Skip to main content

Steven Poole's Review of my VSI Humanism, yesterday's Guardian

It's, er, not entirely flattering!

Humanism: A Very Short Introduction, by Stephen Law (Oxford, £7.99)


Price-allergic? Perhaps you can instead find meaning in a "humanist funeral", as advertised in this guide to being the kind of slightly smug person who congratulates himself on seeing "the world as it is", unlike religious folk. Evidently, no one has a monopoly on epistemological hubris. Much of this book is low-grade anti-theology, arguing against arguments for the existence of God, which rather tests the opening claim that humanism is not primarily an insistent atheism.

A happy, positive story is told about philosophy classes in primary schools, which does sound like an excellent idea. Once so primed, young readers might see something wrong with the author's taking himself to have shown that belief in God is not "reasonable", or his claim that morality is "written into our genes". Law gets testy about the fuzzy gods of modern theologians, though he has himself defined "humanism" so broadly as to encompass just about anyone who is a good egg and doesn't believe in a sky-god. This "humanism", he announces proudly, cannot be "refuted". Of course it can't: it's not the sort of thing that could be. This cup of coffee can't be refuted either. Now excuse me; I have to go to a coffeeist mass.


Source here. I find the final comment particularly odd as I don't announce, proudly or otherwise, that humanism cannot be refuted. Nor do I claim anything so crude as that morality is written in our genes. Weird.

Comments

Marc O'Brien said…
So he's saying your definition of the what is a humanist has high analyticity - like Flew's true Scotsman?

Morality, not ethics, is indeed written into our genes. How else could we discern between good morals and bad morals when presented to us and why else do we not have a rule for absolutely every do and don't?

I have the book but I have only read the first chapter so far - am moving house.
Ophelia Benson said…
So he just made stuff up? That's nice. Ethical Reviewing.

I got the same treatment from Sholto Byrnes in The Indpendent. He made stuff up.
Tony Lloyd said…
Not entirely flattering, but not entirely damning either. Which must be a disappointment. If a critic doesn't write "buy this book, it's fabulous" he could at least write "buy this book to see how bad it is".

Still, it's not entirely stillborn: it's the Amazon number 1 in Hindu philosophy!

(http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/497478/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_2_4_last)
Richard said…
All publicity is good publicity ... even from a 'reviewer' who clearly has not read your book and, no doubt, if he ever gets round to reading it, has little chance of understanding it.
Giford said…
I believe that the traditional response is to ensure that the 2nd edition features prominently on the jacket:

"Excellent" - Steven Poole

;)

Gif
It's my new pocket bible. All it needs is a pre-printed forward: "On [insert date], I accepted Stephen Law as my personal saviour.
Unknown said…
Perhaps it was l'esprit d'escalier against somebody else and you just happened to wander by.
Personally I found the book admirably clear and concise. I don't understand why he put scare quotes around humanist funeral.
Mike said…
I enjoyed your responses to Poole. You cut him down to size.
Stephen Law said…
I am now having a bit of banter with Steven Poole on the Guardian webpage on which his very negative review of my book appears, if you are interested.
Tim Stephenson said…
Funny what The Atheist Missionary said because I gave a talk in Leeds a couple of weeks ago using Stephen's book on Humanism as the main source and invited the audience to step forward, place their hand on the book and accept Humanism. Nobody did though. I do think that Stephen's book is one of the best on Humanism (and believe me I have read them all), especially the evil God hypothesis and the list of what Humanism DOESN'T require you to accept. A handy sized invaluable addition to the library and a good companion to Baggini's Introduction to Atheism.
I have to say I really loved your book. I didn't think it was smug; I thought it was humane. Which was rather the point. In my experience book reviewers spend too much time worrying about their own presence and not enough time out in the world acquiring the experience they need to discriminate nonsense from meaning.
Stephen Law said…
Well thanks you all. Perhaps, if I fall on hard times, I should start my own cult.
Robert Williams said…
Well I have just ordered it, and I hope it's as good as everyone here says it is.
Tim Stephenson said…
Asking people to come forward and put their hand on Stephen’s book and accept Humanism was a joke and people recognised it as such but there is the serious point that unless Humanists can shirk off their fears of being perceived as cultish and are prepared to nail their colours to the mast publicly, to recognise in Humanist literature a discernible approach and pattern of belief which gives them an identity, then I think that the Humanist movement will disappear like the fading grin of a Cheshire cat and we will be left with those who publicly espouse bronze-age myths as the guiding narrative of our culture.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist