Contemporary Worldviews: A Comparative Study – A Philosophical Anatomy Of The Modern Human Compass
Amidst The Profound Intellectual And Cultural Transformations Witnessed By The Western And Contemporary World In General, Major Existential Questions Are Arising About The Essence Of Humans, Their Place In The Universe, The Meaning Of Life, And The Foundations Upon Which They Build Their Moral Values. Here, The Book “Contemporary Worldviews: A Comparative Study” Emerges As One Of The Academic And Philosophical Publications That Address These Questions. The Book Is Authored By Mikael Stenmark, Professor Of Philosophy Of Religion At Uppsala University In Sweden, Who Has Distinguished Contributions To The Study Of The Relationship Between Science And Religion, And Is The Winner Of The Torgny Segerstedt Medal In 2022.
In This Intellectual Journey, Stenmark Presents An Analytical Panoramic Vision That Does Not Stop At Dissecting Traditional Religions, But Dives Deeply Into The Secular Alternatives That Have Come To Shape The Consciousness Of Millions Around The World. The Book Identifies And Explores Several Prominent Religious And Secular Worldviews Embraced By People In Contemporary Society. It Sheds Special Light On Three Non-Religious (Secular) Worldviews, Which Are: Scientism, Secular Humanism, And Transhumanism. On The Other Hand, The Author Compares These Secular Visions With Four Basic Religious Visions: Abrahamic Faith, Buddhism, New Spirituality (Individuals Who Describe Themselves As Spiritual But Not Religious – SBNR), And Religious Naturalism. This Academic Effort Provides A Unique Study Of Several Major Secular Perspectives On Life, Going Beyond Previous Studies That Only Discussed Atheism Or Irreligion As Nihilistic Cases Or Ideological Voids.
From “Irreligion” To “Secular Worldviews”: Shattering The Subtraction Theory
Stenmark Begins His Philosophical Approach By Observing The Noticeable Changes In People’s Attitudes Towards Traditional Religions In The Western World. Individuals Have Become Less Inclined To Accept The Traditional Teachings Of Their Original Religions, Preferring Instead To Decide For Themselves Which Beliefs To Embrace And Which Practices To Participate In. In Parallel, Society Is Witnessing The Emergence Of New Forms Of Spirituality, Where Participants Seek To Discover The Divine Aspect Within Themselves, Not Guided By Classical Religious Institutions, But Through Self-Help Books, Meditation Courses, And Other Spiritual Techniques. The Most Obvious In This Scene Is The Increase In The Number Of People – Especially In Northern Europe And America – Who Identify Themselves As “Non-Religious” And Reject Religion Entirely, Preferring To Live Secular Lives. They Argue That Religious Beliefs Are False, And That Moral Values Can Be Developed And Defended Without Any Reference To A Divine, Transcendent, Or Spiritual Dimension Of Reality.
To Understand This Transformation, Stenmark Deconstructs A Dominant Theoretical Framework – Often An Unspoken Assumption – Known As The “Subtraction Theory”. This Theory Assumes That Individuals Who Reject Religion Simply View It As An Unnecessary Or False Addition To Our Shared Reality. Accordingly, They Simply Stop Embracing Religious Beliefs And Participating In Religious Practices. In Other Words, This Theory Assumes That Religious People Believe In The Supernatural (Paranormal), While Those Who Abandon Religion Stop This Belief And Settle For Believing Only In The Natural World, Becoming Merely “Non-Believers” Or “Irreligious”.
Here Stenmark Delivers His First Critical Blow; He Argues For The Necessity Of Challenging This Theoretical Framework And Replacing It With What He Calls The “Substitution Theory”. This Theory Asserts That Individuals Do Not Reject Religion To Stand In A Vacuum, But Rather They Intentionally Or Unintentionally Substitute Religion With An “Alternative View Of Life”. As Formulated By Philosopher Charles Taylor, They Are Trying To Develop “Immanent (Worldly) Explanations For Human Flourishing”. They Are Trying To Invent An Alternative Story That Answers The Questions: Why Are We Here? What Makes Something Good Or Bad? What Provides Meaning In Life? And How Should We Live?
From This Standpoint, Stenmark Calls On Researchers To Abandon Negative Terms (Such As Irreligious Or Non-Religious) And Use Positive Terms That Express “Presence” Rather Than “Absence”. He Gives A Smart Example Of Political Philosophers; When They Classify Political Ideologies, They Do Not Divide The World Into “Socialists” And “Non-Socialists”, But Distinguish Between Socialism, Liberalism, And Conservatism, For Example. Therefore, Scholars Of Worldviews Should Speak Of “Secular Worldviews”, “Secular People”, “Secular Rituals”, And “Secular Faith”, Instead Of Using The Term “Non-Religious”.
What Is A “Worldview”? Redefining The Human Compass
To Establish The Field Of “Worldview Studies”, The Author Had To Precisely Define The Term “Worldview”. Some Fear That This Term Implies The Necessity Of Having A Comprehensive And Closed System That Encompasses All Aspects Of Existence, Which Is Not Available To Most People. But Stenmark Rejects This Restriction, Based On A Swedish Research Tradition Started By Anders Jeffner In The Seventies To Study The View Of Life Embraced By The Secular Public After The Decline Of Christianity.
Stenmark Defines A Worldview As: “A Constellation Of Beliefs, Values, And Attitudes That People Hold, Whether Consciously Or Unconsciously, Which Shape Their Fundamental Understanding Of Who They Are, What The World Is Like, And What Their Place In It Is; What They Ought To Do To Live A Good And Meaningful Life; And What They Can Say, Know, Rationally Believe, Or Assume To Be True About These Things”.
This Precise Definition Broadens The Scope Of Application Beyond Religions To Include Almost All Human Beings, Because Most People Already Have An Understanding, Albeit Partial Or Incomplete, Of These Fateful Issues. The Book Emphasizes That A Worldview Is Not Limited To “Beliefs” (Which Are Predominantly Cognitive And Intellectual), But Extends To Include “Values” (What We See As Good Or Evil, Such As The Humanists’ Belief In Human Dignity, Or The Transhumanists’ Belief In The Necessity Of Technologically Improving The Human Race), And Also Includes – And This Is The Most Important – “Attitudes” Or The “Basic Mood” That Colors Our Emotional Experience Towards Life.
The Author Provides A Charming Example Of The Importance Of “Attitudes” Through The Philosopher Thomas Nagel, Who Is Not Satisfied With Disbelieving In God, But Explicitly Says: “I Want Atheism To Be True… I Don’t Want There To Be A God; I Don’t Want The Universe To Be Like That”. Nagel Here Takes A Rejecting “Attitude” Towards The Existence Of God, Which Differs From The Attitude Of Atheistic Indifference (Apatheism) Where A Person Does Not Care Whether A God Exists Or Not, And Also Differs From The “Sad Atheists” Who Abandon Faith Forced Under The Weight Of Rationality But Mourn The Loss Of God As Described By Charles Taylor. These Attitudes And Emotional Moods Are An Integral Part Of The Formation Of A Secular Or Religious Worldview.
Philosophical Dimensions: Ontology, Epistemology, And Ethics
Stenmark’s Book Is Distinguished By Being A “Philosophical” Study Of Worldviews. This Means That The Focus Is On Intellectual Aspects, Claims, And Rational Justifications, Without Denying The Importance Of Social, Political, And Historical Dimensions. The Philosophical Analysis Of Secular And Religious Worldviews Rests On Three Classical Axes:
Ontology (The Science Of Being): Which Is The Comprehensive Inventory Of What Exists In Reality. Worldviews Differ Radically; Does Reality Consist Of A Creator God, Or A Law Of Karma, Or Just Material Particles And Nothing Else? Is Free Will Real Or An Illusion? Are There Mental Causes Or Are All Causes Purely Material?
Epistemology (Theory Of Knowledge): And It Relates To What We Can Know And The Standards Of Rationality And Truth. Here Emerges The Crucial Distinction That Stenmark Draws Between “Knowledge”, “Belief”, And “Rationality”. We May Not “Know” For Sure That Something Is True, But It May Be “Rational” Or Very Justified To Believe It To Be True. This Distinction Opens The Door To Understanding The Rationality Of Others Even If We Disagree With Them.
Ethics: And It Relates To How To Guide Our Lives And Behavior Towards Others And Towards Nature. A Worldview Must Be “Life-Guiding”, Providing Principles About What Is Right And Wrong, And How These Moral Positions Can Be Justified.
Methodology: Rational Reconstruction And Hermeneutics Of Curiosity
As For The Methodology Followed By The Author In Exploring This Wide Spectrum Of Worldviews, He Explicitly Relies On What Is Called “Rational Reconstruction”. Instead Of Diving Into The Historical Chaos And Endless Diversity Within Each Religion Or Thought, Stenmark Builds “Ideal Types” That Extract The Core Ideas Of Each Worldview And Present Them In A Logically Coherent Format. The Goal Is Not The Sterile Literal Description Of Every Historical Detail, But The Creation Of An Interpretive And Conceptual Tool That Orders The Chaos And Allows For Real And Serious Comparisons Between The Different Alternatives.
And In Stark Contrast To The “Hermeneutics Of Suspicion” Practiced By Philosophers Like Marx, Nietzsche, And Freud – Who Always Sought To Uncover Hidden Intentions And Power Relations Behind Religious And Secular Beliefs – Stenmark Adopts The “Hermeneutics Of Curiosity”. This Approach Forces The Researcher To Enter Their Subject Of Study With A Positive Attitude And Genuine Curiosity, Asking: What Can We Learn From The Way Religious Or Secular People Understand The World? This Is Based On The “Principle Of Charity”, Which Avoids Accusing Others Of Irrationality, Contradiction, Or Malicious Motives As Long As There Is A Rational And Coherent Explanation For Their Views.
Thus, Stenmark Paves A Solid Ground, Conceptually And Methodologically, To Launch His Exploratory Journey. He Does Not Merely Tell Us That The World Is Changing, But Re-establishes The Way We Observe This Change, Demanding Us To Treat Secularists Not Merely As “People Who Lost Their Religion”, But As People Who Seriously Build Integrated “Worldviews” That Compete With Major Religions In Their Quest To Answer The Eternal Human Questions.
Contemporary Worldviews: A Comparative Study – Structure, Narratives, And Demarcation
We Now Stand Before Crucially Important Structural Questions: How Are These Visions Formed Within The Human Mind? Do All The Ideas We Embrace Hold The Same Degree Of Importance And Immunity? And Most Importantly, Where Do We Accurately Draw The Dividing Line Between What We Call “Religious” And What We Consider “Purely Secular” In A Time When Concepts Have Intertwined And Many Classical Boundaries Have Faded? The Book Provides Precise Anatomical Answers That Deconstruct These Questions And Reassemble Them In A Sober Philosophical Format That Gives Us A Magnifying Glass To Understand The Modern Human Compass.
Stenmark Dives Into The Architectural Structure Of Ideas Within Any Worldview, Showing That It Does Not Form As A Solid Block Or A Random Collection Of Superficial Convictions, But Is Built In The Form Of Accumulated Layers Arranged Hierarchically In Terms Of Central Importance. At The Heart Of This Structure Lie What He Calls “Central Or Core Beliefs”, Which Are Those Foundational Ideas Upon Which The Entire Edifice Of The Vision Rises. These Beliefs Are Characterized By Extreme Solidity And Fierce Resistance To Change, Because Their Collapse Necessarily Means The Collapse Of The Entire Worldview And The Loss Of The Person’s Existential Balance. For Islam Or Christianity, For Example, The Belief In The Existence Of A Creator God Represents A Core Belief That Cannot Be Compromised Without Entirely Exiting The System. Conversely, For Secular Humanism, The Belief In Human Centrality And Absolute Ability To Achieve Moral And Material Flourishing Without Unseen Intervention Represents A Parallel Core Belief. Around This Solid Center, “Peripheral Or Marginal Beliefs” Are Distributed, Which Are Less Immune And Open To Modification, Review, And Alteration Without Causing The Entire Cognitive System To Collapse. This Precise Philosophical Distinction Clearly Explains To Us Why Both A Religious And A Secular Person Can Change Some Of Their Secondary Views In Response To Scientific Discoveries Or Passing Social Shifts, While Defending To The Death The Core Of Their Beliefs That Gives Their Life Its Meaning And Basic Coherence.
But Worldviews, As The Book Confirms With Charming Detail, Are Not Just Cold And Abstract Logical Structures Embraced By Philosophers In Their Ivory Towers; They Are In Essence “Grand Narratives” And Living Stories That People Live And Interact With Affectively And Emotionally. Humans Are Narrative And Storytelling Creatures By Nature, Always Needing A Grand Story That Places Their Tiny Existence In A Temporal Context Extending From The Beginning Of The Universe To Its Expected End In Order To Feel Their Value. Religions Have Historically And Amazingly Excelled In Providing These Grand Narratives Through Stories Of Creation, Fall, Salvation, And Ultimate Destiny. However, Stenmark’s Most Prominent Contribution In This Arena Manifests In His Deep Revelation That Secular Worldviews In Turn Possess Their Own Deep Narratives That Are No Less Influential. Scientism, For Instance, Offers A Cosmic Evolutionary Narrative That Begins With The Big Bang And Passes Through Natural Selection Arriving At The Human Mind As The Peak Of Temporary Material Evolution, An Epic Story That Needs No Divine Author But Grants Its Followers A Sense Of Belonging To A Vast Universe Subject To Strict Laws That Can Be Tamed. “Transhumanism” Goes To Extremes In Its Narrative To Preach An Inevitable Upcoming Technological Salvation, Where Humans Will Transcend Their Biological Determinism, Weakness, And Physical Limitations Towards Digital Immortality Or Cybernetic Enhancement, A Quintessentially Secular Narrative That Nonetheless Clearly Competes With Classical Religious Salvation Narratives And Borrows Much Of Their Emotional And Utopian Charge.
This Amazing Similarity In Hierarchical Structure, Narrative Storytelling, And Emotional Charge Between Religion And Irreligion Leads Us Directly To The Most Complex Philosophical Dilemma In The Study Of Religions And Sociology: The Problem Of Demarcation Or Drawing Boundaries. If Secular Visions Play The Same Psychological, Social, And Cognitive Role That Religions Play In Individuals’ Lives, How Can We Distinguish Between Them Academically And Conceptually Without Falling Into The Trap Of Generalization? Stenmark Rejects The Destructive And Common Simplification That Considers Religion Merely “Blind Faith In What Cannot Be Proven”, For This Definition Quickly Collapses Before The Fact That Secularists Also Embrace Principles And Postulates That Cannot Be Conclusively Empirically Proven, Such As The Belief In The Inherent And Absolute Value Of Human Dignity, Or The Blind Trust In The Ability Of The Limited Human Mind To Understand The Limitless Universe. Instead, The Author Sculpts A Precise And Decisive Criterion For Separating What Is Religious From What Is Secular, A Criterion Based Primarily On The Ontological Position, That Is, The Position On The Nature Of Existence, And Specifically The Position On The Concept Of The “Transcendent” Or The “Separated”.
The Real Dividing Line, According To The Sober Analysis Presented By The Book, Lies In The Nature Of The Comprehensive Reality Assumed By Each Vision. Secular Worldviews Of All Denominations Adopt An Ontology Of The “Closed Universe”; Meaning That Reality Is Completely And Strictly Confined To The Boundaries Of Physical Nature And Its Physical And Chemical Laws, And Absolutely Nothing Exists Outside This Tangible Spatiotemporal Framework. In This Closed Universe, There Is No Mastermind For The Cosmos, And There Is No Transcendent Spiritual Power That Intervenes In The Course Of Historical Events Or Responds To Human Calls Or Guarantees The Achievement Of Absolute Justice In The End. The Human Here Finds Himself Alone, Representing The Ultimate Reference, And Is The Sole Creator Of Meaning And Values In A Silent And Indifferent Universe.
In Stark Contrast, All Religious Visions, No Matter How Different Their Theological, Dogmatic, And Ritualistic Details, Share In Adopting An Ontology Of The “Open Universe”; A Universe That Expands To Embrace A Transcendent Dimension That Goes Beyond Physical Nature And Its Deterministic Laws. This Transcendent Dimension May Be A Personal, Creator, And Governing God As Is The Case In Major Abrahamic Religions Like Islam, Christianity, And Judaism, And It May Be A Higher Impersonal Moral And Spiritual Order As Is The Case In Buddhism Or Taoism. This Deep Belief In The Existence Of A “Supreme Reality” Represents The Cornerstone That Makes A Religious Vision Quintessentially Religious. And The Loss Of This Specific Component Transforms Any Intellectual System, No Matter How Noble Or Organized, Into A Purely Secular Vision, Even If It Includes Some Meditative Practices Or Aesthetic Feelings Towards Nature.
And Within This Strict Demarcation Framework Built By Stenmark, A Crucial Distinction Emerges That Paves The Way For Our Deep Understanding Of Contemporary Secular Alternatives, Namely The Radical Distinction Between “Science” As A Research Method, And “Scientism” As A Comprehensive Worldview. Modern Science, With Its Strict Empirical Methodology, Stands On Philosophical Neutrality; It Is Merely A Highly Effective Cognitive Tool For Discovering The Mechanisms Of The Natural Universe And Exploiting Its Resources, A Method That Both A Religious And A Secular Person Can Practice And Excel In With The Same Efficiency. But, When This Science Turns From A Mere Exploratory Tool Into An Exclusionary Dogma That Denies The Existence Of Any Reality Outside The Scope Of What Can Be Measured In The Laboratory And Observed Under The Microscope, And When The Claim Arises That Empirical Science Is The One And Only Source Of Knowledge, Moral Values, And Answering Major Existential Questions, Here We Have Left The Arena Of Neutral Empirical Science And Entered The Realm Of “Scientism” As An Integrated And Closed Secular Worldview. This Critical Distinction Is Essential To Deconstruct The Showy Claim That Atheism Or Secularism Is The Inevitable And Direct Result Of Practicing Natural Science And Technological Progress.
Based On These Solid Theoretical Foundations, And The Clear Boundaries That Stenmark Brilliantly Drew Between Levels Of Belief, Narratives Of Meaning, And Separation Walls Between The Closed Universe And The Open Universe, The Philosophical Stage Is Fully Prepared To Receive The Heroes Of Contemporary Secularism And Dissect Their Ideas. We Now Possess The Critical Tools That Allow Us To Dive Deep Into The Details Of The Visions That Fiercely Attempt To Fill The Spiritual And Cognitive Void Left By The Decline Of Traditional Religions In Western Societies. In The Upcoming Third Installment, We Will Begin To Deconstruct The First And Most Important Of These Secular Visions, Which Is “Scientism”, To Closely Examine Its Epistemological Claims, How It Tries To Extract Ethics And Meaning From The Womb Of Physics And Biology, And What Are The Deep Philosophical Dilemmas It Collides With When It Tries To Completely Exclude Philosophy And Religion From The Stage Of Human Life.
Contemporary Worldviews: A Comparative Study – Anatomy Of Scientism: When The Laboratory Turns Into A Sanctuary
We Stand Today Before The Largest And Most Pretentious Door In Contemporary Secular Thought: “Scientism”. Mikael Stenmark Does Not Deal With Scientism In His Book As Mere Excessive Enthusiasm For Natural Sciences, But Deconstructs It As An Integrated Worldview, Having Its Own Decisive Answers To Major Existential Questions. Scientism, In Its Essence, Is An Ambitious, And Perhaps Colonial, Attempt To Withdraw The Mandate Of Empirical Science From The Scope Of Studying Natural Phenomena And Extend It To Include Every Aspect Of Human Life, Turning The Laboratory Into The Final And Only Reference For Truth, Values, And Meaning, And Excluding Along Its Way All Other Forms Of Knowledge From Philosophy, Theology, And Arts.
Stenmark Begins His Deconstruction Of Scientism From Its Widest Gate: “Epistemology” Or The Theory Of Knowledge. Scientism Embraces A Strict Principle That Can Be Called “Epistemological Imperialism”, Assuming That The Only Reliable Way To Acquire Knowledge About Reality Is The Empirical Scientific Method. In This Intellectual System, Any Claims That Cannot Be Tested In The Laboratory, Subjected To Mathematical Measurement, Or Observed By Telescopes And Microscopes Become Mere Illusions, Subjective Feelings, Or At Best, Literary Fiction Completely Unrelated To Truth. This Position Completely Excludes Religion From The Arena Of Knowledge, But It Does Not Stop There, It Deals A Fatal Blow To Classical Humanities And Speculative Philosophy, Considering Them Primitive Cognitive Tools That Are Obsolete, And Must Be Replaced By Neuroscience, Evolutionary Psychology, And Genetics To Understand Human Nature And Behavior.
And From This Epistemological Strictness, Scientism Moves To Build Its Own Ontology, Meaning Its View Of What Exists In Reality. Here Emerges The Concept Of “Ontological Reductionism” As A Backbone Of This Vision. In The Eyes Of Scientism, The Universe Is Nothing But A Giant Machine, And The Human Is Nothing But A Biological Creature Driven By Genetic Determinism. Everything We Consider Sublime Or Complex In The Human Experience Is Reduced To Lower Material Levels. Human Consciousness, Love, Altruism, And Aesthetic Experience Are Nothing But Chemical Reactions In The Brain, And Hormonal Secretions That Evolved Over Millions Of Years To Ensure The Survival Of The Human Species. In This Closed Universe, There Is No Place For True Free Will; We Are Governed By The Laws Of Physics And Chemistry That Propel The Atoms Of Our Bodies, And Our Feeling Of Freedom Is But A Biological Illusion Necessary For Our Survival. The Human In The Scientistic Vision Suffers From Cosmic Marginalization; They Are Just A Conscious Speck Of Dust On A Small Planet Orbiting An Ordinary Star At The Edge Of A Galaxy Of Billions Of Galaxies In A Cold And Indifferent Universe.
But The Most Complex Philosophical Dilemma Facing Scientism, And Where Stenmark Pauses For A Long Time, Is The Problem Of Ethics And Meaning. If The Universe Is Merely Deaf Matter, And If The Human Is Merely A Biological Machine, Where Do We Derive Our Moral Values From? And How Do We Distinguish Between Good And Evil? Scientism Collides Here With What Is Known In Philosophy As “Hume’s Guillotine”, Which Is The Logical Impossibility Of Deducing What “Ought To Be” (Ethics) From What “Is” (Descriptive Science). Empirical Science Can Tell Us How The Atom Splits, But It Cannot Tell Us Whether It Is Ethical To Use It To Make A Bomb Or To Generate Electricity. To Exit This Dilemma, Scientism Resorts To What Is Called “Evolutionary Ethics”, Where Morality Is Explained As Merely A Collective Survival Strategy. Cooperation And Altruism Are Not Transcendent Values Or Sacred Commandments, But Biological Tricks Developed By Nature To Ensure The Cohesion Of The Human Herd And Thus Its Continuation. Although This Explanation May Seem Biologically Coherent, It Empties Ethics Of Its Absolute Value, Making It Merely Relative Biological Conventions, Which Raises A Terrifying Question: If Our Biological Survival Conditions Change In The Future, Will Treason Or Murder Become Evolutionary Virtues?
As For The Meaning Of Life, Scientism Offers An Answer Characterized By Cosmic Pessimism Or Veiled Nihilism. Since The Universe Was Not Created For A Specific Purpose, And Since Evolution Is Just A Blind Process That Does Not Head Towards A Drawn Goal, Life In Its Essence Is Devoid Of Any Objective Or Inherent Meaning. All That The Scientistic Individual Possesses Is The Attempt To Create Their Own Temporary Meaning During Their Short Lifetime, Based On Enjoying Knowledge, Reducing Suffering, Or Pursuing Biological Happiness, Acknowledging At The Same Time That This Meaning Will Completely Vanish With The Annihilation Of Their Consciousness By Death, And With The Final Thermal Death Of The Universe. This Strict And Cold Vision Of Reality Requires Massive Psychological Courage To Embrace, Which Is What Theorists Of Scientism Like Richard Dawkins And Alex Rosenberg Boast About, Considering That The Ability To Face This Naked Reality Without Resorting To “Consoling Superstitions” Is The Peak Of Intellectual Maturity.
But Stenmark Is Not Satisfied With Presenting This Vision, Rather, He Highlights His Critical And Philosophical Tools Upon It. The Book Highlights How Scientism Carries Within Its Folds The Seeds Of Its Own Self-Contradiction, Or What Can Be Called “Self-Defeat”. For The Central Claim Of Scientism Saying That “Empirical Science Is The Only Source Of True Knowledge” Is In Itself A Philosophical Claim That Cannot Be Proven In The Laboratory. There Is No Chemical Experiment Or Physical Equation That Can Prove That Science Is The Only Source Of Truth. Consequently, The Foundational Principle Of Scientism Collapses Before The Standards Of Scientism Itself. Furthermore, Stenmark Clarifies How The Extreme Reductionism Practiced By Scientism Leads To Stripping Humans Of Their Inherent Value And Innate Dignity. If We Are Just Bundles Of Cells And Genes Driven By Chance, By What Right Do We Establish Inalienable Universal Human Rights? And How Can We Justify The Moral Superiority Of Humans Over The Rest Of Living Beings If We Are All Merely The Product Of The Same Blind Evolutionary Process?
This Value And Moral Emptiness Left Behind By Scientism, And This Harsh Stripping Of The Human Being Of Their Exceptional Dignity, Is What Generates The Urgent Need For The Emergence Of An Alternative And Radically Different Secular Vision. A Vision That Tries To Maintain Its Independence From Religion And Its Belief In Nature, But Defends To The Death At The Same Time Human Centrality, Their Absolute Dignity, And Their Ability To Build A Solid And Warm Moral System That Compensates For The Cruelty Of The Material Universe. This Dramatic Tension Between The Coldness Of Scientism And The Warmth Of Human Values Will Transfer Us Directly To Dissecting The Second Most Important Secular Vision In The Contemporary World, Which Is “Secular Humanism”. So How Will This Vision Try To Reconcile Its Atheism With Its Deep Commitment To Human Rights? And What Are The Philosophical Challenges It Faces While Trying To Build “Sacred Ethics Without A God”? This Is What We Will Dive Into Its Deep Details In The Upcoming Fourth Installment Of Our Reading Of This Important Philosophical Tome.
Comparative Study – Secular Humanism: The Sanctity Of Humans In A Godless Universe
Mikael Stenmark Emerges To Analyze For Us The Most Common Secular Vision, The Noblest In Its Claims, And The Most Influential In Formulating The Constitutions And Charters Of The Modern World: “Secular Humanism”. This Vision Does Not Stop At Rejecting Religion, But Also Fiercely Rebels Against The Coldness Of Scientism, Trying To Accomplish A Seemingly Impossible Task: Maintaining The Ontology Of The Closed Universe Devoid Of A God, While Simultaneously Crowning Humans As Sacred Beings Possessing Absolute Dignity And Inalienable Rights.
Stenmark Begins By Drawing The Epistemological (Cognitive) And Ontological (Existential) Features Of Secular Humanism, Clarifying That It Shares With Scientism The Decisive Belief That The Material Universe Is All That Exists, And That The Scientific And Rational Method Is The Best Tool To Understand This Universe. There Is No Room Here For Belief In Revelation, Miracles, Divine Intervention, Or Life After Death. However, In Stark Contrast To The Harsh Reductionism Of Scientism, Secular Humanism Strongly Rejects The Idea That A Human Is “Merely” A Group Of Atoms Or Selfish Genes. Instead, It Adopts A Crucially Important Philosophical Concept Known As “Emergence”. Secular Humanists Argue That When Matter Organizes Into Highly Complex Forms, As Is The Case In The Human Brain, New And Entirely Real Properties Emerge That Cannot Be Reduced To Their Constituent Material Parts. Consciousness, Free Will, The Capacity To Love, Artistic Creativity, And Moral Conscience; All These Phenomena Are Not Biological Evolutionary Illusions As Scientism Claims, But Authentic Realities That Distinguish The Human Race And Place It At The Top Of The Immanent Cosmic Pyramid.
This Philosophical Foundation Paves The Way For The Core And Solid Belief Around Which The Entire Secular Humanism Revolves, And Which Represents The Center Of Gravity In This Vision: “Absolute And Inherent Human Dignity”. In Abrahamic Religions, Humans Derive Their Dignity From Being Created “In The Image Of God”, Giving Them A Sanctity Derived From The Creator. But Secular Humanism, Having Removed The Creator From The Scene, Had To Localize This Sanctity In Humans Themselves. The Human Here Is The Sole Legislator, The Center Of The Moral Universe, And Their Value Stems Neither From Their Divine Origin Nor From Their Societal Utility, But Is An Inherent Intrinsic Value In Their Nature As A Rational Being Capable Of Independent Feeling And Thinking. This Deep Belief In Human Centrality Is What Inspired The Drafting Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, And What Drives Secular Humanists To Passionately Engage In Battles For Social Justice, Combating Discrimination, And Alleviating Human Suffering Everywhere.
And From This Solid Center Branches The Moral Vision Of Secular Humanism. Stenmark Explains How The Concept Of “Divine Commandments” Is Replaced By The Concept Of “Human Flourishing”. Ethics In This Vision Is Not Obedience To Transcendent Commands, But A Rational And Empathetic Collective Effort Aimed At Creating Societies Where Individuals Can Achieve Their Maximum Potential, And Live A Life Free From Unjustified Pain And Oppression. The Ultimate Criterion For Good And Evil Here Is The Extent To Which An Action Contributes To Enhancing Human Happiness And Well-Being, Based On The Rule Of Mutual Human Empathy Formulated By Reason. Similarly, The “Meaning Of Life” Is Not Discovered As A Pre-Packaged Cosmic Plan, But Is “Created” And Crafted By Our Hands. We Are The Ones Who Confer Meaning To This Silent Universe Through Solidarity With Our Fellow Species, Through Art, Literature, And Science, And Through Leaving The World A Better Place For Future Generations, With Our Courageous Acceptance Of The Fact That Our Individual Existence Will End Completely With Death.
Up To This Point, Secular Humanism Appears As A Coherent And Warm Vision Capable Of Carrying The Banner Of Ethics In The Modern Era. But Stenmark, As A Philosopher And Critical Analyst, Does Not Leave This Vision Without Subjecting It To A Harsh Philosophical Stress Test. The Book Highlights The Most Confusing Dilemma For Secular Humanism, Which Is What Some Critics Call The “Borrowed Capital” Problem. Religious Philosophers, Along With Nihilist Philosophers Like Friedrich Nietzsche, Wonder: Can Secular Humanism Really Justify Its Belief In The “Absolute Dignity” Of All Humans Based On A Purely Materialistic Darwinian Ontology? If We Are, According To The Secular Tale Of Evolution, Just Advanced Primates That Appeared By Blind Chance In An Indifferent Universe, From Where Does This “Sanctity” We Bestow Upon Ourselves And Not Upon Other Creatures Come? Why Do We Possess Inalienable Rights While The Rest Of Nature Does Not?
Critics Argue That Secular Humanism Actually Lives On A Moral Legacy Borrowed From The Religions It Fights. It Tries To Keep The Fruits (Human Rights, Equality, Absolute Dignity) After Cutting Down The Tree That Bore Them (The Belief In A Creator Who Grants These Rights). Nietzsche Was Clear About This When He Mocked Secularists Who Believe They Can Get Rid Of The Christian God And Retain Christian Morality At The Same Time, Considering Them Less Courageous Than Facing The Inevitable Nihilism Imposed By Their Materialistic Vision. This Deep Philosophical Tension Between The Material Foundation Of The Universe That Secular Humanism Believes In, And Its Lofty And Noble Moral Edifice, Represents The Central Weakness That Requires Continuous Defense And Complex Justification By Its Theorists.
This Desperate Attempt To Elevate Humans To A Sacred Status Based On Their Current Biological And Rational Nature Seems To Some Insufficient, And Even Restrictive. What If Our Current Human Nature With All Its Fragility, Weakness, Diseases, And Biological Inevitability Of Death Is Not The End Of The Line? What If We Do Not Settle For Glorifying Humans As They Are, But Seek To Radically Transcend Them Using The Technology We Possess? This Radical Ambition That Tries To Transcend The Limitations Of Human Biology Transfers Us To A New And More Radical Secular Vision, A Vision That Does Not Stop At Denying God, But Aspires For Humans Themselves To Become God.
Contemporary Worldviews: A Comparative Study – Transhumanism And The Illusion Of Technological Immortality
The Third, Most Radical, And Wildest Secular Vision In Mikael Stenmark’s Book Emerges: “Transhumanism” Or “Posthumanism”. This Vision Does Not Merely Reject God As Secular Humanism Does, Nor Does It Stop At Accepting Human Weakness And Biological Inevitability, But Declares A Comprehensive And Final Rebellion Against Human Nature Itself. For Transhumanists, The Human In Their Current Form Is Not The Crown Of Creation Nor The End Of The Evolutionary Story, But Merely A Transitional Stage, A Rough Draft Full Of Flaws And Genetic Errors, And A Bridge That Must Be Crossed Towards A Higher, Stronger, And More Perfect Being: The “Posthuman”.
Transhumanism Is Founded On A Purely Materialistic Epistemological And Ontological Base, Believing In The Closed Universe Dominated By The Laws Of Physics. However, Unlike Cold Scientism And Secular Humanism Resigned To The Fate Of Death, It Possesses A Theological Ambition Disguised Under The Mask Of Science. Stenmark Brilliantly And Critically Explains How This Vision Relies Absolutely On What Is Known As “Converging” Technologies (NBIC) Which Include Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology, And Cognitive Sciences. The Ultimate Strategic Goal Of This Vision Is Not Merely Treating Diseases Or Alleviating Suffering As Traditional Religions And Moral Systems Did, But Direct Intervention In Our Biological Design To Re-engineer Humans. They Seek To Achieve What They Call The “Transhumanist Trinity”: Super Intelligence That Transcends Einstein’s Genius By Merging The Human Brain With Artificial Intelligence, Super Emotional Well-Being Through Genetic And Hormonal Manipulation To Eliminate Depression And Psychological Suffering, And Finally, And Most Importantly, Super Longevity That Aspires To Defeat Aging And Perhaps Conquer Death Entirely.
Here Stenmark’s Philosophical Analysis Reaches Where It Reveals To Us That Transhumanism, Despite Its Declared Hostility To Metaphysics And Religions, Actually Operates As An Excellent “Alternative Secular Religion”, Possessing Its Own Dogma And Salvific Narrative. If Abrahamic Religions Preach Eschatological Salvation And Eternal Life In Paradise Through Divine Intervention, Transhumanism Preaches An Immanent “Technological Salvation”, Where Technology Takes The Place Of The Savior. The Concept Of The “Technological Singularity” – Which Is The Future Moment When Artificial Intelligence Will Surpass Human Intelligence And Change The Course Of History – Plays A Role Exactly Identical To The Role Of The “End Of Time” Or “Doomsday” In Religious Narratives. As For The Dream Of Uploading Human Consciousness Onto Giant Computers (Mind Uploading) For The Individual To Live An Eternal Digital Life Free From The Burdens Of The Sick Material Body, It Is The Contemporary And Very Explicit Secular Version Of The Concept Of The “Immortality Of The Soul” And Its Separation From The Mortal Body. They Are Trying To Steal Fire From The Gods, For Humans To Become The God Creator Of Themselves (Homo Deus).
But This Technological Utopia Does Not Pass Without Strict Philosophical And Moral Scrutiny By The Author. Stenmark Raises Terrifying Questions About The Moral Repercussions Of This Vision: If Technological And Biological Enhancement Becomes Available, Will It Be Monopolized By The Rich And Major Corporations, Creating An Unprecedented Ontological Rift In History Between The “Enhanced Humans” Who Enjoy Health, Super Intelligence, And Relative Immortality, And The “Normal Humans” Who Will Remain Captive To Their Weakness And Diseases To Turn Into A Lower Class Or Underdeveloped Beings? Alongside The Problem Of Justice, The Dilemma Of The “Loss Of Essence” Emerges. When We Eliminate Pain, Sorrow, Death, And Limitation From The Human Experience, Have We Not Thereby Destroyed The Essential Conditions That Make Us Human? Solidarity, Compassion, Courage, And Even Great Artistic Creativity, Are Virtues Born From The Womb Of Our Fragility, Our Suffering, And Our Awareness Of Our Inevitable End. Transhumanism In Its Quest To Create A Flawless Being, May End Up Creating Smart Machines But Emptied Of The Meaning And Spiritual Depth That Characterized The Human Experience For Thousands Of Years.
