Women and Humanism Update

[JOHN BURCHFIELD]

I have tried to raise the issue of women and humanism before without much response, but I will make one more try.  When I once suggested that women were turned off by male humanists because we tend to be so abrasive and argumentative, I was firmly informed that this is not the case by at least three women!

I have to keep this a blind item because the person involved is still alive and active.  Some years ago a Famous Humanist who visited First Church said at a meal with some of us that he was done with the UU's and intended to focus his attention on Ethical Culture.  He claimed that the decline of Humanism in UU circles was in part the result of ordaining so many female ministers.  He also asserted that many of the newer female clergy who identify themselves as "humanists" didn't really understand the term.  I don't know who he had in mind, but the UUA distributes a pamphlet by Sarah Oelberg entitled "The Faith of a Humanist":  The Faith of a Humanist

The Faith of a Humanist A pamphlet by Sarah Oelberg (purchase).

Said pamphlet includes the following sentences:  "There is a unique spark of divinity in each of us by virtue of our human endowment; we need only try to find it. My search for that spark within me gives me constant challenge and consoling calm."    Short definitions of "humanism" I have seen do not reference God or gods, but they routinely include something along the lines of "non-theistic" or "without supernaturalism."  Even if you accept the idea of a divine spark--and I know of no Humanists who do, aside from the problematic Jay Powell--is it denied to the lower animals?  Is this a way of sneaking in the idea that we were made in God's image?

A familiar quote from Richard Lewontin, frequently cited in creationist literature (in fact, I am quoting it from a creationist website) states the following:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin was speaking in particular about evolution; should this credo be applied to Humanism generally, at least in its secular form?  Perhaps I am being too doctrinaire, but even UUs have to draw the line somewhere!

IIRC, years ago, the official UUA  pamphlet on humanism, written by a man--not that that makes any difference!--described humanism as being a form of materialism (today we would probably say "naturalism").  I am sure, in part because of women like Oelberg, the UUA would not endorse language like that today.

I'll take a chance and not present the following as a blind item.  Our former Assistant Minister, Robin Zucker, who variously described herself as a mystical humanist, spiritual humanist, or just plain humanist, once delivered a sermon on the theme "prayer is good medicine," inspired by a book of that title by Larry Dossey, M.D.  This struck me as a strange thing for a self-styled humanist to endorse, so I read Dossey's book.  He cites a number of studies that supposedly support the value of intercessory prayer in promoting healing.  Most of these studies seem to be from dubious sources, along with a handful of more reputable research which has been widely criticized on various grounds, including cherry-picking the data.  To give you an idea of where Dossey is coming from, one of his more recent books is entitled  The Power of Premonitions: How Knowing the Future Can Shape our Lives (2009).

In full disclosure, Robin and I had a conflicted relationship.  I characterized Larry Dossey to her as a "New Age quack" and she said that I had a "one-track mind about humanism."  (Anyone who knows me at all recognizes that my "one track" is movies and pop culture in general.)

I don't need to name the women, including those in our group, who represent more orthodox Humanism.  They include historical figures as well as contemporaries like Wendy Kaminer, Rebecca Goldstein, Julia Sweeney, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Susan Jacoby, Margaret Downey--the list goes on.  The fact remains that the typical humanist conference is a sausage fest, and the stereotype of Humanism as a (white) boys' club is not wholly inaccurate.  I'm not calling for a witch-hunt, just discernment, but there is a risk of sacrificing our principles--and I feel that the UUA has done so in this as well as other contexts--in the name of Diversity.

Provocative enough for you?  I hope I get a response on this one!

John