In a Dec. 28 article for the New York Times ("In a crisis, humanists seem absent"), Samuel Freedman calls attention to the seeming failure of secular humanists to provide much comfort for the families of the victims of the Newtown, Conn., shootings.
Protestant, Catholic, Baha'i, Jewish and Muslim clergy participated with President Barack Obama in an interfaith service two days after the massacre. All of the victims' families chose religious services, which were held in, among others, Catholic, Congregational, United Methodist and Latter-day Saint houses of worship. Where were the secularists?
I dislike the way Freedman uses the term "humanist" as a synonym for "atheist," since I've always considered myself very much a humanist — just not a secular one. In my view, Mormonism is a profoundly humanistic faith.
Historically, many humanists have been believers: Erasmus of Rotterdam, for instance, is often described as a "Renaissance humanist," even though, among other things, he was an ordained priest and an important New Testament scholar. And others — Sir Thomas More, for example (or, for Catholics, St. Thomas Moore), along with such prominent figures as Rabelais, Ficino, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Pico della Mirandola, the martyr Michael Servetus, and Luther's famous lieutenant, Philip Melanchthon — are typically described as "Christian humanists."
That quibble aside, though, Freedman's article raises an important issue: Why, faced with appalling tragedies such as Newtown, does secular humanism seem so irrelevant? And not just in the face of extreme tragedies. "We have humanist celebrants, as we call them," says a secularist counselor interviewed by Freedman, "but they're focused on doing weddings" — happy, easy, non-challenging events. "I don't see celebrants working in hospice or in hospitals."
Another secularist cited in the article contends that the problem is a failure of messaging. And that unbelievers need to be better organized. My own sense, however, is that the problem is a matter of substance, or, more accurately, the lack thereof. Secular humanism just doesn't have a lot to offer in such cases. Secularism's comfort when a loved one dies — whether from senseless violence or quietly in a hospital or hospice — seems pretty thin gruel, at best. (Have you heard the one about the atheist's funeral? "All dressed up, and nowhere to go.")
"What religion has to offer to people," he continues, "at moments like this — more than theology, more than divine presence — is community." And indeed, if this were all that religious faith could offer, believers could provide no greater comfort than unbelievers. There's no reason to believe nonbelievers are necessarily less compassionate or caring than religious people are.
But most forms of religion offer the comforting hope of continued life, reunion and even compensation beyond the grave. True or not, such hope is simply unavailable to atheists and secularists.
The great British philosopher-mathematician Bertrand Russell, who died in 1970, was an outspoken atheist, and a far more serious thinker than the writers who have gained recent notoriety as advocates of the so-called "New Atheism." Listen to the comforting words that Lord Russell wrote in a famous essay titled "A Free Man's Worship":
- Temple Square opens 3 new exhibits
- Jerry Earl Johnston: Do you fit the Mormon...
- Who decides if a law restricts a religious...
- Defending the Faith: Did Book of Mormon...
- Lindsey Stirling reflects on global audience,...
- Arianna Rees: Why Lindsey Stirling's...
- 'Meet the Mormons' now available for...
- Defending the Faith: Did Book of Mormon... 135
- Arianna Rees: Why Lindsey Stirling's... 80
- Who decides if a law restricts a... 16
- The Rohingyas: A look into one of the... 8
- 34 of the most beautiful churches from... 7
- Jerry Earl Johnston: I can't move the... 4
- About Utah: Reliving their great escape... 4
- Obama to Jews: Shared values compel... 3