The New Humanist

What is Baptism and its significance? Fr Schmitz, a popular YouTuber has some interesting things to say on this subject. Problematically, they seem to be on the exclusionary (reductionist) side. In this episode (taken from my YouTube channel - The Christian Humanist) I dissect some of the problems that afflict Fr. Schmitz's take on the first Catholic Sacrament.

Richard Dawkins is known for two things mainly: His criticism of God and his espousal of an atheistic worldview, both of which are built on his unwavering profession of the scientific doctrine of Darwinian evolution. Whilst much attention has been given to Dawkins's critic of 'God', which in practice translates into a (rather rudimentary) critic of religion; it is one that has been steadfastly buttressed by his reliance on the theory of evolution. The problem with Dawkins's critic of religion is that assumes the explanatory sufficiency of evolution with respect to the question of life. One that has become increasingly problematic in recent times in light of new challenges to the conventional understanding of evolution. However, in Dawkins's defense, despite the many shortfalls that underlie evolution, the theory does evolution does carry a number truths. The premium that is placed on the replication value of an organism; the capacity of an organism or species to survive, thrive, and dominate its environment; the ability of the organism to outcompete and eventually outlast rival species. Realities of evolution that function at an individual level and at the collective, and at virtually all levels of the taxonomy that make up life. The problem with Dawkins's critic of religion is that it fails to, or simply ignores the evolutionary value of religion, vis a vie, God, to the question of survival in relation to human populations at the collective: That is the value that religion confers to human life in terms of the communal, familial, social and ultimately cultural and even political dimensions are points which are routinely ignored by the critics of religion. And for Richard Dawkins, as a major proponent of Darwinian evolution, this omission is all the more problematic. When it comes to evolution, the one key principle that its critics and supporters can agree on is the importance it places on survival, endurance, and continuity. As the full title of Charles Darwin's book reads: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life'. Mmm.. Pretty hefty stuff. You see friends, Romans, and countrymen one of the key factors which argue in favor of religion is the survival benefit that it confers on people as individuals and as members of a larger community, like cultures, nation-states, or ethnic groups, when they embrace the religious dimension. It ought to be evident that parts of the world that have secularized are predominantly in the West. And these cultures are (or were) predominantly Christian. Including Dawkins's homeland, Great Britain. So what has been the natural consequence of its religious decline? The answer is the demographic (or controversially, the ethnic decline) of its (formerly) Christian populace. As studies have shown that the rise in secularism goes hand in hand with the declining fertility of the respective society. So what does this mean for the future of a secular Europe and an increasingly secularizing West? The answer is that the future, at least in the mid-to-long term is going to be a religious one: Islam.

Richard Dawkins is arguably one of the foremost critics of religion and by extension "God" in the world. And is one of the central figures of the New Atheist movement. Richard Dawkins is noted for his contributions to the modern secular critic of religion and at the same time for being one of the foremost defenders and advocates of Darwinian evolution: the particular understanding of evolution that lends itself most strongly to the atheistic cause. Richard Dawkins has built a reputation (a global one seemingly) by attacking religion, most notably via a number of bestselling books. Among the most notable are The God Delusion (2006), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), and The Selfish Gene (1976). All best sellers. The latter two books, were notable in advancing a critic of religion by advancing the plausibility for the emergence of complex life via purely naturalistic processes: Notably Darwinian evolution. My critic of Richard Dawkins focuses on the apparent conclusiveness of his worldview. His espousal of Darwinian evolution, which has been well noted, is one of a number of problems with his worldview. In his bestselling books his ideas on God, religion, life, and its significance (or insignificance in relation to undirected evolution) have been outlined. At one level, Dawkins's success comes down to his writing ability and his capacity for weaving wonderful analogies which seem to simplify apparently complex scientific phenomena into packets of info that are digestible for the laymen. But that is also where the problem lies: the question of life, origins, its complexity, and development are immensely complex subject matters that seem to be waved away by invoking the theory of (Darwinian) evolution. Which today has become something akin to a secular dogma. This critic will engage Dawkins's views on God. For which I have selected a number of quotes from the said biologist. These quotes focus on the underlying sensibility that Dawkins has when it comes to the idea of God and religion in relation to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins, as I will point out, values, if not worship. Further, Dawkins critic of religion/God, nonetheless masks a deeper urge for the unknown, and potentially mystical, which seems to find in the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins in all of his attempts to demystify the world through the study and pursuit of science, to my understanding has come full circle in mystifying science itself.

Daniel Dennett is the person I least understand among the new atheists. For starters, his area of expertise (based on his Wikipedia page) seems quite vague: with the focus on philosophy, the study of mind, along with mentions his outspoken critic of religion. Notable in his book Breaking the Spell (2006), which put him more in the category of a sociologist, or sociobiologist (evolutionary psychology). Though I am not sure he would accept such a characterization. Daniel Dennett to me is a science popularizer. Or better a Charles Darwin popularizer. Besides the fact that he has borrowed certain (albeit prehistoric) "fashion" points from the famous British Naturalist, much of Dennett's works exist to pay homage to the man who gave the secular world of science the supposed means of explaining how life evolved. But that is really the problem. Since Dennett is so enamored by the works, and life (and possibly looks) of Darwin, he as a thinker is not offering anything new to this debate on life, its origins, development. The problem with Daniel Dennett, that is evident in almost all of his speeches on the topics of life, evolution, religion, and society is that he is heavily reliant on the thinkers who came before him, which combined with his uncritical acceptance of those ideas makes him look like an intellectual imitator. The two most notable ideas that Daniel Dennett espouses seemingly without question is the mechanism of evolution propounded by Charles Darwin in his book, On the Origin of Species; the other being The Tree of Life. The latter tells us that life evolved gradually, over a period of many hundreds of millions of years, increasing in complexity and diversity over time. The problem with Darwinian evolution today, one that many even in the scientific community find problematic lies with its mechanism. Its supposedly unguided and undirected character, whereby natural selection to give rise to complex life. In spite of the mounting evidence coming from the scientific field against, not evolution per se, but specifically against the neo Darwin synthesis: one that combines natural selection, mutations with Mendelian genetics. Dennett's espousal of the tree of life framework to chart the course of All life on Earth has been challenged by discoveries relating to the Cambrian Explosion (Around 540 million years ago). Further, the continued usage and reliance on this framework or metaphor (a descriptive term used by the pro (Darwinian) evolution Bio logos group), for me indicates that Dennett is not someone who is really interested in looking at the science that underlies the complexities of life. Most notably as it pertains to the complexity that relates to all life. One that presents the information enigma, which Dennett is knowingly or otherwise, ignorant of.

This is a tricky one since Lawrence Krauss's critique of Christianity/religion is potentially the most scientifically grounded (Though it actually isn't). And I'm not a physicist. However, given the character of Krauss's critic of Christianity, it soon becomes evident that the governing thought process of this atheist (i.e. antitheist) is the belief in the importance of undermining religion as an end itself, and in the process set science 'free': That is to make it untethered from any moralistic concern that may emanate from a religiously inspired teaching or worldview. Writing in the New Yorker in 2015, Krauss states: "In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking". The problem with this view is that, if everything is subject to question and scientific scrutiny, then why not the fundamental rights that govern modern societies: That of life, liberty, and freedom from oppression, and to pursue one's happiness. A notable point of Lawrence Krauss's critic of God/Religion is his arguments for the origins of the universe. Supposedly from nothing. A matter that Christian apologists and scientists alike have confronted. With most notable secular push back against Lawrence Krauss's position and subsequent book: A Universe from Nothing by David Albert in the New York Times in 2012. My problem with Lawrence Krauss is a somewhat different one. You see the thing about people like Lawrence Krauss, whose beliefs and actions are driven by their obvious vendetta against religion is the very real impact that it is likely to have on Western culture and Western civilization. This is a much bigger subject that cannot be engaged here. But what the anti-religious critic advanced by the likes of Lawrence, notably against Christianity-since this is the religion of the West-the only real place where the scientific enterprise developed and as arisen to the lofty standards that it has today-is that it translates into a logical critic or attack on the spiritual foundations of the West. To undermine Christianity: intellectually, culturally, and ultimately politically only works to weaken the foundations of Western civilization. Further problematic is Krauss's elevation of science as some self-contained reality. That can or ought to operate with a mind of its own. Understand this, science in and of itself does nothing. Science is basically a set of rules and processes on how to go about studying the nature of reality: Which involves steps like forming hypotheses; collecting data to support or contradict it, developing theories; carrying out experiments, testing the results to validate or invalidate the original theory or hypothesis, etc. This scientific process in and of itself does not tell us what kind of experiments to conduct, what kind of scientific theories are worth developing and pursuing. And needless to say what kind of scientific applications are good or bad in terms of their immediate or ultimate effects on humanity and the world. This requires a moral framework that cannot be reduced to the scientific method, as there isn't one in the world of science. Krauss's attack on Christianity, and by extension Western culture, only works to undermine the very society that gave rise to the scientific method: one that is for the most part values the human.

Christopher Hitchens, the English (later American) polemist, political commentator, and writer is probably the only person among the New Atheist list that I respect. For at one point in the past I did think quite highly of the New Atheists, notably Sam Harris but that opinion has changed rapidly in the past few years. When comes to Mr. Hitchens, I, like many liked the way he spoke: His command of the English language, and the manner in which articulated himself-notably in debates against Christian apologists is something that I enjoyed. Further Hitchens as a person with deep knowledge of history, geopolitics and culture was admired for other reasons. His commentary on such subjects were advanced with typical flare. I have followed the works of Mr. Hitches for some time, as I only came to learn about him, following his passing. This included his commentary on current affairs, his many debates, and importantly having read a number of his books: God is not Great (2007), The Missionary Position (1995) and Arguably (2011). The latter tome is a collection of his important writings on a range of subjects. The aim of this episode is to critique Hitchens's critique of God. Which in practice essentially, as it is the case with all these New Atheists, is a critique of his view of religion. The main problem with Hitchens critique of God is that it only qualifies as a critique of religion. And this critic itself is very simplistic. Problematically, as those who have followed his engagements the likes of Dinesh Dsouza, and William Lane Craig, and William Dembski would note; his critique of religion is sporadic and unstructured. It rapidly jumps from one problem of religion to another, just as it jumps from one religion to the next. Nonetheless Hitchens' criticisms directed against religion as messy as they are, do contain a lot truth. For in part Hitchens does get a number of things right, but a number of glaring problems, as I shall elaborate do exist. The sort which Hitchens keeps repeating in his polemics and debates, which his critiques/Christian apologists hardly engage. Here I will engage three notable problems with Hitchens's critic of God/religion and in the process I will engage other shortfalls in his attack on faith. Hitchens Critique of Church England/Royal Family is Simplistic to Borderline Hypocritical Hitchens Belief in the Sufficiency Reason to Guarantee Good/Moral Human Conduct is Weak Hitchens Critique of the Religious Impulse is Commendable for its self-defeating character.

Sam Harris, along with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins made his mark with his main contributions with his critique of the role and function of religion in the modern world. His works: The End of Faith (2004), Letter to the Christian Nation (2006) were bestsellers, that with the timing of their publication, help set in motion what would become a concerted attack on organized religion in the West, known as the new atheism. I say 'West' since a common feature in all of the new atheists is that their criticism of faiths other than Christianity, notably non-Western religions like Islam and Hinduism is weak. Sam Harris despite being one of the more fearless critics of Islam (i.e. his famous confrontation with Ben Affleck on Bill Maher); as a person who lives in the Western world, his attack on religion: its social role, intellectual basis, and later political outworking are focused primarily on Christianity. This is understandable since Christianity is still the dominant spiritual force in the West. However, this becomes a problem since the role and contribution of the Christian faith to the development of Western Culture and Civilization is something that Harris, like other new atheists like him happily ignores.  This is a point I will touch on as we continue the critic of the new atheists. The main problem I have with Sam Harris is that like many intellectuals in the West, he has gained recognition as an "intellectual" owing to his decision to come out as a critic of religion. As I have noted in the course of this podcast, criticizing religion is a very easy thing to do. Especially today, and especially in the West, that built on a Christian heritage. Sam Harris's critique of religion (i.e. Christianity) falls into the same predictable line of attacking aspects of the faith that have been confronted by religious critics before him. Problematically, given the times we are in: where Christianity in the West, has become a pathetic shadow of its former self: Shrinking number of Churchgoers, Institutions plagued by scandals, poor financial conditions, the closure of Christian Churches, the decline of Christianity as a culturally impactful force, etc. In the face of this, what amounts to the early stages in the terminal decline of the Christian faith in the West, we have people like Harris coming forward with their attack on the faith, specifically the Christian faith. What this means, by extension, whether they realize it or not, is an attack on the foundations of Western culture.  A key principle that underlies this podcast is the need to recognize the historical and future significance of religion.  Specifically the Christian faith, in relation to health, strength, and growth of Western Civilization. This is a governing principle that underlies my critic of the new atheism. People like Harris, who freely criticize religion are failing to consider the importance of not religion per se, but the culture which gave rise to the West, one that was shaped by the faith in a higher power. With respect to Sam Harris, the problems I have are many. Here I will summarize them into two main points:  Harris's Critique of Christianity is too Simplistic (Low Hanging Fruit).  Sam Harris and the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

My foray into the debate on God, religion, culture, and to some extent politics is partly owed to my familiarity with the group of people known as the new atheists. Consisting of a few highly vocal, and polemical critics of religion led by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Who following 9/11, and the onset of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the topics of religious extremism, the dangers of fundamentalism, notably as it pertained to Islam, and the unease towards religion in general, become a source of intellectual intrigue. As a kid growing up in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States, and the social and cultural shifts it brought forth in the West and across the world, my view of the world, as it was for many, was necessarily shaped by these events. As a person with an interest in geopolitics, history, and religion, and notably in Christian theology; over the next decade, the works and debates involving these religious critics become an enduring fascination for yours truly. As my knowledge of culture and politics increased, so did the questions I had when it came to the nature, function, and role of religion in the modern world. Whilst atheism-the complete rejection of God-was never the driving force; legitimate questions regarding the validity and efficacy of religion in relation to the points raised by the new atheists and the response from the Christian world (mainly apologists from the United States) intrigued me further. In sum, this podcast owes something to the new atheist movement and the broader conversation on faith, reason, morality, and human progress in the modern world, that it has given rise to. My problem with the new atheism is that in time the movement (i.e. its main players) has moved away from its traditional scope of operation in critiquing religion, notably Christianity and Islam, and into the realm of politics, culture, and more broadly into sociology. This is most evident in the views/contributions of Daniel Dennett and Lawrence Krauss, the two less known, but notable entries in this new atheist group. Along with the overtly political character of commentary coming from the likes of Dawkins and Harris in recent times. Whilst the term 'new atheism' has since gone out of vogue, their contributions to the major conversations of our time have endured. In this Part, I lay out a general critic of this movement, by targeting its main actors: the so-called "Four Horsemen" + Krauss, and Dennett. And in the process make the case for a more comprehensive critic of religion: one that does not simply substitute one form of dogmatism for another. As an extension of Part III (The Beginning of the Critic of Secular Humanism) Part VII will consist of: The Problem with Sam Harris The Problem with Christopher Hitchens The Problem with Lawrence Krauss The Problem with Daniel Dennett The Problem with Richard Dawkins in relation to God The Problem with Richard Dawkins in relation to Evolution

Salvation is one of the central concepts in the Christian faith. An immensely complex matter that I cannot even start to unpack in a 30-minute episode. So what I will proceed to do here is to outline the general understanding of the subject of salvation, and engage certain problems that arise in our approach towards it. So the problem with Salvation that I am seeking to deconstruct is primarily one of understanding. When it comes to better understanding the idea of Salvation let's start with the obvious: Salvation refers to the saving of mankind (or humanity) from the power of Evil, which is a result of Sin. In other words, we are getting into the realm of Christian metaphysics. In Christianity Evil as a reality predates the entry of Sin into this world through the Fall, which points back to Satan. The problem with Sin (a human problem) comes to life either through act(s) of disobedience to God or in thought: through man's subconscious defiance to God's will. Through which we bring about the consequence of Sin, which is death. Death, in its fuller metaphysical understanding, does not only correspond to 'death' in a physical sense but also the 'wages of Sin': where death as a living (or dying) force manifests itself as an insidious, metastasizing power whose effects carry over into the spiritual realm. The power of Evil, powered by Sin, giving rise to 'death' manifests in the world spirit and the flesh. Serious stuff! But this is not even the start. Since Christian understanding of Salvation revolves around the deliverance of man from the power of Evil, and its primary operative force: Sin, the question is what does this mean for you and me today? The common understanding of the doctrine of Salvation centers on the Redemptive mission of Christ. God in order to save a Fallen humanity sends His Son on a rescue mission, which involved Him ultimately dying as a sacrifice for our sins, so that God (i.e. His Father or in other words Himself) could forgive us! Clearly, there is much to the idea of Salvation. As the reader (and listener) will know, and much of the present disillusionment towards Christianity in the West, felt particularly by the NONEs, stems (rightly) from our view towards this central dogma of Christianity. In this episode I will engage the problem with Salvation by looking at three points: Salvation as a Concept is poorly Understood Salvation as a Concept is poorly Formulated Salvation as a reward is Not Good Enough.

Alright. So the subject of morality is one of the key concerns in the debate on humanism. Starting with first episode, the problem with morality: that is the overt emphasis that is placed on it by religions, notably Christianity; is something that I have argued has worked to its detriment. The idea of trying to make people good, better, holy etc. Has become something of an ideological imperative that is justified on spiritual grounds, as it works into the broader equation on Christian or divine reward and punishment. The problem with Christian morality, lies with the point and degree of importance that is attached to it. One that is inordinate in practice. However, the reasons for this are understandable within the frameworks in which these belief systems operate. For example, in Christianity the main purpose of the faith is to save the souls of men; and hence acts as the key imperative underlying the effort to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. The aim of evangelization is to bring men and women into/back into the moral fold: one that is espoused by the doctrines of the faith. The analogy of the sheep who have strayed from the shepherd is one that often used to explain this. The problem with this view however, are many, despite containing a kernel of truth. Most notable being the somewhat simplistic understanding of the Fallen state of men, and the idea of Redemption, which is viewed the constraints of this limited moral system. Christian morality when asserted dogmatically, invariably goes wrong in practice, despite being well intended. For in application, the idea of Christian morality works to produces the opposite effect-that of driving people away from the Maker. For man, as weak and sinful as he is, is a being that naturally seeks upliftment, however ill-informed the methods and choices. Thus the pathway towards a better world (here or in the hereafter) is not always straightforward, easy or importantly holy. Thus insisting on a morally right or holy pathway, acts as a restraining force on man's being. The reason why religions like Christianity fail to come to terms with the nature of man in the modern world, and hence fail in their appeal likes in context of this reality. Realities which could be understood in relation to the following points: The Christian idea of 'goodness' is too simplistic Immorality does not always = Disobedience to God God does not want us to be Good.

The word 'Church' has multiple meanings. From a term that describes a religious institution governed by a designated hierarchy; to a body of believers who profess faith in a common set of doctrines, to a more abstract concept that describes the unity of belief and values among the faithful, underpinned on something transcendental. The Church in a Christian sense generally refers to the Church of Jesus Christ: That is the Church that was founded by the Founder of the Faith. When it comes controversies that surround the meaning of the 'Church' the most notable one concerns the division between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics embrace the idea of the Church as a more institutionally, and hierarchically oriented one; whilst affirming the deeper metaphysical unity between believers. Catholics also affirm the importance of the Magisterium, involving a distinct body of religious leaders: consisting of priests, bishops and cardinals. This hierarchical view of the Church works into the Sacramental character of Catholic spirituality. Protestants on the other hand, who generally do not have a formal religious hierarchy-though this depends on the denomination in question-Anglicans being a notable example-have a different, non-institutional view of the Church. The Church for Protestants involves all the faithful, who together form the priesthood of all believers. The problem with the Christian Church, Protestant, Catholic or otherwise is a deeper one. Though the problems that concerns this idea, or concept, or reality known as the 'Church' (as it is difficult to say) is one that primarily concerns the Catholic one. As I have already engaged some of the problems with the Catholic Church-though only at a surface level-here I will engage the problems with 'the Church' as it pertains to the following issues, which apply to the concept in a more universal way. They are: The Church is a Relic. The Church does not Change. The Church is not an engine of Progress.

Whilst the title of this episode may seem to imply that there is something wrong with the Bible: The Word of God. The aim of this episode is to understand the problems that arise in our approach towards, and in turn the study of scripture. The Bible is the book that is believed by the faithful to speak the mind of God: giving us an insight into the workings of God's mind: His worldview, His Plan, His Character. Whilst doing so is an astronomical feat (I mean how exactly can the Mind and Will of the Creator of the whole universe be summarized in a single book- albeit a very large one). The Bible nonetheless is a monumental effort in terms of its literary, theological, poetic, historical (at various levels), prophetic and dogmatic character. The Problem with the Bible as it relates to the Christian Faith, as it relates to the question of Humanism-that is the question of human well-being, lies in our approach towards it. The Bible while affirmed as the Word of God, is clearly not the only source or medium through which God speaks to His Creation. This point is most notable in relation to the study of the natural world. Here the famous trial of Galileo Galilei, at the dawn of the Scientific Revolution, and the argument from two books: the Book of God's Word and the Book of God's Works is key. This particular subject and the debate it gave rise to is best reserved for dedicated episode. Here I will outline 3 main problems that affect our approach to Scripture, and in turn affect our understanding of God and how it ultimately affects (negatively) the question of human wellbeing: The Bible is not the Only source of God's Revelation to Man. The Bible is not a scientific text (clearly). But nor is it a theologically adequate one. The Bible is at best a Guide Book. Not a Rule Book.

Jesus Christ. The Son of God. The person upon whom the Christian faith is based on. The problem with Christianity in the modern world: that is its apparently anti-humanistic character, for the large part stems from our view of the founder of this faith. His role, function, and mission. Whilst Christianity is fundamentally a belief system that is based on the belief in God; it stands apart from other major religions: notably Islam and Judaism, in that the founder of the belief system is also God Himself! In addition to the idea that Jesus is God, by virtue of the fact that He is the 'Son of God'. Add it all together and we are headed into a rather complex territory. The problem with Jesus Christ, in relation to the question of God, in relation to the question of human wellbeing- which is the central principle of The New Humanist-mainly comes down to the poor understanding of this significant figure. Whilst the person of Jesus Christ is often understood in relation to the divine, His humanity as something distinct from, whilst also still a part of the Godhead is a key point that accompanies this mystery. The conception of Christ, as God or the Son of God is something that many, if not most don't fully understand. Not even close. Including, yours truly. Since that is the case, how confident are we (or anybody) to speak authoritatively about this person, given the gaping void in our understanding of Him. Particularly in relation to the question that the concept of God in the Christian faith is Trinitarian: God as Father, God as Son, and God as Spirit. Which brings us to the main problem when it comes to the study of Jesus Christ: Since we know so little about Him (besides what is laid out in Scripture), what are we to make of Him and His mission to this world?

I thought of titling this episode: The Problem with the Christian 'version of' God. But since my audience (as Anchor analytics shows) predominate from the Western/Christian world, and that I, your humble 'host' is of that heritage our task here is simpler. When it comes to problems with Christianity in the West, the key source of contention lies with the question of God. Or specifically how the concept of, or the being we refer to as 'God' is understood. Often times, the problem with how the Christian faith is perceived (negatively) comes down to the negative/poor understanding of this central facet of the faith. And since our focus here is on the anti-humanism of Christianity, one of the contributory factors I have identified is how badly God as a being or reality is understood. To provide one example, in the movie Titanic, we hear the character and main antagonist Caledon Hockley stating in reference to the great ship: "It is unsinkable. God himself couldn't sink this ship". This verse, which was based on actual events, gained great prominence owing to the ultimate fate of the ship. And it has come to serve as an example that warns against the dangers of man's hubris, and also of the terrible power of God. However, herein lies a problem. Or many in fact; when it comes to our understanding of God. In this episode I will break down the problem with the Christian 'God' by looking at three points: Who or what we think of as 'God' is a woefully inadequate. Evoking the term 'God is indicative of what we don't or cannot understand. The Christian conception of God needs to be better understood. As a start!

One of the primary aims of this podcast is to advance a more comprehensive critic of religion. Notably Christianity. However it is my intention to do so in a way that is constructive from a religious, notably Christian perspective. An approach which stems from the non-atheistic character of humanism that I have chosen to espouse. So far in the critic of religion I have taken a broader and more 'simpler' approach by engaging the anti-humanism of 'religion' more generally, and the anti-humanistic character of Christianity more specifically, visa vie my critic of the Catholic faith. Here-including the next six episodes, I will proceed to advance an introductory critic of Christianity. As one of the three great religions of the world, it is time I looked critically at some of its major short falls. Those that emerge, in practice and importantly, the manner in which the faith is understood (or misunderstood). To do this I will analyze six key facets of Christianity in relation to its anti-humanistic character. The Problem with the Christian (understanding) of God The Problem with Jesus Christ The Problem with the Bible The Problem with the Church The Problem with Christian Morality The Problem with Salvation

The Crucifix is one of the most important symbols in all of Christianity. And is arguably the defining relic of the Catholic faith. Whilst the Cross (that is the symbol or mark that consists of two intersecting lines: With one, the vertical, being longer than the horizontal) is a popular spiritual symbol within the Christian world. Adopted and venerated (at varying degrees) by Protestants and Catholics alike. However, the Crucifix-the Cross that has the person of Christ on it-has special significance in the Catholic world. With varying levels of usage within the Eastern and Orthodox Churches. The problem with the Crucifix in relation to the Catholic faith, in relation to the question of humanism comes down to many things. Here I have chosen to briefly touch on what I think are three key problems with the Catholic Crucifix: That is the Christian symbol that has the body of the dead or dying Son of Man on it. And they are: The Crucifix is an Embodiment of Misery. The Crucifix is an Embodiment of Death. The Crucifix is Devoid of Hope.

The next point analyzing the anti-Humanism of Roman Catholicism, concerns a very Catholic concept: Sacramental worship. Sacramentalism is a key facet of the Catholic spirituality. One that is built into the very institutional character of the Church: the construct, consisting of hierarchies, rules, and rituals. In the Catholic version of Christianity there are 7 sacraments: Baptism; Eucharist; Confirmation; Reconciliation; Marriage; Ordination and Extreme Unction. Sacramental worship is central to the Catholic faith, for at a critical level, it reinforces the necessity for its institutions and the persons (clergy) that man them. Whilst its spiritual utility, if one may use that expression, may vary from person to person; with the divine graces that are supposed to be brought forth via these sacraments being a function of the faith and sincerity of the recipients. Though this has not stopped the Catholic leadership on insisting on this particular mode of spirituality as the only, or at least the most superior way to God. This attitude and the systems that have arisen as a result this (self-defeating) mindset are the source of many problems to the Catholic Church; and by extension for the spiritual wellbeing of society. Subjects for another time. Here I will engage the main problems with Sacramentalism by analyzing three points: Sacramentalism is Exclusionary Sacramentalism is Restrictive Sacramentalism is Elitist

One of the central facets of the Catholic faith is the idea of Sainthood. The idea of being a Saint, or wanting to become one is a key component of Catholic spirituality. Whilst this point is not always openly asserted, in recent times, I have observed, the idea of being a Saint is increasingly employed in an evangelical context. In addition to the importance that is attached to the many Saints throughout the history of the Church, those that have come to in many ways define the Catholic faith: with the countless Churches that have built around the world in their name being a strong indicator. Then there is the person of Mary, the mother of Christ, who is also a Saint, who is held in high regard within the Church. The problem with Sainthood as a concept are numerous, and given its significance to the Catholic faith, it is a key force that has come to shape the very character of the religion. Hence the problematic character of Sainthood must be understood in light of the modern world: one where individuality, personal growth, human betterment and prosperity, at an individual level, and societal progress at a collective level are valued. The problem with the Catholic idea of the Sainthood comes down to the following factors: Sainthood is Unsexy Sainthood is a Distraction Sainthood & Eternity (A Theological Problem).

Besides her Sainthood (which is a subject for another time), the main problem with the Madonna is her revered, essentially non-human state. If you are from the Catholic world you are likely to be aware of the importance that is attached to this spiritual personality. Besides the reverence that is dedicated towards her, Mary in many Catholic circles has come to hold a position that is akin to that of the Maker Himself. The problem with Mary, in addition to those concerns raised by Protestants is more deep rooted, whilst connected to the sources of unease felt by non-Catholic Christians. And they are: Mary is a Virgin. But not a girl. Mary is a Saint. But not a woman. Mary is Holy. But not Sexy.

If you have been listening to my earlier episodes, and if you happened to be a person of faith, especially a Catholic one, you may have gotten the impression that I am anti-Catholic. That I am a person who wants the Catholic Church to weaken, shrink and breakdown to a point where it eventually goes extinct. Not so. As I have argued a number of times in this podcast, whilst I am highly critical of religion, particularly Christianity, and primarily Catholicism; in advancing a humanistic worldview. I have nonetheless held to the view that religion, and underlying it, belief in God or a Higher Power are important to the humanistic cause. My concerns with secular humanism, and its logical endpoint: atheism, which I have touched on in earlier episodes, is a product of my positive view of religion. Namely Christianity, and paradoxically of the Catholic faith. So the question is, how do I maintain these seemingly contradictory points of view? To answer this question I will, in the course of this episode, by critiquing the papacy, I will, paradoxically, make the case for its importance in the modern world. The problem with the papacy in the modern world can be broken down into the following points: The Papacy's Ineffectiveness in Governing the Church. The Papacy's Ineffectiveness in to Defending Catholic Faith. The Papacy's Ineffectiveness in Pursuing Ecumenism.

One of the main problems with the Catholicism in the modern world are its representatives. The institutional heads and leaders who are meant to advance the teachings of God, and guide the flock towards a better life (here or elsewhere), are the main stumbling block to One: the institution itself and Two: the people they are supposed to minister towards. The problem with the Catholic clergy, at a fundamental level, can be broken down into three areas. All of which correspond to them as people. They are: Their differing beliefs Their differing lifestyle Their differing aspirations In relation to the rest of us: the faithful or otherwise. Factors which I shall engage critically in the course of this episode, as I develop the case for the anti-humanism of Roman Catholicism in its present state.

My critic of religion in this podcast has been an extension of my critic of Christianity. Which in turn has been an extension of my critic of Catholicism. In the course of the next 6 episodes I will engage various facets of the Catholic faith (at an introductory level) that I consider to be in conflict with a humanistic world view. One which, in case it needs to be pointed out, is NOT an atheistic one; but it is a view of humanism that places human well-being at the center of all things. In light of this, Catholicism, or rather the particular character that the Catholic faith has taken on in the world today, in terms of its teachings, leadership, social and institutional character, amongst other things; makes it work against, knowingly or otherwise, the Human Betterment Project. One that we are all, knowingly or otherwise, are a part of. In the course of the next six episodes I will critic the Catholic Church via the following: The Problem with the Catholic Clergy The Problem with the Pope The Problem with Mary The Problem with Sainthood The Problem with Sacramentalism The Problem with the Crucifix

Alright. So this was an interesting one. Since prayer is something that is central to the human experience: meaning, prayer is not something that is solely religious in character. For prayer, as I will argue in the course of this episode is something that is integral to the human experience. Why? A good question that I will seek to elucidate in the course of 30 minutes. Since the focus is to understand the problematic character of prayer, which requires us to analyze the nature and role of prayer within religious institutions. However to understand the problematic character of prayer further, one needs to understand what is meant by prayer. And how prayer, as a concept, and then as an experience, or way of life, is approached by those who practice it. Which brings us to the central point of this discussion: Why do people pray? This episode, as the reader may infer is more on the speculative side. Given scope of the subject, I felt it was best to start with some reflection on this powerful facet of spirituality. And, this episode brings to a close Part IV of this series.

So we're finally here. I guess there's not much point in talking about the importance humanism without advancing a critic of God. Since humanism is fundamentally about elevating the significance of man; it is a process that, one would assume, naturally requires the demotion of God. And if the history of humanism is anything to by, the undermining of God, vis a vie religion; or the undermining of religion, vis a vie God has been a central characteristic. So far I have refrained from attacking the idea, concept and importantly the belief in God. Mainly since, as I have mentioned in the course of this podcast I have argued in favor of a non-atheistic view of humanism. My unease with secular versions of humanisms aside (as there are more than one), at a personal level, I, as a believer in a transcendental power, naturally have some reservations when it comes to attacking the central concept of religion. Hence the focus of my critic of God is aimed at… You guessed it: religion. The main problem with "God" in the modern world is its religious conception. One of the main reasons why people, certainly in the West, have become alienated with the concept of God is due to its packaging. A point which I will engage by touching on 3 points: God and Religion are not the same God is an incomprehensible concept The people whose business is to talk about God often don't know what they are talking about

Alright. This is a tricky one. For its message is mainly suited for those who have been or are still a part of a Christian culture. However, it is also relatable in parts for those who find Christian evangelization weird and/or problematic. To start with the basics: What is evangelization? Evangelization, which is often understood in its verb form: 'To evangelize', pertains to the need to spread 'the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world'. If that sounds too much: Evangelization is a spiritual 'calling' that virtually all believers of Christ are called to do, which is to announcing to the world God's Redemptive plan for humanity. One that is made manifest in the life and teachings of Christ, that finds its fulfillment in the Passion, death and Resurrection of the Lord. Does that sound a bit too much!? Then I think we have hit on a key problem. Whatever the Christian message is: on Hope, Love, Forgiveness, Grace, Salvation etc. Much of what it has to offer the modern Western mind seems, sounds and invariably is, a bit out there: The language is difficult to understand. The message is often unrelatable. And worse, its teachings are generally off-putting. In the world today (speaking of the secularizing West), where religion-Christianity-is in head long decline, the need for "New Evangelization" has been sounded in many corners of the Church. With successive Popes (in the Catholic world), and various other Christian leaders calling for missionaries and the laity to get involved in advancing the Gospel. The problem with these clarion calls for a New (or Old) Evangelization is that it gets a number of things fundamentally wrong about the enterprise: which is known with Christian circles as the transmission of Faith. The problems that are associated with Christian Evangelization today, as we shall see, are primarily internal: They lie with Church: the Institutional construct. They with its members: the persons who make up the clerical class. They lies with its Teachings.

I mean all religious leaders. Any religious group, fellowship, Church, brotherhood etc. Has a leader. A person who commands a position of authority in the particular environ: one that is institutional, intellectual and one would assume spiritual in its basis. Since the presence of hierarchy is a natural characteristic of human organizations: secular or religious, a religious leader, who effectively guides the spiritual trajectory of the organization is to be expected. Whilst the type and scope of authority of the leader will vary with religious institution in question, and the nature of its 'mission'. However, the role played by a titular head is one that wields power, and influence. One that is greater than his/her peers, and critically whose voice is given greater recognition over everyone else. But critically, the leader, as a consequence of his "anointed" position, is believed to have, not only greater authority in the workings of the institution, but also is seen as a representative of God's Word: One who necessarily holds a closer relationship with, and hence greater understanding of God's will. Thus the religious leader's words essentially become representative of God's wisdom and dangerously, His will. In the course of this episode I will engage some of the problems inherent to a system of belief that revolves around this religious leader framework: which is a near universal one, particularly in the Christian world. Notably, on how it affects: The relationship between followers and the leader. The spiritual trajectory of the believer The effects it has on the followers' relationship with their Maker.

One of the main factors that has contributed to the decline of religious faith in the modern world is its overtly moralistic character. Religions, particularly monotheistic ones, and in this case Christianity, have come to define themselves as belief systems that promulgate laws and doctrines on what constitutes as good moral conduct. The problem with this approach is that the totality of the faith often gets reduced to a framework of such rules and regulations: on how to lead a "good", "moral", "holy", "faithful" life. But, as we all know, life does not work that way. Life is, by definition a messy process of constant learning and growing. Life is about doing things. Experiencing things. Making decisions, whose outcomes are not always optimal with respect to outcomes, let alone entirely morally correct in their character. So it is those very complex, messy, often suboptimal (or sinful) decisions that pave the way for better choices, outcome in the fullness of time. In sum, life is about making mistakes, and learning from them. The problem with religions like Christianity is that their overt/singular focus on morality, means that the importance of living a full life gets naturally downplayed: one that is characterized fault, failures, or in Christian parlance, sins. However that is where the real development happens. Akin to present state of education, where much of the emphasis is on doing it right, by meeting set marking criteria on given subjects, leaving no margin for error. With penalties for deviation from the accepted standard. Thus nullifying the opportunity for growth via mistakes. Religious life in many respects reflects this repressive, un-growth oriented character. With its overt emphasis on abstract and virtually impractical concepts like holiness. That in practice works to undermined the pursuit of human betterment.

The worldviews of the religious is represented by those who actively participate in religious life. That is, those who in addition to maintaining nominal memberships with their respective Churches, choose to participate in religious life, in a manner that goes beyond the call of 'spiritual duty'. In other words, there is a marked difference between those who believe in God, and then choose to affirm that position within a religious framework (e.g. being a member of a certain denomination, by going to Church on Sundays) vs Those who make their religious faith and their practical commitment to it, the center their lives. A phenomenon which can be understood in the following behavioral norms: The Church (or whatever the religious congregation in question) becomes the person's main preoccupation outside of work. The person's sense of individual and social identity is primarily derived from his/her affiliation with the respective religious congregation. In the course of this episode I will engage these points, and analyses the consequences (much of it, subconsciously welcome) experienced by those who come to embody, what is understood as a life that is centered on the Church. Which should not be confused with a life that is centered on God. Further, the consequences for leading this way of life at a personal, material and potentially spiritual levels, are often insidious and harmful.

Part IV of The New Humanist is meant to be a deeper dive into the problems with religion in the modern world. Notably its personal character. In Part II, I sought to engage some of the problems with religion in the world today, by looking at certain overarching subjects: Such as the conflict between religious life, with its focus on otherworldly realties and promises, and its impacts on human initiative, as it pertains to concerns in the real world.  In the course of the next 7 episodes (including this) I will get into some of the specifics that characterize this problem. From the undermining of human initiative, that the pursuit of "God" (i.e. a religious life entails. The adverse effects of relying (solely) on prayer and meditation (i.e. a religious way of life) as a way to solve human problems. To the insidious effects that results from the overt focus on morality (i.e. to follow the teachings of the Church): From the physical, mental health and the spiritual wellbeing of the person. For those who think that I am essentially (or secretively) in the business of religious apologetics (following my Introductory critic of secular humanism in Part III). Well rest assured, things are about to get messy for the religious dogmatists.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian So we are at the close of Part III: The beginning of the critic of secular humanism. I close off this segment with a general discussion on the some of the conflicts that lie between secular/atheistic worldviews and a humanistic one. One that is life affirming, and critically man affirming. I engage this argument by looking at three definitions that are associated with the term 'humanism'. Its humanitarian character. Its historical character (i.e. Renaissance humanism) Its relationship with reason and the idea of self-realization. Spoiler: A religious (Christian) version of humanism is more compatible with the human betterment project, rather than an atheistic one. (Source: WordWeb app).

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian. Continuing the theme of Part III, which is the critic of a secular basis of humanism. Here I engage certain problems I find with the secular view: Notably the two key positions which underpin secularism: atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is often viewed in Western culture as the intellectually savvy position to hold. To reject the existence of God (and religious life) is meant to be a mark of intelligence. In this episode, I engage some of the problems with this view. Notably, a level of dogmatism that underlies the atheistic view. Which unlike in the case of theism, is often overlooked. Agnosticism is arguably the more popular position in the secular West. A view that is defined by a certain indifference to the idea and reality of God. As I would argue, however, this position in practice, at the level of the collective, gives rise to its own set of problems. For the lack of a divine center, drives the modern mind, to seek a new basis for identity and expression. Many of which are inherently divisive.  The focus of this (Introductory) critic of these two positions, is primarily a socio-cultural one.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian. This is episode 19. Continuing the theme of Part III: which is the critic of a secular basis of humanism. At the start of Part III, I observed that one of the problems I see with secular versions/perspectives of humanism, are their affinity with Leftism: (The politics that is associated with left-to-left-of-center politics). Whilst I have kept away from the politics that underlie the question of belief in God so far. However, it goes without saying that spiritual beliefs (or the lack thereof) tends to come to with a political undercurrent. It's well known that people who believe in God tend to move to the Right politically. Whilst those who are atheistic and secular, tend to align with the Left. This is a complex point. It is my understanding that anyone who calls him/herself a humanist these days: That is to hold the view that religion as a force, is one that undermines the human betterment project. Such persons invariably come to embrace a leftist position. One that, I fear, goes beyond mere party affiliation (i.e. voting for leftwing, left-leaning parties). Manifesting a deeper form of unease towards all that is represented by the 'Right': Family, Church, tradition, heritage and individuality. A state of mind, which manifests itself, not only as a form of political prejudice against Right Wing or Conservative policies. But, problematically, as one which converges towards a deeper fasciation, or as I would argue, a worship of the State.  Where the government becomes the be all and end all of human betterment, progress and human action. This is concerning.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian. This is episode 18. Continuing the theme of Part III, which is the start of the critic of a secular basis of humanism. Here I engage a notable facet of the secular worldview: The notion that religion is man-made, and that religion is a cause for most if not all societal divisions, and hence conflicts. A point which I shall confront by engaging the views (or a view) of the famous anti-theist Christopher Hitchens. Just one quote from him will do for now, folks. “God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was quite the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.” - God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007)

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian. This is episode 17. Continuing the theme of Part III: the start of the critic of a secular of humanism.  A subject I will engage this time, by looking at the views expressed by another key thinker in the secular debate: Sam Harris. Here are two select quotes, which I shall proceed to analyze in this episode: “Tell a devout Christian that  his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man  invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else,  and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible  claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever".  - The End of Faith (2004) “The only angels we need  invoke are those of our better nature: reason, honesty, and love. The only demons we must fear are those that lurk inside every human mind: ignorance, hatred, greed, and faith, which is surely the devil's masterpiece".  - The End of Faith (2004)

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian. This is episode 16. Continuing the theme of Part III: the start of the critic of a secular basis of humanism. A matter which I will engage by looking at the views expressed by a key secular spokesperson: Richard Dawkins. I will critically engage two quotations from this atheist, in the course of this episode. They are: “The total amount of  suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this  sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being  devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is  a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other  people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the  properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose,  no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”  (River Out of Eden- 1986) "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"  (The Blind Watchmaker- 1986).

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian. Humanism is not Atheism.  This is one of the key factors underlying the humanism that I am affirming. Hence the atheistic worldview: one that leaves absolutely No place for God, One that looks down on religious beliefs, and generally views the idea of the transcendental as false, immoral and "delusional". This God-rejecting view of reality and what stems from it: A reductively materialistic view of man, I find to be not only problematic with respect to the enduring relevance of religious faith to humanity. But also, as a cause for concern, with respect to humanity's collective aspiration for betterment in the here and now. Points that will be engaged in the course of Part III: A Critic of atheistic view of reality. Arguing the case for a more wholesome view of reality (God + Man). (Faith & Reason). Concerns over the relationship between Secularism and Leftism (Politics).