Black Humanism: Past, Present, Future
by Dwede James
When the speaker presented their ideas in that talk, a few things struck me as powerful and worth holding on to. Below are the three main points I took away, and then I’ll share my own feelings, agreements, disagreements, and what this means for me personally and in my context.
Three Key Points from the Speaker
1. The fragility and importance of meaning beyond religion One of the central arguments was that humans must, even if they do not believe in God build meaning in their lives consciously, because meaning does not automatically exist. In religious societies, many accept that meaning is given (by God, scripture, tradition), but the speaker insisted that in secular life we must actively create purposes, narratives, and values not passively inherit them.
2. Critique of moral absolutism grounded in supernatural claims The speaker challenged the notion that morality rooted in divine commands is necessarily superior or unquestionable. They argued that claiming “God says so” sometimes shuts down inquiry, suppresses dissent, and can be used to justify immoral actions under the guise of obedience. Instead, they advanced that moral reasoning through empathy, consequences, fairness, and human dignity can yield stronger, more accountable ethics.
3. Civic responsibility and the social dimension of humanism The talk went beyond personal ethical choice: the speaker emphasized that humanism demands social engagement. It is not enough to believe or reason well; one must act in the public sphere, care for others, resist injustice, and build institutions that reflect humanist values like equality, freedom, and compassion. In effect, humanism is not private but public.
My Opinions, Feelings, and Thoughts
Hearing those points, I felt both affirmed and challenged. As someone raised in Liberia, where religion permeates nearly every aspect of life, it is often assumed that meaning and morality must come from divine revelation. To be told otherwise is liberating, but also daunting. The idea that I and every person must actively create purpose feels like both a gift and a burden.
I deeply resonate with the critique of moral absolutism. I have seen how in my own community, people sometimes do terrible things but justify them with “God told me” or “scripture demands it.” That excuse halts discussion, revision, and remorse. The speaker’s insistence that human reasoning, accountability, and openness are vital resonates with my own convictions. Morality must be exposed to critique, not sealed off behind divine authority.
The emphasis on civic responsibility moved me the most. In Liberia, there is so much suffering poverty, corruption, injustice, and weak institutions. It is tempting for those of us with ideas to retreat into philosophy or argument. But the speaker’s call is that belief and conviction must translate into action: organizing, speaking, building, helping. The humanism I want must be active in the streets, schools, and communities.
Yet I also see challenges and points I approach with caution. First, creating meaning does not happen in a vacuum. People who struggle to survive those in extreme poverty or trauma may not have the luxury to craft deep narratives or purposes. Telling them “you must find purpose” may feel abstract or unfair when their daily life is about food, safety, and survival. So I believe humanist thinkers must remain empathetic: meaning-building must connect with real struggles, not float above them.
Second, the critique of divine morality is powerful, but it can alienate religious people if done without humility. In Liberia, many people’s identities and comfort rest on religion. If humanists come across as contemptuous or dismissive, many will reject us outright. I think a bridge-building approach works better asking questions, offering alternatives, showing compassion not just demolishing old beliefs.
Third, acting in public space is noble, but it is perilous. Oppression, censorship, backlash, threats are real in many places. A humanist who tries to build institutions or speak out may face hostility. So while I accept the call to civic engagement, I also believe we must prepare strategically, build alliances, protect vulnerable voices, and be patient.
Do I Agree? Why or Why Not?
In sum, I largely agree with the speaker’s major points. I accept that meaning must often be made rather than received, that ethical life should not be shielded from scrutiny, and that humanism must be a force in society, not just in the mind. These are the values I want to live by.
However, I disagree with any version of the talk that ignores context, risk, and compassion. I refuse a humanism that treats every person as if they have the same psychological, social, and economic freedom to choose. I reject arrogance toward religious believers. I believe the speaker’s vision must be tempered by humility, realism, and a willingness to listen and adapt.
To close: the video has stirred in me a clearer vision of what it means to live as a humanist in Liberia. It demands bravery, kindness, and persistent effort. As Dwede James, I am more convinced than ever that our task is not merely to persuade minds but to accompany hearts, to build communities, and to act in the messy, difficult world we inhabit.