The foundation of modern humanism
dates back to around 450 B.C. when it originated in Ancient Greece. Many
philosophers of the era expounded upon the ideas of humanism, but the
first to develop the concept was the Greek philosopher Protagorus. The
basic ideas laid out by these philosophers were that there are no
absolute truths or moral codes, and that man should look toward himself
to solve problems as opposed to looking toward a divine power. However,
these ideas were quickly stifled by the church. Free thought was
certainly discouraged, and anyone teaching ideas in defiance of the Bible
was persecuted. It remained this way until the Renaissance came about in
the 14th century. Throughout the Renaissance humanism gained much
attention as a so called “alternative” lifestyle. However,
during the 18th century the church received much criticism, and many
people began to reject its “blind faith” teachings.
Today, this philosophical outlook
from the Renaissance has been termed secular humanism. Modern humanists
for the most part consider themselves atheists. They deny any form of
divine power and are skeptical of anything involving the supernatural
(ghosts, mysticism ect). Morals
and ethics are defined by each individual and are contingent upon the
situation.
The writings of secular humanist
groups are very upbeat. They emphasize self confidence and
determination-- anything is possible if one tries hard enough. They urge
people to solve their own problems and take charge of their life. This
type of teaching gives a person a sense of empowerment. They don’t
have to beg and plead with a god to grant their requests. Instead, they
simply take life by the horns and make it happen. (I guess that’s
why the moral codes are so flexible.)
Edward Abbey is a
secular humanist. Many groups of secular humanists consider all species
equal, as does Abbey. “All men are brothers, we like to say,
half-wishing sometimes in secret it were not true…. We are obliged,
therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for
some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred [Abbey
25].” However, while this is in line with standard teachings of
secular humanism, Abbey also states, “I prefer not to kill animals.
I’m a humanist; I’d rather kill a man than a snake [Abbey
20].” It’s clear that he is a very devout humanist. The more
radical groups feel as though the human race has become too large and
that it is destroying nature.
Their solution to this problem is to keep humans from multiplying
further. Even though few humanists
would actually kill a man in the name of humanism, they feel strongly
that humans are the root of all evils concerning nature.
Humanists also put great value on critical reasoning, factual
evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry. This explains Abbey’s
way of rationalizing killing the rabbit-- a story that I was shocked to
read only a few pages after he said he would rather kill a man than a
snake. He walks away without “feel(ing) any sense of guilt.”
He was only able to do this because he had set it up as an experiment
“for which the rabbit has been volunteered.” By killing the
rabbit Abbey no longer feels like “a stranger from a different
world.” He now considers himself kindred with all the other
creatures because he himself is prey to predators of the desert just as
the rabbit was prey to him. However, after this experiment is complete he
notes that there
will never be need to repeat it. [Abbey 41-42]
Readers are better able to understand the book by understanding the
beliefs of the humanist that wrote it. After reading about humanism
it is no wonder that Abbey enjoyed spending time in the
desert. He was completely independent of the world. He
was his own moral code and was the master of his own destiny.
He answered to know one. He was seperated from anyone or
anything that could force beliefs on him. He was
truly his own person, and I believe his writing reflects that.
by Kim Hood
