Hong Kong Liberal Religious Forum

[UURN] From a Humanist

...I am aware that some religious naturalists are critical of humanism...[being] too anthropocentric. ...

First, my dissatisfaction with humanism: ...humanism ought firstly to promote human flourishing. I
believe this is much the intent of at least the first and latest humanist manifestos, even if those two documents don't include the specific phrase, "human flourishing." Many of my humanist acquaintances seem content to substantially replay the secular-religious debates of the mid-1700's. They are content to defend their chosen humanistic moral high ground. I want to go beyond this to creating a humanistic narrative that nonhumanists might find compelling.

Along these lines, I recently composed an essay, one that will be published in the next issue of "Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism." In this essay, I develop a personal perspective of humanism (what's in it for me). I have as an additional project composing a second essay based on research that I am shortly to undertake to develop a perspective of humanism from a group point of view (what's in it for us). Beyond that I hope to take on a third project to enunciate a more bio- or ecocentric humanism. I have in mind that this latter effort will be composed of five parts:

(1) There is ample evidence that you and I are composed of elements, all of which were produced by fusion inside red giant stars -- red giant starts that lived and then died in massive explosions that spread those elements through the universe as so much cosmic dust, some of which at some point coalesced into solar systems (including ours) including rocky planets where those elements ended up becoming the substance of living beings, such as ourselves. Look at the philosophy of Owen Flanagan ("The Really Hard Problem") for how humanists understand themselves as inhabiting a material universe.

(2) There also is scientific evidence (a dozen or more specific reasons) how the earth itself just happens to be a really good place for the formation of life (of which we are a part). Consider all the various writings of bioregionalists to get an idea how humans can live in harmony with the local ecology and environment.

(3) Evolution teaches us first that we are rather intimately related to all life forms on earth (evidence of shared biochemistry) as well as that we humans share (at least) three traits that characterize universal human nature. I know this last bit is not without controversy, but see my essay soon to be published for evidence of a universal human nature and how that impacts what might be described as an ethical, religious, and civic humanism.

(4) There is evidence to be found in the writings of ecology, human ecology, and the new urbanism to address the idea that humans are social animals and that we find ourselves in self-propagating, self-nourishing, self-educating, self-governing, self-healing, and self-fulfilling communities.

(5) Finally, there is evidence to be found across a variety of disciplines describing an individual's life as a progression of stages (infancy, childhood, adolescence, reproductively mature adults, middle age, and old age) demarcated by rites of passage -- a humanist's perspective of a life with a well-recognized beginning, middle, and end -- something we should find reassuring as we live our life.

If I am able, something like this outline will form the backbone of my third essay. I hope it will lay out a compelling case for a more ecocentric (less anthropocentric) humanism. ...and with this I get back to where I started.

Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity to present these ideas.
I'll address as best I can any questions or comments that you have.

Best regards,

Charlie Vail