Humanism Variety

Humanistic Judaism, Fall, Winter 1974-75

An enthusiastic modernist asked me recently if I thought that the advance of science and empirical procedures would usher in the possibility of a world religion. If, with the exposure of the masses to secular education, acceptance of humanist message becomes fairly universal, then the basis of a genuine unity exists. While traditional religions with their closed methodologies of faith created exclusive cultural enclaves, the new humanism, characterized by an anti-dogmatic and responsible openness, would enable men of radically different backgrounds to hurtle their home barriers and merge into the religion of mankind.

The heady optimism that characterizes this question was not unique to my questioner. Over a century ago the naive exponents of free-thinking imagine that the use of reason, once widely spread, would prove the key to a universal ideology in which all men would participate. However, they cannot be too severely condemned, for, after all, naïveté was the mood of the era. Even a contemporary Rabbi, Isaac Mayer Wise, was proclaiming, in all seriousness, that by the beginning of the 20th century Reform Judaism and a purified Hebrew monotheism would have won the world.

The problem is that the question I received contained a hidden promise. The asker assumes that scientific humanism is one religion. He assumed that, if all men embrace the empirical approach, all meaningful controversy would be ultimately resolvable. While men may disagree about conclusions when evidence is meager, the responsibility to public experience will enable men to agree when evidence becomes overwhelming. (After Magellan’s crew sailed around the planet, it was pretty impossible to maintain that the earth was flat.) Thus, disagreement is theoretically only temporary. Time and patience will heal all arguments and reduce men to increasing unanimity of opinion. Controversy will never cease, but each disagreement is conceivably “settleable” by a set of imagined experiences. The logical possibility of a single conclusion makes unity possible.

If religion were concerned with information about man in the universe alone, then one would have to assert that empiricism provides the basis for a universal religion. But, of course, it’s primary concern transcends information and reaches out to evaluation. Religion has historically, although not uniquely, been concerned with the question of meaning in life; and meaning, or purpose, is a function of ultimate values and final goals. The discovery of an achievement of those value and has been a persistent driving traditional religion and secular philosophy.

Now, certainly, most of our values can be empirically determined. Because the vast majority of our ethical judgment or involved with means and not ends, they are extrinsic. An activity that had extrinsic value is never good in itself; it is good for achieving some other action or experience that is “self-validating:” that needs no justification beyond itself. Science can conceivably answer all questions of extrinsic value. If the empiricist knows the goal, and if he has available the relevant data, he can determine what procedures are necessary to achieve the goal. But he could not demonstrate that any end is worth pursuing, simply for its own sake. While he may lead his student to experiences he personally finds intrinsically meaningful, and teach him how to achieve them, he cannot prove their value from his own perception of the student himself.

Intrinsic or ultimate value is not a proper subject for scientific demonstration. Science may do a statistical survey on what ultimate values people do have. They cannot, however, make a list of ultimate values people ought to have. Science may open up a host of new activities which individuals may find meaningful and self-justifying; it cannot, however, demonstrate their meaningfulness. Final values are the result of personal intuition. To talk about them is to talk about a personal situation, not a universal one. Each individual, through his own experience, finds those actions and passions he wishes to repeat.

It is, therefore, obvious that all humanists, no matter how united on a method for the discovery of informational truth, will not find the same “meaning” in life. Unless we assume against the personal testimony we daily encounter, that all men share the same ultimate values, you will have to conclude that among humanists a variety of different “religions” may exist, each religion a function of a unique set of values.

Of course, it is possible for two people to share the same ideas about the intrinsic merits of certain experience and still not share the same religion. The difference lies in the ordering. Even if both individuals find ultimate meaning in the act of compassion and in the act of intellectual discovery, one person may regard compassion as the more significant while the other may view intellectual discovery as qualitatively superior. There are degrees of intrinsic value; and the discernment of degrees is again both personal and intuitive. One humanist, on the basis of his value order, may prefer to devote the major part of his life to the cause of social justice, and only a small part to academic pursuits, while another may prefer the thrill of pure your research and indulge asocial crusade now and then. Neither humanist is expressing the humanistic value order. Each of them simply reflects a different temperament.

Even if all men become humanists (which is highly unlikely) organized religion would still reflect these differences of “temperament”. Even if all humanists came to endorse the same side of ultimate values, the religious expression would still have to deal with the fact that the same values may be ordered differently. Some congregations would be primarily devoted to you in the mystic experience; others to the thrill of understanding the operation of the universe. Some would prefer to build their program around the kinesthetic pleasure of song and dance; others to emphasizing help for the underprivileged. Available religious society would be committed to do more than the empirical method; it would be billed on a sense of shared meaning, a set of final values that call into a certain order of emphasis. The personality of a congregation like that of an individual is determined by its value structure; and this structure provides a basis for organized activity.

Value imperialism of the disease that good humanists resist. To assume that the welfare of mankind requires a single set of moral ends which the young must be educated to accept is to cultivate self-righteousness and to frustrate the creation of a workable society. It might be eco-satisfying to know that “my” values are the values; but it breeds the danger that “I” will treat contemptuously alternative moral choices. To assume, as many modern Christian humanists do, that all men ought to accept a radical and suffering love as their primary ethic is to project the personal side of ultimates onto the universal scene and violate the obvious uniqueness of individual taste and temperament. Love as a secondary motif might give life a different meaning from love is a primary motive (and, therefore, provide a different religion); it but it is consistent with an empirical outlook.

Thus, world united by its commitment to the scientific method and its rejection of intuition as a valid means to information truth will still spawn and sustain a variety of religions, each religion a derivative of how individuals and groups perceive the character and order of their values.

In fact, the variety may be further increased by another factor, the factor of aesthetics. Two humanists may share the same life goals and therefore share the same religion and yet choose to symbolize and dramatize their commitment to different poetries. The consistent Christian humanist may fully acknowledge that the validity of the values Jesus proclaimed are independent of the fact that he proclaimed them and may further admit that many other historic figures preached pretty much the same message, and still choose to use the figure of Jesus as the personal symbol of his ethical commitment. Alternative symbols are possible, but none is as compelling for him.

The Jewish humanist will readily admit that his value system does not depend on prophetic or Talmudic endorsement for its validity, and yet he will choose to use certain events in Jewish history as dramatizing of these commitments. Alternative poetry is certainly available, but for him no other possibility has the same emotional impact. He certainly has no objection to using items in other poetic traditions. It’s just that, since he desired to devote only a limited amount of time to symbolism in ceremony, he would prefer to use one set of related symbols well, rather than a variety of culturally unrelated symbols superficially.

One can conceive of a host of different poetic styles to express a given side of religious values. On a theoretical value, that difference in aesthetics would not make a difference in religion; but, on the practical, or organized level, it would provide an emotional basis for separate development. Aesthetic modes are not easily merged, because they are so tied up with the pleasures of what is visible and audible. Moreover, certain options may possess a kind of intrinsic value for those to use them.

This observation confirms the “problem” our optimistic questioner faces. While the world of the future may, therefore, see the continuing advance of science and empirical thinking; and while it may witness a general disintegration of the theoretically oriented religious denominations, the emergence of one system of value meaning is highly unlikely. In fact, technological this already, with its opportunities for leisure and study will hide in the sense of individuality and provide within the framework of a comment with method, a wide variety of ethical and aesthetic alternatives.

New Opportunities and Directions

Humanistic Judaism, Autumn 1980

The last annual meeting of the Society for Humanistic Judaism was a quantum jump in our self-awareness as a movement. We emerged with a clear sense of our uniqueness of the Fourth Alternative in Jewish life.

Out of our response to the events, we discovered new opportunities and new directions.

What are some of the new opportunities?

1. We have opened up dialogue with secular Jews. Harold Gales, the founder of the National Conference of Secular Jews, (and the author of an article in this issue) participated in an outreach dialogue during the conference. He expressed a strong sense of solidarity with the aims and philosophy of Humanistic Judaism and articulated the need for cooperation and sharing.
Secular Judaism and Humanistic Judaism are virtually identical in their ideology. They differ in their strategies. The secular movement emerged in the 19th century as a passionate rebellion against the reactionary political and social policies of organized religion. It, therefore, saw all aspects of religious institutional life as hostile and dangerous. In the Jewish community, it organized cultural societies and cultural schools. But it avoided any imitation of congregational structures and rabbinic leadership.

The Humanistic movement developed in the 20th century out of the radical elements of liberal religion. Although it rejected the theological heart of organized religion, it found merit in the community life and in the celebration of seasonal holidays, historic events and life-cycle ceremonies. It also found value in a professional clergy who would provide the leadership for humanistic congregations that the religious clergy provided for conventional churches and temples. In the Jewish community, humanism assumed the format of the religious institution but the philosophy of a free-thinking secularism.

Humanism Judaism and secular Judaism are expressions of the same Fourth Alternative in Jewish life. Therefore, the new dialogue between us is a way of discovering the breath of this alternative and of arranging for joint action in behalf of what we both embrace.

The Jewish community needs to hear our shared voice on important issues like the nature of Judaism, female equality, personal lifestyle, intermarriage and conversion.

2. We have begun an important conversation with Polydox Judaism. Rabbi Joseph Rosenblum of St. Louis, the president of the Institute for Creative Judaism, and one of the leaders of the Polydox movement, also participated in the outreach dialogue which was held at the May conference. Polydoxy, the brainchild of Alvin Reinea, a philosophy professor at the Hebrew Union College, represents the left-wing of the Reform movement. Like Unitarianism, it is a transition from liberal religion to humanism. Well affirming creedlessness and freedom of choice as its basic commitment, most of its adherents are proto-humanists with very little genuine theological interest.

Certainly, many Polydox Jews are more than a part of the Fourth Alternative than they are of conventional Reform Judaism. In fact, dialogue and cooperation with Humanistic and Secular Jews will be more fruitful for them than the futile attempt to find accommodation with the Reform establishment which rejects them. The Second and Third Alternatives – Conservatism and Reform – are coming closer together. Polydox can have no place in this new traditionalism. It will certainly be more comfortable within the ranks of the Fourth Alternative.

3. We have established an important link with our fellow humanists in Israel. As the national homeland of the Jewish people, Israel is the center and focal point of Jewish cultural life. The Zionist reality is of special significance to secular Jews because the founders and pioneers of the modern state were overwhelmingly secular. Krishna Jews were initially resistant to the message of political Zionism.

Today, the tables have been partially turned. Israeli humanists and secularists are on the defensive. A militant orthodoxy is seeking to recruit the power of the government to impose religious values and standards and all Jews. The control of education, family life and public institutions is the heart of their agenda. The new conservative Begin regime has established an alliance with a clerical establishment and is ‘creepingly’ altering the secular character of the Jewish state.

In the face of this new offensive, Israeli humanists need as much help as they can find, especially from those Jews who share their beliefs and values. Although most Israelis are secular in their behavior, the new chauvinism equates religious nostalgia with patriotism. And it finds justification for reactionary political behavior and religious literature. So far, the secularists have not been able to arouse their own forces sufficiently to resist this new assault. Resting all the successes earlier decades, they have taken too much for granted.

More important than the political battle is the cultural opportunity for the Israeli connection. Secular farm settlement and urban huggim have created over the past seventy years a vast amount of education and celebration materials to serve the ethical and ceremonial needs of their people. The literature is so extensive that it is virtually a ‘gold mind’ of usable alternatives for Diaspora Jews. Most of the creative materials need to be translated from the Hebrew into English. Once available, their cumulative effect will be overwhelming for North American Jewry.

The dramatic appearance and participation of Shulamit Aloni at the May conference highlighted the Israeli connection. She is certainly the most charismatic and pragmatic exponent of humanism in Israel today. As a member of the Knesset, and as a courageous lawyer and journalist; she has provided the most effective resistance to religious encroachment. With her help, we hope to sponsor a conference with humanists throughout the world in which would offer support to the secular struggle.

4. We have continued to expand our outreach into the general world. The fellowship of religious, which six to embrace all units who still use the structures of organized religion to express their commitment, will hold it if you can’t switch at the Birmingham Temple in October. The fellowship allows you to chance, at the Cocodrie where is aunt share ideas. In particular, right in the development of uniquely humanistic holidays and lifecycle. The emergence of World Day (November 1) and People Day (May 1) are part of this exploration

The advancement of a secular world culture, which does not eliminate but which supplements natural culture is at the very heart of humanistic commitments. But this attachment needs to go beyond the realm of pious clichés into the reality of community symbols and celebration. We need to train our young and our old to be world citizens and to dramatize this achievement through new and universal ceremonies. We have to start with small groups of people who are willing to be pioneers.

The newly found Council for a Democratic and Secular Humanism is another important vehicle for outreach. The creation of Paul Kurtz, one of humanisms most articulate spokesmen, the Council reaches out to all secularists, whether they imitate or reject the structure of organized religion. It will provide the necessary rallying point for the resistance to the political activity of fundamentalist religion in this country. That battle is the same struggle that Israeli humanists are fighting in the Jewish state. Only the flags and symbols change.

These four new opportunities for dialogue with the Secularist, the Polydox, the Israeli humanists and the non-Jewish community define our outreach and enable us to embrace people of different labels who are part of the Fourth Alternative.

But the outreach will only be important if it leads from talk to action. There are real needs to be served which require cooperative effort. There is the need to publicly define Judaism as a culture, and not as a religion. The prevailing practice among the three other alternatives in North America to explain Jewish identity as a religious identity, or to emphasize that religion is the most important part of Judaism, must be resisted. There are two ways to do the resistance. One is forceful and insistent propaganda. The other is the creation of adequate educational materials for young and old that dramatize the secular side of Jewish culture.

There is the need to endorse what traditional religion is reluctant to endorse. The decay of the historic family is dramatic but not without alternatives. A morality which denounces divorce, singlehood and female independence is both inappropriate and harmful. The mobile individual is a reality, and a potentially good reality, of modern society. This point of view needs to be publicly articulated. And educational materials have to be creative too reinforce it.

There is the need to organize events the political militancy of the new fundamentalism. Unless we resist, we shall find ourselves living in a world dominated by a superstitious and tyrannically religion. For the new evangelicals ‘secular humanism’ is the enemy. We must be able to articulate are philosophy and commitments in a positive way so that those who opposes appeared to be the ‘nonbelievers.’

There is the need to provide professional leadership for Jewish humanist congregations and secular groups. Since rabbis are now generally regarded as teachers of Judaism (rather than defenders of the Orthodox rabbinic tradition), the idea of a ‘secular rabbi’ is novel but appropriate. But for those humanists and secularist totally opposed to any form of religious vocabulary, another title can be provided (the Hebrew manhig, leader, it may be an option). The title secondary to the reality. Without trained professionals’ philosophic leadership, humanistic and secular Jews will never be able to compete with the spokesmen of the more traditional alternatives. Hopefully, liberal seminaries will assist us in training leaders to serve the Jewish community. If not, we shall have to turn to the secular universities for new options.

There is the need to provide a unique alternative talk to the compulsive past orientation of conventional Judaism. Scenarios of the future are equally as important as scenes from the past. Old events cannot be changed. They can only be remembered. But future events are open to the influence of human decision. It is important for us to give equal time to both the before and the later, especially in these times of rapid change. And especially when what is the blonde in the past may not be an appropriate model for what needs to be done in the future.

Humanistic Judaism is expanding its outreach. We are getting bolder and more ambitious. After all, we cannot neglect of the opportunities that are available and the needs that must be served.