Unity

Unity is an illusory but potentially useful goal. I would emphasize that it should always be viewed as a goal since it is itself not possible. The idea that any group or organization has ever been 100% united is a blatant myth. As human beings we are simply too individualistic to completely agree all the time. That is not a bad thing. We need diversity. Without differences there can be no change and no progress. However, it is also true that in order to make those very changes toward a positive change(s) we need to work together.

Why am I writing about this now? A column in the Novemeber-December 2011 issue of the Humanist brought to mind the various disagreements that the media has seen fit to harp on within the non-religious community. For instance, the argument between "accommodation" and confrontation is real but has been hyped. I favor a more confrontational approach but I do not view those with less confrontational approaches as accommodationists. Overall, I see the non-religious community as being very collegial not despite our difference but for the sake of them.

Michael Werner's Humanist column Humanism 101 talks about an incident that occurred between himself and a fellow humanist.  The individual he had a brief conversation with seemed upset that there has been more than one Humanist Manifesto. Werner's response is wonderful, "So, if we can't get our philosophy exactly "right" it's because we know that knowledge of the world is fallible, probabilistic, and tentative. The fallibility of our knowledge requires we admit that everything we know may actually be wrong. Accepting this requires humility and, at the same time, courage to stand up for what we best believe without dogmatism or fear of being proven wrong." He goes on in the column to comment on a major difference between attitudes among liberal and conservative believers. He does not talk much about, at least not directly, the differences between non-religious and religious humanists. There is a difference.


In terms of unity the difference does not have to be completely divisive but we do need to acknowledge the difference. I do not know whether the person he had the conversation with was religious or not. I assume the individual was a believer. It seems to be an innate assumption among the religious, liberal or not, that if something is true it is always and in all circumstances. If the religious and non-religious within any given group or cause are going to work together successfully these differences must be acknowledge. Cooperation does require a basic level of understanding among individuals. Werner's response is an excellent start but the individual it was aimed at probably did not have any sort of epiphany from it. It is essential that we repeat and restate such ideas. The non-religious may not accept our views but at least they will have a better understanding of where we are coming from and may be more willing to accept us as individuals. It could put us one step closer to unity.