The ideologically confused opposition to religious fundamentalism that had driven secular humanism through much of [Kurtz'] career was finding fewer targets. Not only was Christianity not going away, it was proving remarkably able to adapt–better even than social theorists like Peter Berger had prophesied. The idea that the world was “going” secular had failed to take into account religion’s unique ability to go humanistic. What was left to attack were the yahoos and nut cases who hardly required the resources of a New Enlightenment (Kurtz’s final attempt to define what it was secular humanism represented) to make them look foolish.

He was not a scientist, but he found science a way of "affirming" and demythologizing a world made (he thought) sick by religion.

Kurtz thought he had discovered a way around, or perhaps above disappointment in the movement he called "secular humanism." This was not the soft humanism of the intellectually uncomfortable but an active, largely atheistic and stubbornly American version of humanism that placed science and reason–words that became definitive for his cause–at the center of humanist discussion. Many found it abrasive and out of step with the kinder, gentler humanism that ethical culturalists and Unitarians tried to purvey. But Kurtz was never an inclusivist: humanism was secular or it was undeserving of the name. He made enemies far more easily than he made friends.