Roger Scruton is nostalgic for the old humanism.
“Our parents called themselves humanists. They had been raised as Christians, but had lived through the Second World War and lost faith in the God who permitted it. They regarded humanism as a residual option, once faith had dissolved. It was not something to make a song and dance about, still less something to impose on others, but simply the best they could manage in the absence of God.
“… Looking back on it, I see the humanism of my parents as a kind of rearguard action on behalf of religious values. They, and their contemporaries, believed that man is the source of his own ideals and also the object of them. There is no need for God, they thought, in order to live with a vision of the higher life. All the values that had been appropriated by the Christian churches are available to the humanist too. Faith, hope, and charity can exist as human causes, and without the need for a heavenly focus; humanists can build their lives on the love of neighbor, can exercise the virtues and discipline their appetites so as to be just, prudent, temperate, and courageous, just as the Greeks had taught, long before the edict of the Church had fallen like a shadow across the human spirit.”
I would know less about the British version, but in America, it seems to me, this was a long process that begins with the intellectual heirs of Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment grappling with the legacy of their thought and the advances of science in the 19th century. In other words, not entirely traceable to World War II, or World War I, which seems the stronger candidate for a tipping point.
When the point tipped and the basket spilled, more nervous mentalities scattered into bad constructions. The whole gore-clotted history of the 20th century is a record of what intellectual idealists do when they feel freed from old moral restraints and try to construct utopias.
Though WWII isn’t a bad choice, either. The last great humanist celebrity in the old style might have been Jacob Bronowski.
Scruton’s nostalgia is sharpened by his distaste for the new set of thinkers who claim the mantle of “humanists.”
“This humanism is self-consciously “new,” like New Labour; it has its own journal, the New Humanist, and its own sages, the most prominent of whom is Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and vice-president of the British Humanist Association. It runs advertising campaigns and letter-writing campaigns and is militant in asserting the truth of its vision and its right to make converts. But the vision is not that of my parents. The new humanism spends little time exalting man as an ideal. It says nothing, or next to nothing, about faith, hope, and charity; is scathing about patriotism; and is dismissive of those rearguard actions in defense of the family, public spirit, and sexual restraint that animated my parents. Instead of idealizing man, the new humanism denigrates God and attacks the belief in God as a human weakness. My parents too thought belief in God to be a weakness. But they were reluctant to deprive other human beings of a moral prop that they seemed to need.”
Notably, it is rooted in evolutionary biology. Darwin’s discovery is not the friend of humanism. It first drained the humanism out of Christianity, by robbing the Christian humanist of Nature as a book of God’s love and intentions to set against the strictures of the Testament. It also, ultimately, drains the goodness and morality out of secular humanism, too. It leaves you with a human life consisting of What Worked in the Pleistocene. What allowed us to best kill and fuck and snuff out the Neanderthals.
The humanists may laugh at the creationists as ignorant, but the creationists at least recognize the awful consequence of the science Darwin set in motion.