applewuud
Active Member
I was surfing around RF in the Humanist forums, which led me to a Wikipedia entry for the Humanist minister who built up the UU church in Minneapolis in the 1920s, John H. Dietrich. It's amazing how this man's journey anticipates where the UU movement finds itself in relationship to humanism today. A lot of things we've been talking about on RF regarding how religious vs. humanist we are seem to be reflected in his life journey from orthodoxy, to accommodation, to rebellion, to a more embracing kind of acceptance of reason AND mystery. His complete story is at http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/dietrich.html but the germane par is excerpted below:
When Warren Allen Smith corresponded with Dietrich, the father of religious humanism wrote:
I was one of the original, if not the original minister, to preach the interpretation of religion which l called Humanism, and for twenty-five years I proclaimed this doctrine to large audiences in a Unitarian Church, but I no longer call myself a Humanist except in the sense you attribute to the lexicographer, "a term denoting devotion to humanity and human interests." I sometimes called my Humanism Religious Humanism or Naturalistic Humanism. In any case it was the Humanism now represented by the American Humanist Association and its various members, and I think is quite accurately defined by your definition of Naturalistic Humanism. But of late years, due to much reading and mature thought, my philosophy and religion have undergone a complete revision. I now think it a philosophy too narrow in its conception of the great cosmic scheme, about which we know so little, and concerning which we should be less dogmatic and arrogant. It in no wise reflects the humility which becomes the real seeker after truth. I see now how my utter reliance upon science and reason and my contempt for any intuitive insights and intangible values which are the very essence of art and religion was a great mistake. I think the Humanism of that period served a good purpose as a protest movement against orthodox dogmatism, but its day has passed.
What I am trying to say is that the positive side of Naturalistic Humanism was and is fineits insistence upon the enrichment of human life in its every form; but its negative side, cutting itself off from all cosmic relationship and denying or ignoring every influence outside of humanity was and is very short-sighted. In other words, it should not have drawn such a hard and fast line between Humanism and Theism, making them contradictory. That was all right so far as orthodox theology and supernaturalism are concerned, but there is a type of theisma kind of naturalistic theismwhich does not stand in direct opposition to a real Humanism, and I have come to accept that type of theism. Do not ask me to define it, for I still agree with Robert Herrick, when he said
Perhaps I am a theistic humanist, but not in the sense you define it, or a humanistic theist. I like to think of myself as both a theist and a humanist.
From Whos Who in Hell compiled by Warren Allen Smith (New York: Rationalists NY, 2000).
Isn't that amazing? Have any of you in RF heard of him? This is my first encounter with him, although I'm familiar with the Minneapolis church and really enjoyed hearing their humanist minister at GA a few years ago.
DIETRICH UPDATED
When Warren Allen Smith corresponded with Dietrich, the father of religious humanism wrote:
I was one of the original, if not the original minister, to preach the interpretation of religion which l called Humanism, and for twenty-five years I proclaimed this doctrine to large audiences in a Unitarian Church, but I no longer call myself a Humanist except in the sense you attribute to the lexicographer, "a term denoting devotion to humanity and human interests." I sometimes called my Humanism Religious Humanism or Naturalistic Humanism. In any case it was the Humanism now represented by the American Humanist Association and its various members, and I think is quite accurately defined by your definition of Naturalistic Humanism. But of late years, due to much reading and mature thought, my philosophy and religion have undergone a complete revision. I now think it a philosophy too narrow in its conception of the great cosmic scheme, about which we know so little, and concerning which we should be less dogmatic and arrogant. It in no wise reflects the humility which becomes the real seeker after truth. I see now how my utter reliance upon science and reason and my contempt for any intuitive insights and intangible values which are the very essence of art and religion was a great mistake. I think the Humanism of that period served a good purpose as a protest movement against orthodox dogmatism, but its day has passed.
What I am trying to say is that the positive side of Naturalistic Humanism was and is fineits insistence upon the enrichment of human life in its every form; but its negative side, cutting itself off from all cosmic relationship and denying or ignoring every influence outside of humanity was and is very short-sighted. In other words, it should not have drawn such a hard and fast line between Humanism and Theism, making them contradictory. That was all right so far as orthodox theology and supernaturalism are concerned, but there is a type of theisma kind of naturalistic theismwhich does not stand in direct opposition to a real Humanism, and I have come to accept that type of theism. Do not ask me to define it, for I still agree with Robert Herrick, when he said
God is above the sphere of our esteem
And is best known, not defining him.
And is best known, not defining him.
From Whos Who in Hell compiled by Warren Allen Smith (New York: Rationalists NY, 2000).
Isn't that amazing? Have any of you in RF heard of him? This is my first encounter with him, although I'm familiar with the Minneapolis church and really enjoyed hearing their humanist minister at GA a few years ago.
