Culture war refugees: how the humanist movement can foster reason and respect in a divided world

By Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson

In this article, Lloyd explores the challenge of fostering respectful, reason-based dialogue across ideological divides. Drawing from psychology, humanist principles, and the mission of the New Enlightenment Project, he argues that genuine progress depends on our willingness to listen, reflect and engage — even with those we strongly disagree with. Lloyd is President of the New Enlightenment Project — a Canadian Humanist initiative.

A recent discussion among New Enlightenment Project board members highlighted a growing breakdown in meaningful communication across societal “silos”. Groups divided by differing beliefs on divisive issues — such as Palestine, immigration, equal rights for men, gender ideology, or systemic racism — are increasingly polarized with the result that they are left shouting at each other rather than talking to each other. Left, right and people in-between have been undermined with lies, defamation, negative gossip, innuendo, social ostracization, and asymmetric application of institutional ethics guidelines. This divisiveness has also fragmented the humanist movement, spawning competing organizations vying for a limited constituency. As a result, some humanist groups avoid discussing controversial issues to prevent further division, but this limits our ability to advance knowledge at individual and societal levels.

The Enlightenment-inspired advocate will stick to the argument and not the presumed character of the other. Even when we disagree — perhaps especially when trust is lacking — we must show respect for others, honouring the humanist principle of valuing every individual’s dignity and worth. This requires epistemic humility: acknowledging that our knowledge is limited and subject to change with new evidence. So why does society struggle to embrace respectful, reason-based discourse?

From a psychological perspective, three factors may explain why those engaging in reasoned debate are often maligned or censored. First, individuals with a dualistic worldview — dividing the world into good versus evil — may justify harmful actions against those labelled as “evil”. They may believe that silencing such individuals prevents others from straying from the “right” path. This mindset isn’t limited to religious ideologies; any belief system that paints non-adherents as oppressive, racist or hateful can foster this trap.

Second, people may actively censor or malign others due to an underdeveloped or fragile sense of self. To such people, presenting ideas that run counter to their beliefs might feel like violence directed towards them. More extremely, some people run from the responsibility of having a volitional self and instead merge who they are with a religion or ideology. Any attack on the religion or ideology is then felt as violence directed against them and they “defend” themselves accordingly. Since reasoning only invites a reply which is then experienced as another attack, they seek to suppress free speech.

Third, some individuals view power as the only reality, leaving them desperate to control others. Feeling vulnerable when not in charge, they may resort to manipulation or bullying. When aligned with a movement seeking power — often framed as a moral crusade — they gain a sense of legitimacy, justifying their efforts to silence reasoned discourse.

These conditions — moral dualism, fragile identity, and a fixation on power — are treatable through psychotherapy. However, individuals with these traits often seek counselling only when their efforts to silence or control others fail, expecting the world to change rather than themselves. Promoting societies that consciously value objective reason, diverse thought, and free speech at every level may encourage such individuals to reflect and grow. This cultural shift could foster the change we need. Indeed, this is the mandate of the New Enlightenment Project: A Canadian Humanist Initiative (NEP).

The NEP was created by refugees from the culture wars within Canadian humanism who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear. So, we took this discussion from the board and invited member comment. Here are some of the comments that now appear on our website: 

Gleb: “Intolerance of emotional intolerance should be the cornerstone of NEP.”

Myron: “But they are not interested in facts, just in perpetuating their dogmas and the lies they depend on.”

Bob: “We always assume that ours is the only way to think, and that the other side is just wrong-headed.”

Mathew: “My mother survived the Warsaw Uprising as a child, and witnessed how her father almost lost his life as he was chased in front of German tanks as a human shield. But she always encouraged me to ‘hear out the other side’. She had every reason to believe that some people, and some ideologies, are beyond redemption, and yet was ready to hear out even them.”

To maintain progress as a civilization we need to understand other points of view and we need to be willing to modify our own points of view dependent on the evidence. Enlightenment Humanism is progressive in that we are capable of making incremental progress using the skills of science, reason and free speech. At NEP, we are concerned that these skills are not being sufficiently taught in our society. We publish articles, maintain a blog, have a Facebook discussion page, and conduct interviews on a YouTube channel. And we worry that, in effect, we are creating our own silo, and we wish to reach out to others that perhaps have different perspectives. We are exploring co-hosting “The Other” conference to provide opportunities for people who hold opposing viewpoints to discuss them in a fair and respectful forum.

A function of this conference is, to echo Steven Pinker, the open acknowledgment and utilization of Enlightenment values such as freedom of thought and speech, human reason, scientific inquiry, and continued improvement of the human condition, while steel-manning* those who would question or oppose them. The conference would be more about listening and discussing than judging and drawing political lines in the sand. By considering what the “other” side believes and why, we can better appreciate and understand how biases influence our own views within particular contexts. But how do we bring people with opposing viewpoints together?

One way would be to have groups that represent the spectrum of humanist thought co-sponsor such a conference with agreed upon rules for building an argument, acknowledging biases, reiterating or “steel-manning” other points of view, and acknowledging good points and areas of common agreement prior to critical assessment. Such a conference would demonstrate to each other, and to the public at large, that it is possible to gather in a public forum and discuss very sensitive issues in a respectful and helpful manner.

We learned last month that the World Humanist Conference for 2026 has been moved from Washington to Ottawa, Canada, due to fractured and politicized discourse in the United States. We would hope that Robert Hamilton, the president of Humanist Ottawa, which is independently affiliated with Humanists International, will have a visible role in this event. We would also propose that the other humanist groups in Canada that are not formally affiliated with each other be invited to co-host an event that will demonstrate the skills we have suggested for “The Other” conference.

In the meantime, you can visit the NEP website at THE NEW ENLIGHTENMENT PROJECT – A Canadian Humanist Initiative. Check out our blog, visit our Facebook page, participate in the discussions. You can view our podcast interviews at https://www.youtube.com/@nep-humanismca6881

* “Steel-manning” means presenting the other person’s argument in the strongest possible form. Opposite of “straw-manning”.