The Shortcomings of Humanism

🖨 Print

In this article, we will explore humanism — a secular worldview that prioritizes human values, reason, and ethical principles, often in contrast to religious beliefs and supernatural explanations. To accurately represent this philosophy, we will examine the beliefs of humanists in their own words, quoting the text from a video put out by Humanists UK, and we will provide some critique on this system of thought from a Torah standpoint.

“Humanism, of course, is not a religion, it’s something which bases itself on a commonsensical view of the world”.

Firstly, let’s start off by saying that using the word “commonsensical” (i.e. referring to that which is in accordance with common sense or practical wisdom) and asserting that humanism is grounded in a commonsensical perspective can be seen as an appeal to emotion fallacy. The term “commonsensical” is vague and evokes a sense of agreement, as who wouldn’t want to operate based on common sense? However, it lacks substantive evidence or logical reasoning to support its argument. After all, what exactly constitutes common sense can vary widely from person to person and society to society. The “common sense” that prevailed in Nazi Germany is surely not something that we would claim you can build a moral system on.

The word “commonsensical,” therefore, is a buzzword that sounds appealing but lacks clear meaning or substance. It also assumes the existence of an objective standard that might make sense and sound nice in the world of ideas, but such a standard does not exist in the world of reality.

“A humanist sees the world as infinitely precious and quite extraordinary and almost miraculous”.

This statement may reflect the personal perspective of the speaker, but it doesn’t necessarily represent the views of all humanists. What reasons do humanists have for seeing the world as infinitely precious? Many people perceive the world as dreary and depressing, and humanism, which lacks its own set of beliefs or doctrines, doesn’t have the authority to assert a particular viewpoint and claim otherwise.

[Referring to the absence of belief in an afterlife] “It just means that we have this life, and we make the most of it. If anything, that’s a positive. So we don’t say “oh well, you know if we muck it up this life we have an afterlife” – the onus in us to lead better lives in this life”.

This statement is riddled with fallacies about the religious belief in an afterlife. According to the Gemara¹, our actions in this life determine our condition in the next world, likening it to preparing for Shabbat: “One who takes pains on Shabbat eve will eat on Shabbat, but one who did not take pains on Shabbat eve, from where will he eat on Shabbat?” Thus, if we do “muck up” this life, that has severe repercussions on our afterlife. Indeed, the onus is on us to lead better lives in this life but that in no way contradicts the value that we place on Olam HaBa – The World to Come.

“If you believe that we live in a universe which is a natural phenomenon which behaves according to certain discoverable natural laws and norms then, of course, the only way of finding out true facts about reality is through the scientific endeavor”

As Rabbi Sacks wrote, “We need science to tell us how the world is and religion to tell us how the world ought to be. Both are necessary. Each properly understood can enhance our respect for the other.”² Religion acknowledges that science is invaluable for discovering factual truths about the world. However, it also recognizes that science alone cannot dictate moral behavior or instruct us on how we should conduct ourselves. Therefore, framing religion and science as conflicting and irreconcilable forces is not a viewpoint we support.

“Humanists hold science in very high regard because science is the careful open-minded approach to trying to understand the world and human beings in it; it’s a method of critical inquiry which is always ready to change its mind when better facts come along”.

Holding science up as the pinnacle of human thought and objectivity is misleading. Note the last line of this comment, “(science) is always ready to change its mind when better facts come along” – this is exactly the approach that many have adopted toward the belief that a person can be born in the wrong body and the subsequent gender reassignment surgery that might follow from this belief. Such beliefs are not purely objective but are often framed within scientific discourse to lend them an air of objectivity. It’s important to recognize that science can be influenced by underlying beliefs and ideologies rather than being completely detached from them.

“One of the natural consequences of humanism, of the idea that the human race is one species, of the idea that every individual member of that species is a bearer of the dignity that humanity gives us is a general spirit of inclusiveness”.

In Torah, we affirm that humans are created in the image of God (Bereishit 1:27), which bestows upon us inherent importance and dignity. From a secular perspective though, what exactly constitutes “the dignity that humanity gives us”? This statement appears to invoke religious concepts while renouncing religion, which many will view as intellectually insincere.

Additionally, the phrase “a general spirit of inclusiveness” falls into the category of buzzwords we discussed earlier. It is a term that almost everyone can agree with, as no one wants to appear against inclusivity. However, it primarily appeals to emotions and aims to generate consensus without providing clear meaning or specific actions.

“Humanists begin to think about the good and flourishing life on the basis of their best understanding of how things are for human beings, but that doesn’t mean that it’s got a particular line, a particular doctrine that everybody has to fall in with. In fact, it demands of people that they think for themselves”.

This, perhaps, is the greatest failing of humanism. For all the talk about what is important to their world outlook, when push comes to shove, they don’t actually have a clearly defined set of principles that they believe in. Humanism remains vague and subject to interpretation, with ideas evolving over time and differing between individuals. This perpetual state of fluctuation means there’s no moral absolutism; everything is considered relative, and people are left to determine their own ethical frameworks without a clear structure for how life should be lived.

“We have power in our hands to make our life and our society and our world better. We know it’s down to us; there’s nobody else. It’s no good getting on your knees begging for somebody else to do something; it’s just up to us”.

And here we end off with a silly caricature of the religious believer as one who gets down on their knees and begs, expecting everything to be done for them without putting in any effort themselves. In Judaism, we have the interplay of the principles of hishtadlut (effort) and bitachon (trust), where hishtadlut underscores our responsibility to take action. The notion that we can sit idle while expecting Hashem to do everything is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of our beliefs.

In life, we often encounter ideas that appear logical and coherent. Humanism seeks to promote a compassionate, rational, and meaningful human life grounded in ethical principles and respect for human diversity, which sounds appealing in theory. However, we are blessed with the capacity for critical thinking, and upon closer examination, some ideas may not hold up. May we all have the wisdom to question belief systems thoughtfully and avoid accepting everything blindly.