Rational Humanism
One important dynamic of change during the 20th century was
the decline of religious institutions and the rise of secular humanistic
philosophy. Rational humanism is the proper basis of civil societies, but innate
human tendencies prefer the dogmatic and irrational.
Joseph Campbell celebrated the rational humanism that
emerged about 2500 years ago in the Buddha in India,
Confucius in China, and the poets and philosophers who emerged in the Greek
civilization that shaped the culture of Rome, then Europe, and then the colonies
in the Americas. These three traditions “generally realized local myths for what
they were --versions of universal imagery." Campbell epitomized the three approaches to rational humanism: The
realization that an adult human being is autonomous and capable of
self-government. The proper aim of education is not the imposition of rules or
dogma from without but the opening of each person to knowledge from within his
own genius, whether as self-government (Prometheus), the expression of an
inborn nature (Confucius), or as self-government the Buddha.)
With the ascent of China in the 20th century, Confucius has
returned as an important architect of civil society. Confucius lived in China
from 551 to 479 BC. He was a philosopher and a sociologist, a practical man who
advocated a civil society based on the understanding and discipline of citizens
who sought social harmony. Ideas
associated with Confucius were written by disciplines and then scholars over
many centuries, representing a Chinese view of proper human conduct (virtue).
Mencius in the 4th century BC, for example suggested that innate goodness is a
source of the ethical intuitions that lead humans to Yì(right conduct). Others insisted that morality required adherence
to tradition, education and
discipline.
Campbell regretted the “the emphasis on local forms over
and against all others…the cardinal dogma of Judaism, Christianity and Islam…
Such calcification of the local masking means that archetypes become locked and
elementary ideas become ethnic. All the passion that might become illumination
is short-circuited into inflating programs for the world. There is no sense of
humor with regard to one’s own myths. Mistaken for natural and historic facts,
they are especially vulnerable to science and when the light of day has
dissolved them like a dream, there is no supporting ground to one’s life. This
is a pity because the time has come when everyone of the world’s ethnic systems
is dissolving. There are no more locally fixed horizons within which
ethnocentric bigotry can be maintained.”
Campbell may have been overly optimistic about the
disappearance of the divisive aspects of old myths and ethnic dogmas. Old myths
do look obsolete, but old myths continue to function as story-boundaries that
support the tendency to form exclusive groups with special privileges. New
religious groups often co-opt old stories with little or no understanding of the
origins and significance of the original stories. In the 20th century USA, for
example, the Bible was co-opted by hundreds of small groups that use old
biblical stories to support divergent points of view – some fanatical and most
at odds with the large religious institutions that once regarded themselves as
owners of the Bible. At the same time, old myths from many cultures have been
revised and promoted by groups with motives that range from personal interest
and inspiration, to inventing new religions to commercial exploitation of the
gullible. The commerce in old religious myths is something like the weight loss
industry; the same old stuff is packaged and repackaged, apparently with no end
in sight. Myths are packaged with renewed enthusiasm for superstitions and
rituals that should be recognized as obsolete, but instead, have renewed
currency in the marketplace.
Lester suggested: “The assumption is that advances in the
rational understanding of the world will inevitably diminish the influence of
that vexing sphere of irrationality in human culture: religion. Inconveniently,
however, the world is today as awash in religious novelty, flux, and dynamism as
it has ever been—and religious change is, if anything, likely to intensify in
the coming decades. The spectacular emergence of militant Islamist movements
during the twentieth century is surely only a first indication of how quickly,
and with what profound implications, change can occur. It's tempting to conceive
of the religious world—particularly when there is so much talk of clashing
civilizations—as being made up primarily of a few well-delineated and static
religious blocs: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. But
that's dangerously simplistic. It assumes stability in the religious landscape
that is completely at odds with reality.”
