Re-enchantment: A New Enlightenment
Editorial
by Paul Kurtz
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 3.
The term Enlightenment refers to a unique set of ideas and ideals that came
to fruition in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It
began with Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and other
philosophers who sought a universal method for
establishing knowledge. They looked to science as the model for
knowledge and debated whether reason or experience was most important
(actually, both are equally important). No doubt they took impetus
from the remarkable discoveries of Newton and
Galileo in mathematics, physics, and astronomy.
The Enlightenment culminated with the French
philosophes-Voltaire, Diderot, Condorcet, and d'Holbach-who popularized its
ideas in Parisian salons, pamphlets, and books, enabling those ideas
to spread to a wider educated public.
The philosophes criticized the ancien regime of religious superstition and
dogmatism, hidebound social traditions, and repressive morality. They
wished to use science and reason to understand
nature and solve social problems. They were
optimistic that in this way human progress could be advanced. In
politics, they developed social contract theories, defended the
secular state and the rights of man, and advocated
economic liberty. The American Revolution was
influenced by their ideals (through Jefferson, Franklin,
Madison, and Paine). They influenced the French Revolution also,
though many of them were opposed to its excesses.
They wished to reform the penal code and end cruel
punishments. They were anticlerical, castigating the
corruption and hypocrisy of the churches, especially Roman
Catholicism ("Écrasez l'infáme," cried Voltaire).
Most were deists; some were atheists. The
Enlightenment defended a humanist outlook that drew its values from the
Renaissance and Greco-Roman Hellenic culture, which had also extolled
the role of reason.
In his influential essay "What Is Enlightenment?" (1785) Immanuel Kant, a
key figure of the Enlightenment, sought to define Enlightenment as
follows:
Enlightenment is the emancipation of man from a state of self-imposed
tutelage. This state is due to his incapacity to use his own
intelligence without external guidance. . . . Dare
to use your own intelligence! This is the
battle-cry of the Enlightenment.1
According to Karl Popper, "It was this idea of self-liberation through
knowledge that was central to the Enlightenment. "Dare to be free,"
added Kant, "and respect the freedom and autonomy
of others. . . ." For Kant, the dignity of human
beings lay in their freedom, and in their respect for other
people's autonomous and responsible beliefs. However, it is only
through the growth of knowledge that a person can
be liberated "from enslavement by prejudices,
idols, and avoidable errors."2
The Enlightenment's quest for knowledge inspired numerous scientists,
philosophers, and poets, including Goethe, Bentham, Mill, Darwin,
Marx, Freud, Einstein, Crick, and Watson. It has
continued to inspire research on the frontiers of
scientific knowledge, such as the development of chemistry
and biology in the nineteenth century and the emergence of the social
and behavioral sciences in the twentieth. The
application of the methods of science heralded new
breakthroughs in science and technology that
contributed to the betterment of humankind. These included the industrial
revolution (with the subsequent capacity to
expand production); impressive gains in medicine
(such as surgery, anesthesia, and antibiotics, which
extended life spans); a swelling bounty of consumer goods (which can
be used and enjoyed by everyone); a reduction of
drudgery and labor (which has shortened the work
week and has afforded more leisure time to ordinary
people); vastly improved transportation and communication
technologies; the green revolution (increased
agricultural production); the information
revolution (computers, the Internet); biogenetic engineering (we are
on the threshold of new powers for humankind to
reduce genetic diseases); and the space age (with
its vast potential for exploration of the solar system and
outer space beyond).
Scientific knowledge has extended our understanding of the universe. It has
altered our interpretation of the place of the human species within
nature, as the theory of evolution has replaced
theories of creation. It has aroused awe and
astonishment, following Hubble, at the sheer size of the expanding
universe. New planetary star systems and galaxies are being
discovered almost daily. Scientific naturalism has
thus dislodged theological supernaturalism as the
cosmological outlook of the contemporary intellectual
world. The promise of further exciting discoveries in science and
technology, with their consequent benefits to humankind, is truly
enormous.
Unfortunately, there has been a massive retreat from Enlightenment ideals in
recent years, a return to pre-modern mythologies. There has been a
resurgence of fundamentalist religions worldwide:
Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodox Judaism.
Added to this are occult-paranormal claims, which allegedly transcend
the existing scientific paradigm.
In the United States (the preeminent
scientific-technological-military superpower in
the world) significant numbers of Americans have
embraced primitive forms of biblical religion.
These focus on salvation, the Rapture, and the
Second Coming of Jesus. Evangelical Protestant Christians have made
alliances with conservative Roman Catholics and neo-conservative
Jews, and they have captured political power
- power they have used to oppose secular
humanism and naturalism. Incredibly, the Bush administration has rejected
therapeutic stem-cell research based on the questionable
theological-moral doctrine of "ensoulment": even
discarded cells that have begun to divide are held
to have "souls." Part and parcel with this is "evangelical capitalism,"
also allied with a triumphalist imperial foreign policy convinced
that "God blesses" America in military adventures
embarked upon abroad. As a result, many people are
troubled by the present administration now in control of
this country, and they have focused on the upcoming national
elections of 2004‹as they no doubt should.
But certain irreconcilable underlying cultural conflicts are larger than
even a very important election. These conflicts must not be
overlooked, for we are confronted by powerful forces eager to overthrow the
basic premises of the Enlightenment. I submit that
we need to awaken re-enchantment with the
Enlightenment; there is indeed a pressing need for a New Enlightenment,
not only for America but for the global community.
Regrettably, post-World War II Parisian savants spawned a vulgar
post-modernist cacophony of Heideggerian-Derridian mush. Incoherent
as some of their rhetoric may be, it has been
influential in its rejection of the Enlightenment,
the ethics of humanism, scientific objectivity, and
democratic values. This literary-philosophical movement had made
great inroads in the academy, especially within
humanities faculties (though, fortunately, it is
already being discredited in France itself). But it has
taken a terrible toll, undermining confidence in any progressive
agendas of emancipation. In part such thinking is
an understandable response to the two grotesque
twentieth-century ideologies fascism and Stalinism
that dominated the imagination of so many
supporters in Europe and betrayed human dignity on
the butcher block of repression and genocide. "After Auschwitz," wrote
Theodor Adorno, we cannot praise "the grandeur of man." Surely the
world has recovered from that historical period of
aberrant bestiality. However, many intellectuals
are still disillusioned because of the failure of Marxism to
deliver on the perceived promises of socialism, in which they had
invested such faith. Whatever the causes of
pessimism, we cannot abandon our efforts at reform
or at spreading knowledge and enlightenment. We cannot give in to
nihilism or self-defeating subjectivism. Although science has often
been co-opted by various military-technological
powers for anti-humanistic purposes, it also can
help fulfill ennobling humanitarian goals.
When I say that we critically need a New Enlightenment, I mean a radical
reorientation of the religious-moral outlook that now pervades so
much of contemporary society. This involves a
cultural reformation, the restructuring of first
principles, beliefs, and values. Essential for this
to occur is some confidence in the capacity of human beings to
advance human knowledge, to contribute to
scientific discovery, and to engage in rational
inquiry. Many problems may seem intractable or hopeless. But there are no
viable alternatives to using the method of intelligence. It is not
faith or revelation, authority or custom,
mysticism or spirituality that will save us but
diligent work and some measure of goodwill. The theist believes that
only God will save us, to which I respond that "No deity will save
us, we must save ourselves!"3
What are the distinctive characteristics of the New Enlightenment? I can
only sketch some of them:
First, it is incumbent upon us to extend the methods of science and reason
to all areas of human interest. This form of methodological
naturalism is grounded in the recognition that the
methods of science serve us as powerful tools in
unlocking the secrets of nature and solving human problems.
Scientific principles should be considered as hypotheses, tested by
their experimental effects and predictive power,
integrated into theories, and validated by their
comprehensive character and mathematical elegance. They
are always open to change in the light of new discoveries or more
powerful theories; hence,
science is fallible and self-correcting, though its methods
have some degree of objectivity. Since the eighteenth-century
Enlightenment, science has expanded rapidly,
entering into fields never before imagined
possible, such as understanding consciousness, the brain, the biological
world and the genome, and the micro- and
macro-dimensions of the universe. Using powerful
instruments of observation, it has probed aspects of nature
thought to be beyond reach. We should be prepared in the future to
extend the methods of scientific inquiry still
further to all areas of human interest. How and in
what sense we can do this depends on the subject matter
under consideration. In many areas, the best term to describe this
process is critical thinking, which provides a
normative model for appraising claims to truth.
Second, we need to respond to the besetting existential question, "What is
the meaning of life?" Many theists believe that, without belief in a
supernatural deity, life would be meaningless. People are unable to
face death, they say, only belief in life beyond
the grave will console them. Science has disabused
us of such primitive concepts of God and immortality,
though such skepticism has not always penetrated to a wider public.
We can no longer accept the ancient
metaphysical-theological interpretations of
reality in the light of naturalistic accounts of cosmology. Moreover,
scientific and scholarly criticisms of biblical and Qur'anic texts
have shown the specious character of historic
claims of so-called revelations from on high. They
lack confirmation or corroboration by any reliable
empirical evidence.
Theists are mistaken on another count: it is possible to live a full and
meaningful life in a naturalistic universe, informed by scientific
knowledge and devoid of supernatural illusions.
Indeed, countless generations of people have
experienced satisfying, creatively enriched, and morally
significant lives without belief in God. A person's life in one sense
is like a work of art, blending colors, tones,
lines, and forms. It is what he or she chooses to
do, the sum of his or her dreams and aspirations, plans
and projects, ends and goals, tragedies and successes that define who
and what a person is. Our ends and values are
shared with others and conditioned by the
societies in which we live. In open societies that respect freedom
and autonomy, an individual's choices are plural and diverse and,
though that person may be highly idiosyncratic, he
or she is free to pursue them as long as no harm
is done to others. Democratic societies afford a wider range
of opportunities for free expression than do authoritarian ones. All
human beings live out their lives in a universe of
order and disorder, causality and contingency,
regularity and chance. It is hoped that individuals can
learn from experience and modify their choices in the light of
consequences.
They can develop common goals and values experienced with others. Thus they
can find life intrinsically worthwhile and even immensely exciting
for its
own sake.
Accordingly, life can be meaningful without the need of an external
religious support. Ancient religious creeds were spun out of human
imagination and fantasy during the infancy
of the race. At a time when disease, deprivation,
danger, and premature death were the norm, people were
overwhelmed by fear and ignorance, and they supplicated hidden and
mysterious forces that they could not comprehend. Science is able to
dissipate many of these fears. It can discover the causes of natural
events and fashion the best means for overcoming
adversity. Such knowledge can help us to cope with
challenges, it can bolster courage and help us to survive
and indeed thrive. Human beings soon learn that cooperation and
empathy with their fellow humans, love and shared
experiences, can enhance life and help us to
achieve significant lives that are bountiful, joyful, and even
exuberant.
Third, and of central significance to the New Enlightenment, is the question
of ethical values. Humanist ethics can provide the basis for a new
morality. This is related to eupraxsophy, i.e.,
the understanding of good wisdom and conduct drawn
from scientific inquiry and philosophical rationality.
Principles and values should be tested by their consequences in
practice. We learn that not all means should be
used to realize ends, as some exceed the
parameters of decency.
Eupraxsophy focuses on two main areas. First there are excellences intrinsic
to the good life of the individual where freedom and autonomy,
self-determination, and the right of privacy are respected, as well
as the values of creativity, aesthetic
appreciation, self-respect, self-control, and
rationality. The ultimate goal is human happiness and joyful exuberance.
Second are the principles of virtue and responsibility as they relate
to other people in communities of transaction.
These include the common moral decencies of
integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. Humanist
ethical values and principles cut across cultures. They are empirical
in content and are relative to human interests and
needs. They have evolved over a long period of
human civilization. Objective rational criteria
can be applied to the comparative evaluation of
moral choices. The morally developed person learns
that there are duties and obligations that emerge in
the contexts of social interaction and need to be respected.
Fourth, perhaps the most important humanist aspect of the New Enlightenment
in ethics today, is the realization that it is planetary in scope and
that it entails a doctrine of universal human
rights. This means that all individuals on the
planet enjoy similar rights that should be protected by
the world community. These are related to planetary ethics; that is,
they are transcultural in reference. Unlike any
movement before it, the New Enlightenment
considers all members of the human family to be equal in
dignity and value. Planetary ethics emphasize our mutual
responsibility to protect our common habitat, the
planet Earth, to guard against ecological damage
and pollution. It also recognizes the need to support international
laws and a world court to interpret and enforce them. This would
transcend national, racial, religious, gender, and
ethnic divisions, and it would encourage the
growth of transnational democratic institutions.
These would be charged with guaranteeing
collective security and peace; ensuring universal
education, cultural freedom, and open media of communication;
raising the standards of living; and ensuring the prosperity of all parts of
the new interdependent global society.
The New Enlightenment provides important directions for the future of
humankind. It can inspire commitment from all sectors of the world.
It is important that naturalists and secular
humanists take the lead in pointing the way
forward to the new planetary civilization that is emerging.
Notes
1. See Paul Kurtz and Tim Madigan, eds., for the Academy of Humanism,
Challenges to the Enlightenment: In Defense of Reason and Science
(Amherst,
N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994), pp. 58-59.
2. Ibid., p. 59.
3. Humanist Manifesto II, 1973.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kurtz is editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry, professor emeritus of
philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and chair
of the Center for Inquiry. |