You said Humanism includes a "salvation narrative like 'when Christ returns peace and justice will reign'". NO, not even close.
This is better because it gives us something to discuss.
@It Aint Necessarily So I think you asked about this too and you have created quite a backlog of things for me to reply to (I appreciate your detailed posts and will try to respond to as much as possible
)
First thing to clarify is that these terms are used metaphorically, or perhaps allegorically.
Second thing to clarify is my view of human perception. We are a narrative species who explain our existence with recourse to stories/narratives/myths/fictions (terms are pretty much interchangeable).
There is no fundamental purpose to our existence that differentiates us from other animals, yet we have developed complex societies and interrelationships based on our ability to tell stories which bind us to others.
These stories tell us what is good, bad, desirable, virtuous etc. and give meaning to our existence. It is very hard for us to face the true nature of a life in a world without meaning, and such a worldview would make complex societies unworkable anyway.
Religions are obvious examples of such narratives, as are -isms like Nazism, Communism, Romanticism, Futurism and, yes, Humanism.
All of these narratives give us a framework to make sense of the world and give our lives meaning, but none of them are objectively true.
So, back to the 'salvation narrative'. Most pre-modern belief systems were somewhat tragic in nature. We live in a cycle of existence which is chaotic, and repeats itself over and over 'there is nothing new under the sun'.
If we look at the Greeks for example, they emphasise the capriciousness and often cruelty of the gods, paint man as a vain creature doomed to repeat the same mistakes due to hubris.
Many belief systems are thus focused on achieving inner freedom (Buddhism, Stoicism, etc), in a world we cannot control and cares little for us we only have power over our own thoughts and feelings. If the world cannot be changed we must change how we allow it to affect us.
Although many Christian teachings are about achieving this inner freedom (love thy enemy, turn the other cheek), it offers the promise of escape from this never ending cycle - redemption through Christ.
Humanism basically developed out of the (Judaeo-)Christian tradition and has retained this hope of 'salvation'. As you have noted in this thread, Humanists believe we can solve our problems. That, through the power of Reason, we can transcend our animalistic nature and operate for the good of
all Humanity. The cycle can be broken.
This is a nice, emotionally comforting narrative but it is no more true than salvation through Christ. There is no common good for Humanity because there is no such thing as Humanity (absent a creator God that is), just humans and societies with differing needs and want.
We are a diverse species and our need and wants are often in direct opposition to those of other humans. Life is about competition as well as cooperation, and this is what the evidence supports.
This is also true of every other animal (although some are just about competition).
And you speak of the "optimistic ... legacy of Christianity". You mean things such as all men are born sinners who must constantly seek forgiveness. Real optimistic!
As mentioned above, the optimism is the salvation through Christ.
As Genesis tells you, we cannot save ourselves as we are fundamentally flawed. Again, the pre-modern tragic view of humanity.
I think my previous comments might have been misconstrued when I said "At least the Christians realised that it would take a miraculous supernatural agent to precipitate this change rather than thinking we could actually bring it about ourselves."
I was meaning that neither is likely to happen.
Even your statement that "Humanists often have a condescending view of religion and the religious" betrays a total lack of any understanding of Humanism which constantly works to ensure everyone may live a life of dignity in a world where universal human rights are respected and protected. But we do oppose apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, and state-endorsed religious doctrine.
Protecting rights is not the same as respecting beliefs. I know countless Humanists and have read the views of many more on RF. Many of them believe that religious people are pretty stupid for believing in their 'sky daddy' and they are too emotionally weak to discard their comfort blanket of religion. Beyond condescending, many Humanists believe religious people are deluded, child abusing, emotionally stunted simpletons, even if they respect their right to hold such beliefs.
As an example, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. It would be pretty hard to claim they don't have a condescending attitude to religion.
