Humanism as Resistance: Reclaiming Dialogue in Divided Times

Previously published in: humanistfreedoms

The rise of modern individualism, scientific inquiry, and pluralistic thought did not emerge in Europe because Christianity was uniquely compatible with Enlightenment values. Rather, these developments became possible as the Roman Catholic Church gradually lost its monopoly over the dominant narrative that defined truth. This shift allowed alternative perspectives to surface and compete. From this vantage point, the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Commercial and Industrial Revolutions, and the Enlightenment were not isolated historical episodes. They formed a continuous, mutually reinforcing process that progressively loosened institutional constraints on individual knowledge, expression, and volition. In this sense, the Enlightenment began with the Renaissance and remains an unfinished project today.

By the mid‑twentieth century, the cumulative effects of Enlightenment thinking—scientific, technological, and humanistic—had produced a global civilization with unprecedented gains in life expectancy, reductions in child and maternal mortality, lower homicide rates, and expanded human rights (Pinker, 2018) . While modern societies still struggle with inequality and injustice, the Enlightenment ideal of democracy—where every citizen has meaningful input—depends fundamentally on freedom of speech; and indeed, that freedom allows for progress on inequality. As Karl Popper (2012) stated, authoritarian or totalitarian systems—whether religious or political—cannot sustain scientific progress because science depends on criticism, dissent, and the institutionalization of error‑correction, all of which authoritarian regimes suppress.

Resistance to the Enlightenment’s core technology—the empowerment of individual reason, empirical inquiry, and volitional judgment—has appeared in many forms. Early examples include the Roman Catholic Inquisition, the persecution of Anabaptists (often drowned in a grim parody of “rebaptism”), and the moral absolutism of the Great Awakening. In the twentieth century, these pressures intensified into the totalitarian collectivism of fascist and communist regimes, which subordinated the individual to the state or party ideology. The common theme in all of these movements, regardless of the methods used, is that the individual cannot know ultimate truths and must submit to the dictates of the authority in question.

A more subtle challenge emerged in the late twentieth century with postmodernism. Often framed as a benign academic critique, postmodernism argued that all knowledge consists of socially constructed narratives without objective grounding. It popularized the idea of “different ways of knowing,” reducing science and reason to culturally contingent viewpoints among many. If no shared standard of evidence exists, disagreements cannot be resolved through argument or data. Truth becomes whatever narrative gains dominance—through institutional power, cultural influence, or sheer repetition. In this environment, the Enlightenment ideal of an independent, evidence‑guided self is undermined not, by force but by the erosion of any common ground for truth.
The New Enlightenment Project: A Canadian Humanist Initiative was founded to advance humanism—understood as the integration of science, reason, and compassion—at a time when collective identity politics increasingly shapes public discourse. In keeping with the theme, Humanism as Resistance, we proposed a symposium for the upcoming World Humanist Congress in Ottawa: Understanding the Other: Resisting the Tyranny of Singular Narratives. The goal was to explore contemporary humanist practices that cultivate empathy, critical inquiry, and pluralistic understanding in the face of dogmatic or monolithic narratives.

The central purpose of such a symposium is to reaffirm core Enlightenment values—freedom of thought and speech, human reason, scientific inquiry, and the continual improvement of the human condition. It does so by presenting opposing viewpoints on contemporary issues and engaging them through the skills of street epistemology: asking clarifying questions, identifying the methods by which beliefs are formed, gently testing the reliability of those methods, and “steel‑manning” one another’s arguments by restating them in their strongest form. With an emphasis on listening, dialogue, and mutual understanding, participants aim to better recognize their own biases and the contextual forces that shape them, thereby strengthening their own perspectives. The symposium is planned to model seven key practices:

1. Clearly articulating one’s beliefs or points of view in argument form.
2. Acknowledging personal biases as openly as possible.
3. Demonstrating understanding by restating the opposing view accurately.
4. Steel‑manning the opposing argument to show epistemic respect.
5. Identifying areas of agreement before offering critique.
6. Critically assessing the opposing argument with respect and rigor.
7. Accepting criticism with grace and decorum.

We hoped that applying these principles to controversial issues would show that sensitive topics can be discussed publicly with civility and intellectual humility. This would exemplify the Aristotelian insight that “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Unfortunately, the Program Committee of the World Humanist Congress did not feel this symposium fit with the congress theme “Humanism as Resistance.” Undeterred, the New Enlightenment Project is seeking other venues to model this work.

References:

Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress.
Viking.
Popper, K., Gombrich, E. H., & Havel, V. (2012). The open society and its enemies. Routledge.