As I have said many times, to me, humanism is a repudiation of Christianity, proposing an entirely new world view. The Christian metaphysics of the supernatural and deities becomes an apparently godless, naturalistic cosmos in humanism. Is that an outgrowth or rejection?
As
@Vouthon has explained far more eruditely than I can, there wasn't a radical departure. Your views focus on a modern US version of Christianity, rather than the Christianities (Catholic, Anglican, Quaker etc.) that are more relevant to the historical evolution of this particular strand of European thought.
I also believe it is important to consider pre-Christian thought when comparing similarities/differences.
The completely new worldview, was pretty much the same as an existing one simply without God underpinning everything.
The devout Christians who contributed to the development of the Enlightenment didn't view themselves as rejecting their faith, they saw it as strengthening their faith.
In another thread you, correctly imo, noted that you can't get moral values from reason alone, you need to add in another reference point/axiom from which to use that reason.
For me, that relates to many things from within our worldview. Reason depends on these cognitive reference points, and throughout human history different cultures have had very different reference points.
You look for differences between Humanism and Christianity to show they are substantially different, but when you compare the 2 to numerous other rare-modern strands of thought you will find they are very close.
Universalism, progressive teleology, natural rights, a universe that can and should be understood through scientific investigation, the value of education for all, even a secular realm (not found in Islam or Confucianism for example), etc.
Having all of these things is not common across pre-modern societies, yet are present in both Christianity and Humanism. That is why I find to hard to see how Humanism could be a rejection, rather than an evolution of certain types of Christian thought. While not all Christians were as progressive and open minded, and Humanism could be seen as a rejection of these, it is also true that Christians rejected these views also.
Yes, but that's not where we part ways. We part ways on the nature of the relationship of the Christian culture and the emerging humanist culture. You seem to hold steadfastly to the idea that this relationship must perforce be akin to a mother and child - that one is a spin-off of the other as Christianity is to Judaism.
One example relating to the progressive teleology/meliorism present in Humanism that is one of its core characteristics:
"Such impressive studies as Gerhard B. Ladner,
The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers; Charles N. Cochrane,
Christianity and Classical Culture; Karl Löwith,
Meaning in History; and Marjorie Reeves,
The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages make it certain beyond question that a very real philosophy of human progress appears almost from the very beginning in Christian theology, a philosophy stretching from St. Augustine (indeed his predecessors, Eusebius and Tertullian) down through the seventeenth century...
Probably the first full and complete statement of progress is that of Turgot, expressed in his celebrated discourse before an admiring audience at the Sorbonne in December 1750, one entitled "A Philosophical Review of the Successive Advances of the Human Mind." In this discourse progress is made to cover not simply the arts and sciences but, on their base, the whole of culture—manner, mores, institutions, legal codes, economy, etc. Even more comprehensive is Turgot's "Plan for Two Discourses on Universal History" ... In Turgot's "Universal History" we are given an account of the progress of mankind which, in comprehensiveness and ordering of materials, would not be equalled until Turgot's ardent admirer, Condorcet wrote his
Outline of an Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind during the French Revolution. Condorcet wrote it in a period of but a few weeks all the while hiding from the Jacobin police in an attic (a staunch supporter of the Revolution, Condorcet had managed to incur Robespierre's hostility).
Before leaving Turgot, it is important to stress once again the historical importance of Christianity in the formation of the secular modern conception of progress in Western Europe. In the first place, Turgot began his career as a reasonably devout student of theology at the Sorbonne, his aspiration then linked to a future in the Church. Second, just six months before the discourse on "The Successive Advances of the Human Mind" was given in 1750, he had presented another public discourse, this one on the crucial importance of Christianity to the progress of mankind. And third, it was Bossuet's
Universal History, which I have already referred to, that Turgot acknowledged to be his inspiration for the writing, or the preparation of a plan of his own "Universal History." Bossuet, proud and convinced Christian that he was, constructed his history in terms of a succession of epochs, all designed and given effect by God.
Turgot allowed God to disappear (he had lost his faith by 1751 when he wrote his "Universal History") and replaced Bossuet's "epochs" by "stages": stages of social and cultural progress, each emerging from its predecessor through human rather than divine causes. But Turgot's alterations notwithstanding, it is unlikely that his own secular work on progress would have been written apart from the inspiration derived from Bishop Bossuet and other Christian philosophers of history. He is an epitome, in this respect, of the whole history of the modern idea of progress."
R Nisbet - The idea of progress
The development of Humanism is similar to Turgot's journey, they just took god out of the equation. This is why you will often find very little difference between the views of many Christian and atheist/agnostic/deist philosophers around the time of the Enlightenment.
A fideistic epistemology is replaced by one reliant on skepticism and the application of reason to evidence. Same question: descendant or contradiction?
The idea that Christianity and reason/scepticism are mutually exclusive is not an accurate one.
The Physicist Paul Davies notes:
"Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order. This was explicitly stated by René Descartes:
t is God who has established the laws of nature, as a King establishes laws in his kingdom ... You will be told that if God has established these truths, he could also change them as a King changes his laws. To which it must be replied: yes, if his will can change. But I understand them as eternal and immutable. And I judge the same of God.
(Descartes, 1630)...
Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological prov- enance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of sci- ence and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired."
Regarding an experimental approach to science:
"The experimental approach is justified primarily by appeals to the weakness of our sensory and cognitive capaci- ties. For many seventeenth-century English thinkers these weaknesses were understood as consequences of the Fall. Boyle and Locke, for their part, also place stress on the incapacities that necessarily attend the kind of beings that we are. But in both cases, the more important issue is the nature of human capacities rather than the nature of the Deity. And if the idea of a fall away from an originally perfect knowledge begins to decline in importance towards the end of the seventeenth century, it nonetheless played a crucial role by drawing attention to the question of the capacities of human nature in the present world."
Peter Harrison - The fall of man and the foundations of modern science
In general, the Greek, and 'intellectualist' Christians such as Descartes, approach had not been based around experimentation as they believed that the senses and reason could be trusted to create a reliable understanding of nature. However, voluntarist theology, influenced numerous natural philosophers to reject this faith in reason.
Of course Christian theology wasn't the only possible route to such beliefs, but in this case it was the route and many earlier great thinkers had not taken this approach.
Moral theory changes from Divine Command Ethics - it's good because God did or commanded it - to the rational ethical method of humanism in which man is the judge of what is right and wrong after applying reason and empathy to beneficence.
As Vouthon noted, the role of conscience in Christianity (your rational ethics) was important, and dates back to Paul and the 'law is written on the heart' (although it required centuries of evolution to reach the form present at the start of the Enlightenment, and many Christians were far from progressive).
Most pre-modern cultures didn't believe in beneficence to Humanity, because there was no such thing in their worldview, although one developed out of Christian monotheism due to God creating man.
Here again I see far more similarity than difference when compared to the range of views present in other societies.
That's been my point all along - humanism is not a product of Christianity, but a radical departure from it, and the argument is supported by looking at these two systems of thought and comparing them as we have just done.
As stated above, I disagree on the radical departure bit. Well, I consider the removal of God to be radical, but much of the rest of the stuff stayed the same.
Obviously I don't consider there to be anything supernatural or magical about Christianity. If man can create Christian theology, then he can create all such ideas via other routes also.
It is also true that there were many influences from other cultures, new technologies, commerce and urbanisation, etc. that went into the development of modern science (and as I've said before, Christianity itself owes much to Greek philosophy).
Christianity, It's scriptures and traditions led to people viewing the world in a particular way, and one which was not common in the vast majority of pre-modern societies. We have had thousands of societies, with thousands of chances to create such an environment by chance of design, and they did not. From this is should be concluded that these are rare characteristics.
Had Europe not been Christian, it is possible everything would have happened the same, it's possible it would have happened quicker, but I can't say that it would be likely. Creating such a rare society seems like hitting a royal flush, it's possible in any hand, but much more likely you will get 'not a royal flush'.
