Humanism vs. Christianity

This topic isn't going to be your usual let's hate believers, and it's not going to be an amateur apologetic piece.  This topic was inspired by two separate radio programs I heard on a long road trip which made me realize what educated people on both sides are doing with their time.

Humanists get together to have thoughtful discussions no less than annually, and they go over some of the more important topics (which inevitably involves a mention of religion).  They stressed the importance of self reliance.  A re-doubling of their personal efforts to find purpose in their life.  The group was entirely unanimous in their agreement that the task of finding meaning in life was completely up to the individual, and that it was subjective to each case, independent of any other, to succeed.

Christians have a similar discussion in progress as I found on another radio station.  Their dialogue is primarily given to them by trained leaders, such as ordained pastors.  This particular discussion addressed nearly every issue that humanists argue is the reason to reject religion.  Their response was somewhat counter-intuitive to the untrained listener.  What the speaker I heard spoke of was a re-doubling of their efforts to become better practitioners of Christianity; the response to criticisms of Christianity is not to compromise, but to become better Christians with "more Christianity" than before.

Now, before the gurus of either side can have their hand at this, I'd like to make it very clear that I'm aware of the obvious complications and problems that arise from that raw version of Humanism and the countless versions of protestant Christianity (some of which are comfortably within the definition of cult); as I said before, I'm not here to defend anything, I just want people to understand something very specific about each.  And there are two very distinct characteristics about the two that are worth mention.

First, they both talk about doing what they know how to do, but their ultimate aim is to do it better.  Both sides believe so strongly in their cause that they are willing to believe that any failure they've had previously is simply due to human error or some unknown ignorance.

Second, they both talk about each other, but never talk with each other (we all know each side talks AT each other).  This is likely the most problematic issue both groups face.  I say this because disregard for your opponent in any legitimate discussion is foolish, no matter the topic.  It appears that neither side has any intent on reconciliation, which is, in my personal opinion, pure shame.

In other words, regardless of what I think, it's important to take this into context.  A look into religion in politics during my undergraduate studies pointed out this issue in great length, and this circumstance is no different.  We have two factions polarized against one another to achieve their own aims, their own goals, regardless of what opposition may bring.  What we never see is collaborative efforts to bring to light common ground that plainly exists.  It is absolutely clear that both factions are acquiring the best chance they have at a meaningful existence.  This fundamental similarity ought to be enough to permit civil discussion and social progress.  Yet it goes undone.

If this matter was an easy fix, then it would have been done (notice I didn't say simple).  What I observe here requires the most trying individual feat to be had as a member of society:  to truly accept opposition as more than just that; we must understand that in the ways humans are most important we are also the same.  The differences remain trivial as they have for all of history.