Roger Scruton reflects on the growing militantism, especially in Britain, of the New Humanism (The American Spectator, March 2009). Nostalgically, he compares it to the Humanism of his childhood and his parents.
Scruton pinpoints the root of the militantism in a perversion of the Enlightenment morality to “take responsibility.”
Like so many modern ideologies, the new humanism seeks to define itself through what it is against rather than what it is for. It is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular. Ever since the Enlightenment there has been a tendency to adopt this negative approach to the human condition, rather than to live out the exacting demands of the Enlightenment morality, which tells us to take responsibility for ourselves and to cease our snivelling. Having shaken off their shackles and discovered that they have not obtained contentment, human beings have a lamentable tendency to believe that they are victims of some alien force, be it aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, capitalism, the priesthood, or simply the belief in God. And the feeling arises that they need only destroy this alien force, and happiness will be served up on a plate, in a garden of pleasures. That, in my view, is why the Enlightenment, which promised the reign of freedom and justice, issued in an unending series of wars.
Scruton believes this New Humanism is a departure from the Old Humanism. But let us remember, you know a tree by its fruit. Humanism is a philosophy, but philosophy is not religiously neutral. Humanism is ultimately rooted in a deification of humanity. It declares humanity as the measure of reality. Humanity first defines reality by language, then controls reality by science, and finally shapes reality by culture. There is nothing humanity cannot do! In short, Humanism exalts humanity to the level of “unconditionally non-dependent” (as philosopher Roy Clouser puts it). Humanism believes it is has no obligations other than what itself declares (by democratic means, of course - Vox populi, vox dei!)
Humanism, Old and New, is in radically opposition to a Creator God who requires reverence and submission. And to simply ignore God would be irresponsible. No, He must first be declared dead. And those who fail to comply with the majority must join him.
G’me that ‘Ole Time Humanism
Roger Scruton reflects on the growing militantism, especially in Britain, of the New Humanism (The American Spectator, March 2009). Nostalgically, he compares it to the Humanism of his childhood and his parents.
Scruton pinpoints the root of the militantism in a perversion of the Enlightenment morality to “take responsibility.”
Scruton believes this New Humanism is a departure from the Old Humanism. But let us remember, you know a tree by its fruit. Humanism is a philosophy, but philosophy is not religiously neutral. Humanism is ultimately rooted in a deification of humanity. It declares humanity as the measure of reality. Humanity first defines reality by language, then controls reality by science, and finally shapes reality by culture. There is nothing humanity cannot do! In short, Humanism exalts humanity to the level of “unconditionally non-dependent” (as philosopher Roy Clouser puts it). Humanism believes it is has no obligations other than what itself declares (by democratic means, of course - Vox populi, vox dei!)
Humanism, Old and New, is in radically opposition to a Creator God who requires reverence and submission. And to simply ignore God would be irresponsible. No, He must first be declared dead. And those who fail to comply with the majority must join him.