the potential outcomes of Liberalism, there certainly is a focus on human perfection rather than a world of perfect harmony.
The intriguing thing is that he lays the blame for this transition at the door of christianity. Is this a valid proposal? Certainly in the dark ages, the catholic church was a very top down organisation steeped in tradition, and the individual human was of very little importance, the rise of protestantism can be seen as part of the process of awakening individualism rather than the source of such concepts.
I don't know enough about the early christican church, was that fiercely individualistic? Or is the argument just that by accepting the notion that all of nature has been given by god for man's use, created the idea of human supremacy - and that this notion had not previously held sway?
If the latter, should the same consequences not flow from islam, and should the consequent humanism be a species objective rather than an individual objective - hence not lead to liberalism?

[Tony Williams]

Certainly in the dark ages, the catholic church was a very top down organisation steeped in tradition,

I think they're still in the Dark Ages...

[Floppit]

I'm going to be really honest here and risk showing my lack of education!

Pebble, I have a feeling I'd be very interested in this but most of it flew over my head! I have an odd background in terms of exposure to 'humanism', firstly as a school of counselling, where I liked it but due to the context had no expectation other than it should be centred on people and secondly as an interesting philosophy which appears to me to be an attempt to write down the non theist ethics so that those who choose to can henceforth use the shorthand of 'Humanism'. Is it the latter you're referring to? I kind of guess so but still feel like I'm missing the point.

[Pebble]

I'm going to be really honest here and risk showing my lack of education!

Pebble, I have a feeling I'd be very interested in this but most of it flew over my head! I have an odd background in terms of exposure to 'humanism', firstly as a school of counselling, where I liked it but due to the context had no expectation other than it should be centred on people and secondly as an interesting philosophy which appears to me to be an attempt to write down the non theist ethics so that those who choose to can henceforth use the shorthand of 'Humanism'. Is it the latter you're referring to? I kind of guess so but still feel like I'm missing the point.

I'm flying a kite too. I do not understand philosophy, I have difficulty understanding the point of thought experiments - where is the fixed reference? How can you measure progress in a topic when there is no agreed starting point and no agreed direction of travel? Nevertheless, science must have started in similar ways, and lets face it without some sort of moral framework it is difficult to relate to others, for them to know your likely expectations, and it would be impossible to bring up kids that you have any chance of being proud of.
So I have this love hate relationship. I like reading what various 'thinkers' conclude and why they think they are right, but am repelled by the use of precedent or any claims to progress. So when there is a grand claim like this - that humanism is essentially a byproduct of christianity I feel uncomfortable. If it is true, then there is rather more to christianity than I appreciated - but how could one determine that it is so, rather than merely an assertion by someone with a particular view of the world?
Perhaps I am being too skeptical, mabey this is evidence of progress in moral thought from the classical, through christian to humanist - and if so is that 'progress' detrimental in failing to recognise our place within the natural framework?

[DrS]

I always feel I'm wading through treacle with this sort of thing, but I'm not sure about the claim that "the true 'limited' nature of the human condition was recognised by the Greeks and Romans", and that therefore the Enlightenment was flawed in " giving rise to the belief in progress toward human perfection".

Plato theorized about perfect forms and quite a bit of 20th century anthropological Classics focused on the ancient concept of the Gods as the "perfect form" of humans. Now given that Heracles and Asclepius were humans who became Gods (albeit both from partly divine parentage), there seems no reason to suppose that humans could not aspire to the ultimate in perfection.

There is also plenty of evidence that some at least of the Romans thought they could achieve divinity. Even before the Imperial Cult became an obligatory part of "state" religion, more than one of the Julio-Claudians thought they were divine.

I find myself questioning what "human perfection" is perceived to be. Is it divinity? Or is it something more earthly like political autonomy? If so, Periklean Athens would have considered human perfection to be achievable. Militarily? Sparta. And Rome's empire was the world, so I'm not sure the concept of limits would have meant much.

I'm not sure if these ramblings get us anywhere ...

[Floppit]

I have difficulty understanding the point of thought experiments - where is the fixed reference?

I remember reading a great thought experiment (at least I think it was a thought experiment!) in an ethics book once. The writer asked the reader to imagine themselves walking to work in a new pair of shoes they really liked, and then seeing a child drowning in a pond, the writer then asked the 'what would you do?' question - yep, a real no brainer! In the context though it helped to demonstrated the inconsistency of feeling about sacrifice we hold, the context had evidenced in real world terms that developed nations are buying extra shoes and clothes just for fun while we know people really are at risk of death. For me, the benefit of a thought experiment is to be at least willing to allow someone else to direct my thinking up to a point and then allow me to consider it. I think it's valid not so much in terms of generalisation but understanding my own thinking better which hopefully in turn is in some way helpful when I come to think about issues from which I would generalise.

In the same way I think ethics and humanism bring the subject to the table for people not willing to plough through brightly dressed claptrap to get there. I would still say that in both topics I struggle to get myself interested or motivated enough to read on without there being reference to the real and observable world and without an argument being refutable. I remember 2 authors Scot Peck and Bion I was asked to read as part of a course, I found both so infuriating and fluffmongering that my lazy side won out and I did not read them! On the other hand Julian Baggini I find really engaging.

If humanism is rooted in religion, which I think is likely, that's only a problem to me if it continues to carry the mistakes of religion, also probably likely to some extent, but still only a problem where it's the case rather than because it is connected to religion.

[Pebble]

I always feel I'm wading through treacle with this sort of thing, but I'm not sure about the claim that "the true 'limited' nature of the human condition was recognised by the Greeks and Romans", and that therefore the Enlightenment was flawed in " giving rise to the belief in progress toward human perfection".

Plato theorized about perfect forms and quite a bit of 20th century anthropological Classics focused on the ancient concept of the Gods as the "perfect form" of humans. Now given that Heracles and Asclepius were humans who became Gods (albeit both from partly divine parentage), there seems no reason to suppose that humans could not aspire to the ultimate in perfection.

There is also plenty of evidence that some at least of the Romans thought they could achieve divinity. Even before the Imperial Cult became an obligatory part of "state" religion, more than one of the Julio-Claudians thought they were divine.

I find myself questioning what "human perfection" is perceived to be. Is it divinity? Or is it something more earthly like political autonomy? If so, Periklean Athens would have considered human perfection to be achievable. Militarily? Sparta. And Rome's empire was the world, so I'm not sure the concept of limits would have meant much.

I'm not sure if these ramblings get us anywhere ...

Thats true, the Greeks idealised the human form and human endeavours, though it is suggested that this was thought only possible for the elite, and not generalisable, thanks for the detail will help to look up. In this respect perhaps what christianity brought was the concept that, even if only after death, all can achieve perfection. This would make a fairly logical link with the next step of seeking to achieve perfection through striving for perfection in this life and subsequently adapting this idea to evolution toward perfection.

I remember reading a great thought experiment (at least I think it was a thought experiment!) in an ethics book once. The writer asked the reader to imagine themselves walking to work in a new pair of shoes they really liked, and then seeing a child drowning in a pond, the writer then asked the 'what would you do?' question - yep, a real no brainer! In the context though it helped to demonstrated the inconsistency of feeling about sacrifice we hold, the context had evidenced in real world terms that developed nations are buying extra shoes and clothes just for fun while we know people really are at risk of death. For me, the benefit of a thought experiment is to be at least willing to allow someone else to direct my thinking up to a point and then allow me to consider it. I think it's valid not so much in terms of generalisation but understanding my own thinking better which hopefully in turn is in some way helpful when I come to think about issues from which I would generalise.

In the same way I think ethics and humanism bring the subject to the table for people not willing to plough through brightly dressed claptrap to get there. I would still say that in both topics I struggle to get myself interested or motivated enough to read on without there being reference to the real and observable world and without an argument being refutable. I remember 2 authors Scot Peck and Bion I was asked to read as part of a course, I found both so infuriating and fluffmongering that my lazy side won out and I did not read them! On the other hand Julian Baggini I find really engaging.

If humanism is rooted in religion, which I think is likely, that's only a problem to me if it continues to carry the mistakes of religion, also probably likely to some extent, but still only a problem where it's the case rather than because it is connected to religion.

Thanks Floppit, I think the worry being expressed by Santayana was that if you believe in a perfect human socitey, one tends to try to fix the current problems. The issue then arises that we do not really understand people and what drives them, so such fixes have unintended consequences. The problem is that the idealists know that there is inertia that must be overcome, thus are prepared to use force or bribary to move a society toward their vision of perfection. This large scale approach to improving the lot of humanity is likened to religious zealousness, because it tries to change peoples behaviour to fit a model devised by the wise.

The result is that liberalism can be at an individual level, (each to their own), this leaves many to fall behind. Alternately, liberalism can lead toward trying to improve the lot of the whole society, this leads to grand projects and centralisation of power and attempts at one size fits all solutions which also fail. Either model, puts man at the centre of our vision of perfection and is doomed due to the consequences for the rest of nature.

So we may conclude that we are too ignorant of the world to govern it sensibly, and individually too self centered to begin to manage ourselves even if we did know what to do. What a cheery thought.

[DrS]

Have a look at Plato's Republic. It's a literary philosophical work based around a conceptual republic. In this "place", there are three classes, and everyone is given a "religion" which Plato calls a "noble lie". It concerns how all people are born of the same mother, earth, but made of different types of metal. Belief in this, he argues at length and in detail, would mean that society would remain ordered, with the "philosophers" (lovers of knowledge) as rulers, specifically because they did not want the power, and no-one who did want power could be trusted to rule.

[Floppit]

Good god! How bad was my grammar in the last response!?

I think the worry being expressed by Santayana was that if you believe in a perfect human socitey, one tends to try to fix the current problems. The issue then arises that we do not really understand people and what drives them, so such fixes have unintended consequences.The problem is that the idealists know that there is inertia that must be overcome, thus are prepared to use force or bribary to move a society toward their vision of perfection. This large scale approach to improving the lot of humanity is likened to religious zealousness, because it tries to change peoples behaviour to fit a model devised by the wise.

I've never really understood this, but perhaps that's my lack of understanding. I would accept fully that we do not understand people well or what drives them but that (I think) is due to complexity rather than some quality of humans which will always defy understanding. Human lives and actions leave swathes of evidence, from our rubbish to our teeth, we, as a species are loud, bold and common place - we're anything but the snow leopard of the natural world. It frustrates me to see topics divided as science or non science dependent on the subject rather than process, as evidence is both available and collectable I see no reason to believe human beings will never be understood - including (perhaps ironically) the very quality noted above of being tempted to achieve ends faster via violent means. I think that cultural split between science and the arts is relevant to this because it makes it harder for the study of people to attract those who really do want rigour and evidence while allowing to thrive many who don't. In turn I think this has contributed to what I would say is an extreme level of infighting in psychology.

The result is that liberalism can be at an individual level, (each to their own), this leaves many to fall behind. Alternately, liberalism can lead toward trying to improve the lot of the whole society, this leads to grand projects and centralisation of power and attempts at one size fits all solutions which also fail. Either model, puts man at the centre of our vision of perfection and is doomed due to the consequences for the rest of nature.

While I think of myself as quite liberal in many aspects I also think of it a little like non conformity, ie shouted from the hill tops without a vast amount of substance underpinning it! I could be very wrong but I can't help but think 'being a liberal' is very much like 'being a non conformist' - both are probably not the whole picture. What stops us from picking and choosing? Why not have ideals where evidence is high and be liberal where it's low? Of course we'll still make mistakes, which brings me on to the second issue, why must we have only a vision of perfection or none at all? Why no middle ground? It's not impossible to cope with the notion of incomplete knowledge or even unperfected methods, you have to cope with both studying psychology, pull each text out and look first hand for the confounding variables and variable designs but surely this is where skeptics should excel?

So we may conclude that we are too ignorant of the world to govern it sensibly, and individually too self centered to begin to manage ourselves even if we did know what to do. What a cheery thought.

We may be too ignorant right now but as we are already hugely powerful as a species I think we need the humility to really start to learn and we need the confidence to really start to learn. perhaps it will be another 1000 yrs before we have the basics of human behaviour nailed down, but that surely means we should begin rather quickly as there's so much to do!

I really do yearn for skepticism to become more centred on these kinds of topics, even if it means starting with baby steps but still to get our backsides into the real grey areas all around us rather than god and gouls. But, ultimately I think that is largely because of my own predilections!

[Pebble]

Have a look at Plato's Republic. It's a literary philosophical work based around a conceptual republic. In this "place", there are three classes, and everyone is given a "religion" which Plato calls a "noble lie". It concerns how all people are born of the same mother, earth, but made of different types of metal. Belief in this, he argues at length and in detail, would mean that society would remain ordered, with the "philosophers" (lovers of knowledge) as rulers, specifically because they did not want the power, and no-one who did want power could be trusted to rule.

It is more than 30 years since I last read the Republic, so a refresher would be beneficial and perhaps a very different reader is now available in me. Nevertheless, your description does suggest that perfection (philosphers) differ from the fodder of an organised society.

[Pebble]

Dear Floppit,


One of the reasons I like this forum is that skepticism is not confined to subjects on which there is agreed knowledge, however, I agree with your frustration that it rarely extends to morals and the nature of a 'good' society. I think the difficulty will obviously arise that there is a very Western perspective from most contributors, further our knowledge of real hardship, injustice and tyranny is only from books. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to conceive that anything that would seem like a reasonable way forward expressed here would be remotely close to that which could ultimately be successful. Still as you say, that is no reason for not trying, only a reason for great caution is allowing such concepts to contaminate political action.

It does make you wonder if a consensus on simple basic requirements of justice could be agreed by ordinary people, using the web as a tool to ensure that all segments of all societies are represented.

[Floppit]

One of the reasons I like this forum is that skepticism is not confined to subjects on which there is agreed knowledge, however, I agree with your frustration that it rarely extends to morals and the nature of a 'good' society.

I agree completely - but I'm greedy, I want the whole central theme to shift so that it revolves around discussion where both sides are applying reasoning and working from an evidence base, something I believe not possible with religion and woo. It would be idealism if I loaded on a whole bunch of moral compulsion, but if I'm honest with my self what drives my desire is the environment for learning I think it would create, one I would enjoy very much.

I think the difficulty will obviously arise that there is a very Western perspective from most contributors, further our knowledge of real hardship, injustice and tyranny is only from books. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to conceive that anything that would seem like a reasonable way forward expressed here would be remotely close to that which could ultimately be successful.

It is this recognition (amongst others) that pulls us away from the doomed approaches in the previous description of idealism versus liberalism. To recognise the need for such inclusion IS a first step in it's own right. The answers don't have to be in our life time to make them worth seeking, the internet may provide a new forum in decades to come that at least makes possible such inclusion. All I can really say though is that I agree, so much so that in one of my previous responses is an idea I from a Sri Lankan fisherman - I've never read Santayana, but reading your questions about his philosophy brought the fisherman to mind from the start. If you're not in the mood for a story skip the next bit!

Perhaps it will be another 1000 yrs before we have the basics of human behaviour nailed down, but that surely means we should begin rather quickly as there's so much to do!

The fisherman had said:
'Some things take 5 minutes and you can do them any time, some things take 500 years so we must begin very quickly.'

I don't like sunbathing, I loathe it, I want a tan but hate lying in burning sun too bright to read and too hot to think. The choice between sunbathing and chewing the cud with the local catamaran crew (who want to improve their english) is a clear one for me. One person I got to know was an elderly man who'd set up a kind of co-operative between the prawn fishermen in his village to share the tourist trade. When a crew could speak English, German and Dutch, with a smattering of French, Italian and Spanish they could share fairly time on the tourist beaches touting for trips on their boat. They learned the languages by engaging in conversation any tourist stood still long enough, the majority of tourists are afraid to, some are aggressive and violent particularly to the younger men hence the older ones bringing people back to talk when possible. I was willing to spend hours and hours there, no way in hell could a pool, bar or sun lounger compete so in the end we certainly became as much friends as is possible across 4 holidays in the same place.

On this occasion Mohamed had brought the boat and crew just for that purpose, not his tourist day but I had arrived the day before and there were umpteen young lads wanting english and two friends eager to catch up! Sat under the sails for shade with me drinking tea alone due to Ramadan. We had talked about all sorts of things but a fight up the beach had stopped conversation. Mohamed sent the younger men to stop the fight and tried to reassure me they would do so. I'm just going to write the rest as I remember it, probably many mistakes but the meaning was as clear as day.

I asked what the fight was about and this is how it went from Mohamed's reply:
'They are brothers, one always hits the other, one has done many bad things, he cut his brothers wrist, maybe he burned his hair too. They will stop them fighting (pointing to his crew pulling apart the fight).
'What will they do to the brother who always hits?'
'They will talk to him, tell him not to do it.'
'Will they hit him?'
'No.'
'But you said it happens alot, talking doesn't work.'
'Hitting made the problem, hitting cannot solve the problem. Their father hit them every day when he was drunk until he died, one boy grew up always getting hit but he never hits, the other grew up always hitting - hitting made this.'
'But you know talking doesn't work, why do you keep trying?'
'We don't hit, hitting is the wrong answer and we must find the right answer to solve the problem, if we hit we will never look and we must look (looking is a really important word there, it seemed to me always treated with reverence, looking can mean love - you 'look' for your mother, you 'look' at the sea to find food, it also was used interchangeably with learn).'
'But what about the younger brother?'
'There are many boys and we must look, if we don't hit then we will look, if we hit we will not look. I don't think I will find the answer, maybe also my children will not see it but they must look too. Some things take 5 minutes and you can do them any time, some things take 500 years so we must begin very quickly.'
I asked if the bullied brother understood why they didn't hit to protect him. Mohamed said the younger brother does not hit so he must also be looking.

I don't know if it's rational, but in the interests of honesty I'll be open in saying that conversation changed my world view and it felt like I had heard something very important. I have thought about it so many times and only have more respect for it as a way of thinking. I doubt it was intended as something so profound, I think he had just thought about it and said what he thought but I think it encapsulates both the confidence to keep trying to learn and the humility to accept a certain degree of defeat. So yes, I think there is always a conspicuous empty chair and not one that can be filled by a second hand 5 minute story.

[Pebble]

Thinking of a scientific approach to philosophy is difficult. One would have to be able to apply interventions to groups of individuals and observe those which had overall beneficial results and those which did not. In a way this is already attempted by 'inquiries' into failed policies - but it does not really get to the nub of the problem.

1. Any society is from a value point of view a chaotic system, with multiple individuals whose values conflict with each others and vary over time. Thus to create models where one could assess the impact of applied changes would require computing power that would make climate science modelling look simple.

2. Humans respond not just to the change applied, but also to the theory behind the choice of change appied, thus any intervention itself changes the society over and above any impact of the change applied.

3. The systems being studied are subjected to changes greater than any intervention applied. For example the rise of christian fundamentalism in the US is mirrored by forgein policy behaviour that causes hatred among Islamic populations, election of a fundamentalist (Bush) and 9/11 combine to cause the invasion of Iraq hastening economic instability while causing changes in beliefs in respect of torture etc. What intervention could be studied that would not be drowned out by such events?