Should We Build Bridges? Only to Sacrifice What We Are

It's pretty common to hear about the importance of "building bridges" between people of different belief systems in order to better unite them. The idea of building bridges seems to be popular, perhaps because it makes people feel better about themselves, but it's not clear that building bridges is always a good idea. It's one thing for people with different belief systems to work towards goals they happen to have in common, but quite another to treat two very different belief systems as if they could be united under a single umbrella.

R. Joseph Hoffmann writes:

I reject the idea that humanism is about bridging differences. Or that the way to do this, even if it were desirable, is to build the world’s largest dining room table. The difference between humanism and other life-philosophies is real and sometimes intense, and never tends toward intellectual detente with philosophies and beliefs it finds unworthy of the human spirit. That may sound a bit abstract, metaphysical even. But we shouldn’t fear the phrase, any more than we should fear words like “virtue,” “happiness, and “truth.” The humanist quest for those ponderables does not necessarily make for a life of intellectual comfort. But as Mill said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their side of the question.” The payoff of intellectual discomfort for humanism is science.

Not being satisfied with religious explanation explains why science emerges within the humanist tradition as the agreed paradigm for understanding humanity and its role in nature and the cosmos. And it is why humanists anguish over the temptation to glorify the paradigm in a way that looks suspiciously like deification - a debate that for all its slings and arrows does not constitute a “split” in the movement. Science is not virtue. It is not happiness. And it is a way to only one kind of truth. Humanists should welcome the life disdainful of intellectual tranquility because it’s precisely this that keeps us on guard against the false comfort of the unexamined life, the life of faith.

Is it now heresy to say that humanism has never been about getting along, overlooking error, polite tolerance of all opinions, equal appreciation of all cultures, all faiths, all ideas? Do we now pretend that obscurity is clarity of thought, or that the gospel of social liberalism is the humanist agenda, or the stammering axioms of postmodernism are compatible with the examined life? I hope that is not what’s being said at Harvard, because if it is, the old humanism will need to reject it. [emphasis added]

R. Joseph Hoffmann is commenting on the "New Humanism" of Greg Epstein, a form of humanism which appears to be more concerned with "building bridges" and making nice than standing for something — especially if it means upsetting those who stand for the opposite. Widespread, placid agreement without sharp criticism of error is not something we should actively seek out or seek to create. That sort of life is one that is designed for intellectual and ethical stagnation. No advances in knowledge, ethics, or politics was every made by people trying to pretend their differences don't exist.

This is not to say that people shouldn't work together, obviously. Productive politics requires that people with different beliefs, agendas, and goals find ways to compromise and work together on issues they have in common. Working together, though, doesn't mean papering over significant differences. It doesn't mean that you stop saying things or promoting ideas which make others uncomfortable — even those you happen to be working with on some other matter. Humanists and atheists can and should work with Christians on matters where their interests or goals coincide, but neither should feel that they should pretend that they stand for something other than what they really do in order to make others more comfortable.

Ebon Muse writes:

What I find truly repugnant is the attitude that would equate atheists honestly and forthrightly speaking their minds with the religious zealots who try to terrify others into obedience through deliberate and planned campaigns of murderous violence. In what bizarre and demented ethical system are these two things comparable?

...I believe the public square should see many more sharp-edged, uncompromising, unapologetic debates between people who strongly disagree with each other. I think every point of contention should be hammered out in full public view, every grievance and argument given a thorough airing, and the evidence for every position tried, scrutinized, and tested. It is in the vigorous cut and thrust of open debate that our critical thinking skills are honed and our understanding is truly advanced - not in the bland, insipid porridge of relativism. A few bruised egos are a small price to pay for all the intellectual and cultural benefits such an approach would bring, and I would much rather live in a society where everyone's positions, including mine, are constantly challenged than in one where people with passionate opinions are silenced in the name of not hurting anyone's feelings.

Does this make me a "fundamentalist"? Some will doubtless say so. And there is one sense in which I will accept this charge: I am a truth fundamentalist. I believe that the truth is superior to error, that the truth should be pursued above all things, and that we should uncompromisingly defend the truth once we have discovered it (and it can be discovered, though not everyone who thinks they have done so is correct). I am unapologetic about this position. This places me in contrast to people who apparently feel that other values, such as not hurting people's feelings, take precedence over the truth. I am proud not to be among those people. [emphasis added]

There are a lot of religious theists who are angry with atheists for violating that "polite social compact" which apparently dictated that while Christians could evangelize, proselytize, and tell atheists they were going to hell, atheists would be impolite for standing up, criticizing religion, and telling Christians that their claims are absurd. Christians assumed the burden of witnessing on behalf of Jesus and Truth to poor atheists while atheists assumed the burden of keeping quiet and not attacking Christians by disagreeing with them.

Somehow, Christians never noticed that they were demanding atheists submit to an agreement that really only benefited Christians and at the expense of atheists. Since Christians were the ones with The Truth, they could only perceive the importance of educating atheists about their errors. For atheists to disagree was beyond inappropriate.

All that's changing now and atheists are standing up to express their position just as forcefully and unapologetically and Christians have been used to doing for centuries — and Christians are hopping mad. It's just not acceptable for atheists to become uppity and dare challenge Christian and Religious Privilege in modern society. Atheists are supposed to know and keep their place — silent, meek, submissive. Atheists are to be the dhimmis of a Christian Nation, not gadflies.