Although college students in America have been majoring in secularism for decades, a college in California is the first to offer an official major in secular studies:
Colleges and universities have long offered majors in religion or theology. But with more and more people now saying they have no religion, one college has decided to be the first to offer a major in secularism.
Starting this fall, Pitzer College, a small liberal arts institution in Southern California, will inaugurate a department of secular studies. Professors from other departments, including history, philosophy, religion, science and sociology, will teach courses like “God, Darwin and Design in America,” “Anxiety in the Age of Reason” and “Bible as Literature.”
The department was proposed by Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist of religion, who describes himself as “culturally Jewish, but agnostic-atheist on questions of deep mystery.” Over the years he grew increasingly intrigued by the growth of secularism in the United States and around the world. He studied and taught in Denmark, one of the world’s most secular countries, and has written several books about atheism.
Studying nonbelief is as valid as studying belief, Mr. Zuckerman said, and the new major will make that very clear.
May 9th, 2011 | 2:00 pm
How much longer do we have to go on pretending that humanism is “not a belief”?
It’s ridiculous. The cognitive dissonance….
May 9th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
Poor kids who’ll be studying secularism. May as well be studying astrology.
May 9th, 2011 | 2:20 pm
We have a hard enough time finding jobs for religion majors…
May 9th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
I think the correct degree would be a B.S. in Secularism.
May 9th, 2011 | 3:21 pm
Unsurprisingly, the degree was suggested by Zuckerman whose bogus atheist statistics are readily quoted by Internet infidels and ready ridiculed by anyone with a clue.
May 9th, 2011 | 3:27 pm
A minor in secularism should be awarded to all graduates of major American universities . . . . Students can acculumate credits toward their minor by “hooking up;” drinking and throwing up; going to the Club Med recreation center and stair stepping their way to the perfect Spring Break body; and engaging in community service (i.e., driving daddy’s SUV to the ‘Earth Day” rally).
May 9th, 2011 | 4:03 pm
** How much longer do we have to go on pretending that humanism is “not a belief”? **
I don’t think anyone suggested that it wasn’t, however secularism is not the same thing as humanism. There is of course some overlap, but (for example) many of the original proponents of humanism during the Renaissance were actually popes. Hence also the phrase “secular humanism,” which is presumably used to differentiate from other types of humanism.
I personally wouldn’t have a problem with a degree in humanism — indeed that is pretty much what the humanities are supposed to be.
May 9th, 2011 | 4:06 pm
Blake, I agree with you. I would argue that we all “believe” in something. No one can offer irrefutable “empirical” proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or a transcendent order. The entire premise of this major appears to rest on the notion of “non belief”. But to profess that you do not believe something is not the same thing as saying that you do not believe in anything. Just because you either cannot or do not want to try to understand or articulate what it is you believe does not mean that you believe in nothing.
Any legitimate course, let alone an entire major, on secularism would have to acknowledge it as a system of belief with identifiable philosophical, and religious, origins. Such a course could fit under the already existing discipline of religious studies.
May 9th, 2011 | 4:11 pm
That’s the anti-religion strategy. Define atheism as a religion, demand respect under freedom of religion, and interpret that to mean no religion.
May 9th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
secularism is not the same thing as humanism.
And how much longer do we have to pretend there are real or meaningful differences between the various names (secularism, humanism, atheism, New Atheism) that all describe the belief-set that matches, practically verbatim, the “statement of belief” of both the Unitarian Church and the secular humanist clubs?
The beliefs are all the same. They are all descended from the exact same philosophical event (the Enlightenment), with the same quotes from the same philosophers leading to the same moral ideology.
Their shared beliefs are far closer in kind than anything you’ll find in any Catholic congregation.
Their shared ideology reveres the same scientific method as the ultimate truth and source of knowledge, and the same humanist pantheon as prophets, saints, idols, role models, saviors, and gurus.
They all accept the same narratives and core story regarding who and what we are, where we come from, where we’re going, how we ought to get there, what the purpose of it all is, and how we ought to behave (and what we ought to value) while doing it.
Please: if there is a difference between secularism, humanism, New Atheism, etc., can someone please tell me what sort of microscope is required to see this difference? It all looks like Unitarian Universalism to me…even down to the part about adopting different names in order to cherry-pick rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations…..
May 9th, 2011 | 5:45 pm
Blake – Which Unitarian “statement of belief” are you referring to? This one? As Christians who profess the beliefs of the Unitarian Christian faith and tradition, We declare that the Bible is the sacred scripture in which our religious convictions are founded upon and that Jesus of Nazareth is our spiritual guide, leader, and head of our church. We declare that God is one in being and person and that Jesus the Christ is God’s anointed and best child.
I’ve just never seen you actually “sum up” what you’re so annoyed about…
May 9th, 2011 | 5:46 pm
<Blake:
Please: if there is a difference between secularism, humanism, New Atheism, etc., can someone please tell me what sort of microscope is required to see this difference?
The microscope of ‘post-modernism’ perhaps?
May 9th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
Blake,
There are any number of different kinds of humanism: Christian humanism, Jewish humanism, Buddhist humanism, secular humanism. All you need to do is look in Wikipedia.
I don’t know that the “New Atheists” have any particular philosophy that they all adhere to. It just so happens that there are some very vocal atheists nowadays, and they have been lumped together by the media as the “New Atheists.” Ayn Rand was an atheist, and if she were around today, she’d probably be lumped in with the “New Atheists,” but certainly someone like Sam Harris doesn’t agree with Ayn Rand just because she was an atheist.
Lumping all atheists together because they don’t believe in God is like lumping together Christians, Hindus, and pagans because they believe in gods.
May 9th, 2011 | 7:18 pm
What Blake said.
May 9th, 2011 | 7:34 pm
There are any number of different kinds of humanism: Christian humanism, Jewish humanism, Buddhist humanism, secular humanism. All you need to do is look in Wikipedia.
In other words, humanism can make a hybrid with any belief system.
But that doesn’t change the fact that humanism is what it is – humanism doesn’t change, only the Christianity/Judaism/Buddhism/whatever it attacks does.
May 9th, 2011 | 7:44 pm
No Ray, I am talking about Unitarian Universalists.
.
The basic rule is, you can believe – and call yourself – whatever you want, as long as you adhere to the prime directive: first and foremost, you must believe exactly what every other humanist believes.
May 9th, 2011 | 8:33 pm
Blake – From that same website:
Most religions go with the second bit, the “making the world a better place for everyone”. Depending on how you define “acceptance” quite a few go with the first, as well. I think I could make a case the majority of humanity could fall under that rubric. (Even Islam makes at least some noises about accepting ‘people of the book’, i.e. Judaism and Christianity, if as second-class citizens.)
So, uh… what does “every other humanist” believe?
May 9th, 2011 | 10:39 pm
Blake,
It seems clear to me that when you say humanism, what you actually mean is secular humanism.
May 10th, 2011 | 12:23 am
Ray,
As I said, they are all right with you doing whatever you want, being whatever you want, and believing whatever you want, as long as whatever you believe is humanist first, and religious only so long as it does not come into conflict with humanism.
Unfortunately, this is only on paper; in practice, UUs can’t tolerate conservatives, and have been known to actually give sermons about the evils of that favorite bogeyman, Christianity, whom they openly spin paranoid fantasies about (I admit, I’ve recorded a few such lectures, lol). But in theory, Christians would be welcome, as long as they leave “at the door” all the stuff that conflicts with their party-line-liberal doctrine.
May 10th, 2011 | 3:20 am
In California, You Can Get a B.A. in Secularism
Why do you have to pick on California?
Why does the state in which the university resides matter?
May 10th, 2011 | 8:38 am
Blake – You say they want you to believe “humanist first”, and apparently that’s a bad thing. Okay.
But for Pete’s sake, what is the content of “humanism” you so object to? If there are in fact common beliefs that “secularism, humanism, atheism, New Atheism” all share, please list some.
Then, maybe, we can figure out if they are, in fact, ‘bad’.
May 10th, 2011 | 4:03 pm
Then, maybe, we can figure out if they are, in fact, ‘bad’.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to say humanism was “bad”.
What I meant to say was that I’m tired of humanism misrepresenting itself.
May 10th, 2011 | 4:16 pm
I’ve done a great deal of study into the evolution of “Unitarian” “Universalism.” The unitarian and universalist heresies were quite popular among America’s notable Founders and the philosophers who influenced them. They considered themselves “Christian” and the Bible as, in some way, sacred scripture, that Jesus was Savior. They just disbelieved in both the TRINITY and ETERNAL DAMNATION. Denial of the Trinity defines classical unitarianism and denial of eternal damnation defines classical universalism. How it got to the point where atheists were welcomed among UUs is beyond me though.
May 10th, 2011 | 7:29 pm
Ray, it’s only when combined with Secular that it manifests as a focus on human reason and a rejection of mythological or religous explanations. Humanism by itself has no meaning and the problem is that it can’t be defined in any way by itself.
Even anti-humanistic things can fall under a secular humanism. Without the secular though, it has no legs. What exactly is a christian humanist anyways?
May 10th, 2011 | 11:30 pm
And Blake still hasn’t defined what he means by “humanism”. It’s uncanny.
May 11th, 2011 | 6:08 am
And Blake still hasn’t defined what he means by “humanism”. It’s uncanny.
Actually I thought I explained what I meant by “humanism” at some length.
May 11th, 2011 | 6:13 am
How it got to the point where atheists were welcomed among UUs is beyond me though.
They just ‘evolved’.
There are still a number of Universalist (and, apparently, Unitarian?) congregations that opted not to go along when the two denominations merged. These congregations appear to still identify as Christians who just believe that God loves everyone equally and nobody is ever damned, or something like that. For this reason, I am guessing that the point where UU turned into a place that adopted whatever change in doctrine is responsible for the results: a congregation comprised almost entirely of atheists and pagans.
May 11th, 2011 | 11:46 am
Blake
Where? I’ve never seen you list a single belief. Not one. No principles, no tenets – no suggestions, even. You have stated that They all accept the same narratives and core story regarding who and what we are, where we come from, where we’re going, how we ought to get there, what the purpose of it all is, and how we ought to behave (and what we ought to value) while doing it.
But you haven’t actually stated what those narratives and core story are.
What if I told you that “plebny” was a word for people who had a certain thing in common? Wouldn’t your first question be, “Okay, what is that ‘certain thing’?”
Come on. If “secularism, humanism, atheism, New Atheism” all have something in common, please just come out and explicitly state what it is.
May 11th, 2011 | 3:22 pm
The central idea of humanism is that man is the source of all value and sense. The main consequence of humanism is moral relativism, the idea that only we can say what is right or wrong.
Clearly humanism is a philosophy/ideology/world-view, whatever you want to call it, but it is not religion. It is important to distinguish beliefs about religion from religious belief, especially in the US, which accords special protections to religious freedom.
May 11th, 2011 | 6:27 pm
Clearly humanism is a philosophy/ideology/world-view, whatever you want to call it, but it is not religion.
And yet the secular humanists society cited as authoritative in the Dover, PA “evolution trial” beliefs aren’t any different in practice from what the recognized “religion” Unitarian Universalism believes.
Or is there a difference? I’ve asked people before to tell me what the difference is. Nobody has ever offered anything substantive.
The only difference I see is the tax breaks.
We yank around the definition of “religion” too much. We say Taoism and Confucianism are “religions” and teach them in world history class. So I have come up with my own definition of what I think a religion is. I think a religion is the point at which we depart from what is knowable in favor of articles of faith, to answer the core questions that give us purpose, meaning, a moral code, and a narrative to live by. Religion answers the big questions:
- who are we? what does it mean to be human?
- where do we come from? where are we going?
- what does it mean? what should it mean?
- what is good, and what is bad, and how do we know?
The difference between philosophy vs. religion is that philosophy limits itself to reason, while religion accepts articles of faith not as conditional, but as truth.
May 12th, 2011 | 11:24 am
Okay, there’s a slight chance we might make progress here. Blake classifies humanism as a religion, and defines a religion as answering the questions:
So, Blake, what are the ‘humanist’ answers to these questions? It shouldn’t be too hard to sum up, right?
May 12th, 2011 | 3:56 pm
So, Blake, what are the ‘humanist’ answers to these questions? It shouldn’t be too hard to sum up, right?
As I’ve already said, I use a specific reference.
If you go to the Dover, PA “evolution trial” transcript, and find the secular humanist who testified, she actually cites a secular humanist group that publishes statements of belief.
May 13th, 2011 | 10:07 am
Blake – How hard is it to post a link? Especially when it’s central to your point?
Instead, we get, “Google to find the Dover, PA intelligent design trial transcript, search the document for ‘secular humanist’ and hope you find the person I’m talking about, find the name of ‘a secular humanist group’, then Google that group name to find their ‘statements of belief’.”
You’ve already done all that work, right? Why can’t you help a brother out and actually link to the ‘statements of belief’ directly, or at least give the name of “a secular humanist group”?
If these statements are such a rallying point for such a wide group of people, how come they’re so obscure?
May 16th, 2011 | 11:37 pm
I have to go with “Truth Unites . . . and Divides” comment. Highlighting that the college is in California relies on some pretty worn stereotypes that fail in the way most stereotypes fail. Mostly what it symbolizes is that the writer has a far-off view of California and doesn’t appreciate the diversity within it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact