Re: so what?

In a message dated 2/1/2003 3:02:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
bstremli@binghamton.edu writes:

> I don't think that's right, actually.  There is plenty
> of evidence that "scientific humanism" (if by that we
> mean the state religion of the Socialist Bloc
> countries, or something very close to it) included the
> "good" elements of religion - there were certainly
> communal rituals (the popularity of which is often
> understated or ignored in the West and among Soviet
> emigres), there was a large amount of world-class art
> (either in the early stages, or, in the case of the
> later periods, usually in more traditional pursuits
> such as ballet, opera, symphonic music).  As for
> spiritual ecstasy, we must understand under this
> rubric not only sex, drugs and rock n' roll, but also
> that which is sometimes called "the pursuit of Truth"
> - in other words, all scientific research.  The
> categorization of such as a merely practical, material
> pursuit is a legacy of orthodox Christian theology,
> though because they accepted it and propagated it,
> proponents of "scientific humanism" bear a share of
> the blame as well.
> 
> On the larger point - that there is no reason to
> accept "scientific humanism" as THE path for the 21st
> (or any other) century, Steve is, however, absolutely
> correct.

Interesting comments.  On reflection, I would agree that scientific humanism 
produced world class art--although I am thinking more of dissident literature 
and filmmaking.  Ironically, all this collapsed with the collapse of the Soviet 
Bloc, and it is hard to think of any comparable cultural achievements that have 
emerged out of 'liberated' Eastern Europe.  I would also say that's its a 
quality of most belief systems--scientific humanism included--to oscillate 
between communal unification and the creation of a giant atomizing surveillance 
apparatus.

In terms of spirituality, I was thinking of way many religious traditions have 
produced searching reflections on the relationship of the self to the universe. 
 Here I think enlightenment ideologies have tended to be weak, since they tend 
to encourage their followers to simply adopt a godlike position outside of and 
capable of remolding society.  While I distrust theories that draw a straight 
line between various ideas or frameworks and crimes against humanity, this way 
of thinking is compatible with the hugely destructive efforts to remold society 
so common in the twentieth century.

Warren Wagar has emphasized the way religions usually reinforce and validate 
the hierarchies of the status quo--true enough (although I think scientific 
humanism or hismat must be included as typical of belief systems here).  Ditto 
the fact that religions have produced many great radical thinkers.  But a key 
role of religion has also been to bring some sort of unity to a previously 
divided group.  Ancient judaism, for example, pulled together a number of 
warrior groups.  Islam created a remarkable zone for commercial activity.  
Scientific humanism found followers among every race, and from all sorts of 
religious backgrounds.  It provided the underpinnings for efforts at global 
institutions such as the UN, however problematic those efforts turned out to be 
in practice.

But these days, to simply assert the validity of enlightenment thinking runs 
aground in ways unintentionally illustrated in the critical remarks about 
political Islam posted by R.Yurukoglu posted by Ismael Buyukakan. I personally 
agree that categories of class have more utility in explaining the social 
reality of contemporary Turkey than do categories derived from religion (I'm 
not so sure about the category of nation).  But clearly lots of people don't 
agree, and to simply continually assert the rightness of our categories is to 
produce a situation in which the term of Tariq Ali--The Clash of 
Fundamentalisms--becomes useful.  For a belief system (secular or religious) to 
play the unifying role described above, it has to attract followers, rather 
than simply bully the followers of other faiths.  And this is where I see 
enlightenment thinking these days hitting a dead end.

The solution would seem to be to produce a new belief system that could 
transcend these differences--although, as Khaldoun Samman noted in an earlier 
discussion about the prospects of a new universal religion, such a belief 
system could not substitute for the necessary redistribution of power and 
wealth to produce a more peaceful and equitable world system.

Steven Sherman