HUMANISM

The term "humanism." not infrequently employed by modern preachers and publicists as well as in philosophical discussion, is apt to puzzle wayfaring folk, if only because it is used in several varying senses. One might imagine that "humanist" means "a believer in humanity" or "a lover of humanity;" it is in fact sometimes used as if it were synonymous with '"philanthropist" or "humanitarian." This, however, is not its general meaning. Originally, the term was associated with those scholars of the Renaissance period who devoted themselves to the study and glorification of the ancient Greek and Latin classics. Classical studies were known as "the humanities." Even today, the Oxford schools include "litterae humaniores." meaning the school of classics; and the professor of classics at Aberdeen is described as "professor of humanity." The enthusiasm of the Renaissance people for the poets, philosophers, historians, and orators of Greece and Rome, was intense: it marked a reaction against the preoccupation with theology characteristic of mediaeval "scholasticism." Yet one of the most ardent and munificent patrons of "humanistic" studies was Pope Leo X.; and their chief protagonist, the mighty Erasmus, was a devout Christian. Other "humanists," however, became infected with sceptical views: in them, "humanism" became identified with a pagan outlook on life. They were the heralds of the eighteenth century "free-thinkers." represented by such men as Diderot and the "Encyclopaedists." Thus "humanism" came to be associated with hostility to "revealed religion." In the nineteenth century, the term was specifically applied to the so-called "religion of humanity," inaugurated by August Comte. Comte held that man's intellectual progress led from theology through metaphysics to science. He abandoned all belief in the supernatural, but was strangely reluctant to abandon the forms of religious observance. He therefore established a cultus of "Humanity," in which the chief feature was the veneration of those regarded as benefactors of the race, whether as exemplars of moral virtues or as pioneers in the service of human enlightenment and emancipation.
In the twentieth century, "humanism" has become the creed of a school of thinkers, very influential in America, who have taught that man, equipped with scientific knowledge and technology, is capable of becoming the architect of his own perfection. These men agree with Comte in rejecting the supernatural: but their main stress is on the idea that science has provided man with all the tools necessary for the building of a spacious and satisfactory house of life. Mr. H. G. Wells is a typical representative of this school of thought. The millennium is to be reached by way of secular education and technological development. In his remarkable address at the Bonython Hall last Sunday afternoon. Dr. Beovich had much to say about this species of "humanism." which he seemed to identify with "atheistic liberalism." He declared that, under the influence of this secular and materialistic philosophy, God had been progressively excluded from politics, business, education, and family life. In the absence of any fixed standards of conduct, an exaggerated individualism had led to something like chaos. Now, however, the wheel had come full circle: people were seeking refuge from the chaos of exaggerated individualism in slave societies which reduced the individual to nothingness. "Humanism" had ended in a complete debacle; man's efforts to perfect himself had led him to the brink of ruin: his vaunted knowledge had turned to his own destruction. "Free thought," the speaker suggested, was only another name for frantic egotism: its ultimate fruitage was a godless absolutism in which all thought was extinguished. The spirit of human pride had so far overleaped itself, that it had come to abject surrender to the tutelage of gangster dictators, and to the renunciation of all human rights and dignities. "Humanism" begins by glorifying man above reason: it ends by degrading him below reason.
That there is much profound truth in this analysis of the crisis of our civilisation, seems hardly contestable. A similar analysis is offered by such men as Schweitzer, Berdyaev, and Macmurray, approaching the problem from standpoints widely different from that of Dr Beovich. Its relevance to our Australian environment is acute, for it may be argued that nowhere has the secularisation of life proceeded so fast and so far, while tradition seems to have counted for less than in Europe or even America. Thoughtful Australians, of whom Professor Murdoch is a distinguished representative, are pleading, even with passion, for a return to the fundamentals of the Christian ethic. Perhaps the challenge of Communist, Nazi, and Fascist ideologies to the spiritual values of Christian civilisation will provoke a new awareness of what these values mean, and even a new resolve to explore afresh their original sources and discover the secret of their power and permanence. The manifest bankruptcy of a godless humanism may surely be interpreted as a call to build afresh our own house of life, and to do it on the spiritual foundations of the Christian Gospel. Most people in this country agree to praise, if not to practise, the principles of the Christian ethic. It must be realised, with the needful clarity, that this ethic requires for its groundwork and justification nothing less august, authoritative, and all-embracing than the entire Christian "world view."

The Advertiser AUGUST 3. 1940,