You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Humanism' category.
So in news of the weird: Feds can seize Dinosaur Adventure Land:
A ruling this week says the nine properties that make up Dinosaur Adventure Land, and two bank accounts associated with the park will be used to satisfy $430,400 in restitution owed to the federal government.
Kent Hovind, who founded the park and his ministry, Creation Science Evangelism, is serving 10 years in federal prison as a result of a tax-fraud conviction for failing to pay more than $470,000 in employee taxes in a long-running dispute with the Internal Revenue Service.
Kent Hovind was found guilty in November 2006 on 58 counts, including failure to pay employee taxes and making threats against investigators.
The East Peoria, Ill. native sparred with the IRS for 17 years before his conviction. He claimed no income or property since he was employed by God and said that his ministers were not subject to payroll taxes.
Hovind is incarcerated at the Edgefield Federal Correction Institution in South Carolina.
So evolution denier’s “Dinosaur” theme part will be up for public auction, more than likely.
If, on walking past the “New Age” section of the local chain book store to get to the philosophy section, I see another “Raven [insert last name or made-up name here]” I think I may errupt into massive fits of vomitting. If I were a pagan writer, I would pick a more interesting bird name, such Magpie, Bee Hummingbird, Ostrich, Emau, or maybe Cuckoo or Loon.
If you want to understand the development of the modern neo-pagan movements, read Ronald Hutton anyway. I find the neo-pagan movement fascinating and have since I dated a Wiccan in high school and married a former neo-pagan. Yet the are trends of popular expression here that I find completely banal, and primarily of the marketing to the 13-17 crowd.
File under useless wastes of mental energy and time, what I would like to call myself: for example, I have been somewhat forlorn that I can’t drop large amounts of Buddhist inspired thinking, yet I can’t really adopt traditional Buddhist teachings because at some level I think that a) the so-called “western” rule of non-contradiction does apply to reality (thus refuting some foundations of the otherwise brilliant Nagarjuna) and b) the history of Buddhism is just as steeped in same weirdness, sectarianism, and dogma as any other religion, and c) there are certain Buddhist principles that explain everything in such as way that they explain nothing at all (karma and shunyata).
Pardon the mixing of metaphors, however, I do derive a large portion of my coping mechanisms and ethics from a Buddhist framework in a secular context with large twists of Jewish and Christian influence in that particularly surreal drink. I have also become highly pragmatist in my approach to the way others deal with truth–”an absolute standard is only necessary when you are dealing with scientific facts or killing humans and, probably, most animals with similar cognition levels to a small child.”
Buddhist ethical relations DO seem to be human-centric in a bad way, but any good ethic should still human centric enough that you aren’t trying to make Utilitarian arguments about equlivancy with any organism while not thinking that humans are the center of the universe.
So after years of studying all sorts of religion and then reading so many sutras my eyes bleed. Trying to learn Pali. Taking novice monk vows in the Theravada tradition for a little while. Studying with an ajahn for two years. Then losing my mind and experimenting with every religion that pasted by while never really believing in most “spiritual” things. Taking both a practice approach and an analytic approach–and yes, I have kept prayer vigils and rituals and almost retreat intensity meditation regimes–I formally just don’t care. I am not a Buddhist in that I don’t “believe” as a Buddhist and I don’t keep all or even most the Buddhist practices, but I am cultural tied to Buddhism and I still like meditating and reading sutras and controlling my urges.
I would say I was an “ethnic” Buddhist, but that would be confusing because while I do have a Buddhist background going back into childhood, I am not Asian. My family is ethnically Irish Catholic, Eastern European, and Jewish.
Like Dogen, I don’t think “enlightenment” is something you find or you become. If such a thing exists, it exists in merely knowing your limitations, knowing that attachment to ideas can make those limitations MUCH more painful, and enjoying your life as it is. You can take this far, become fatalistic, be resistent to change or social welfare or innovation. I guard against that and I guard against complete contentment because I think it is akin to death.
But I do think that the process of “Being” is a process, not a state. I don’t think “I” am anything but a narrative of events and feels and reactions of a collection of things that seems to feel that it has consciousness and thus needs to define itself against other things. I do think that non-harm is an ideal and as an ideal, it is impossible to achieve. And given that I don’t know what consciousness and will really are, at least, on an experience level in ways that can be communicated in language–I definitely don’t really know what death means or even what the clearest demarcation of life is.
I still meditate as a means of detangling my mind and centering myself.
This last year has taught me to quit tying myself in knots over things. It only makes me an asshole, so I am giving this question up. I don’t care if people view me as a card-carrying atheist-humanist or as a mystic or as a fool. I care if they respect me enough to listen to the important things I have to say DESPITE those beliefs. I don’t believe in G-d or gods or celestial Buddhas. I doubt that rebirth or reincarnation has any meaning outside of the metaphorical. I think that when your dead–and by that I mean that you do not have anything that can be called consciousness–you’re probably going to stay dead.
I don’t like being called an “atheist” because it defends me by my lack of the belief in something that I don’t even think most people have a coherent enough definition of to reject. I consider myself an ignostic, but people mistake that for agnostic and I get called wishy-washy. The label isn’t important. The values system that it is underneath it is.
Anyway, I have critiqued Buddhism harshly before and I have been an apologist for it. At this point in myself, I don’t feel the urge to do either. I think people tend to take it uncritically or criticize it ahistorically: I don’t think either approaches are wise. Buddhism is a “Western” word–a word largely invented by British colonial scholars about 150 years ago. The Buddha Dharma is much more complex than the watered down Zen, pop Tibetan, or austere Theravada you mostly get here. It’s not historically the evangelical religion that is represented by Sokka Gakkai or Nichiren or the religion of “no religion” as Alan Watts would have you believe.
If you’re going to historically understand what Buddhism is, what is was, and why I am ambivalent about the whole concept. you need to read some real good books on the subject to understand its history.
Here’s my recommended reading, you won’t see the normal pop Buddhists authors on here:
For core of what many may call “Buddhism” that I still basically accept as a ethical guideline and a tool for psychological framing:
Hardcore Zen by Brad Warner
Buddhism without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor
Money Sex War Karma by David Loy*
The New Social Face of Buddhism by Ken Jones
Ten Zen Questions by Susan Blackmoore
Zen and the Brain by James Austin
*I disagree with Loy on the supposed “failure of secular modernism” but I agree with most his moral arguments.
For an fairly objective history and view of the historical development of Buddhism (and why in most forms IT IS a religion) you need to read the following scholarly work (you will notice that I favor things from academic presses not Buddhist presses like Shambhala or Wisdom):
Buddhist Scriptures by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed by Donald R. Lopez jr
Buddhism in Practice by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
The Story of Buddhism by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
Curators of the Buddha edited by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
Prisoners of Shangrila by Donald R. Lopez Jr.
The Making of Buddhist Modernism by David L. McMahan
The Buddha by John S. Strong
The Experience of Buddhism: Sources and Interpretations by John S. Strong
Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction by John S. Strong
Unmasking Buddhism by Bernard Faure
Chan Insights and Oversights by Bernard Faure
Seeing Through Zen by John R. McRae
Did Dogen Go to China by Steven Heine
Zen Skin, Zen Marrow: Will the Real Zen Buddhism Please Stand Up by Steven Heine
Also ACTUALLY read the Sutta and Sutras (Thomas Cleary translations are easy to find for the Zen ones and www.accesstoinsight.com provides the Pali cannon in its entirety for free).
When you done read into the above and kept a skeptical outlook, you’ll probably see why I think Buddhism as a whole IS a religion, but it can be secularized and naturalized in ways that many other religions can’t. I suppose if there are Humanistic Jews, then there can be Humanistic and Naturalistic Buddhists.
If you think that’s too complicated, you can think of me as an old-fashioned secular humanist. It doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that if people are going to make decisions on Buddhism or make blanket judgments on Buddhism (which tend to be either totally positive or totally negative), they need to subject Buddhist scripture and Buddhist history to the same scholarship and criticism which they place on Abrahamic religions.
Skepoet: How do you think the so-called “New Atheists” have helped humanism? Do you think there are any ways they have hurt it?
Jack Rivall: From what I have witnessed and believe to be the case, the “New Atheists” have helped the causes of humanism in many ways. I mostly examine nonreligious humanism. Imagine if you will a person who identifies as nonreligious. This person may also identify as a humanist concerning where they discern their morals and ethics. We begin with the absence of religion and build on this with humanism. The foundation, though, is the irreligious characteristic. This is also atheism. The “New Atheists” mission is essentially similar to the movements in the 70’s through the 90’s for homosexuals in that the want for openness and understanding is desired, and that the need for the arrest of hatred and malice should cease. A web search of “New Atheists” provides: “An increasingly outspoken community of atheists and agnostics is getting fed up with being marginalized, ignored and insulted.” I think that chances are, if you identify as an atheist, you understand the challenges that come up as a result of revealing your atheism to family, friends, co-workers, and others. You can experience (and even expect) prejudice and bigotry. One might ask: “Why is that so?”.
Thus, by promoting a social advance for nonreligious folk, the group of “New Atheists” by virtue of their websites and their now popular OUTcampaign are most definitely helping the causes of humanists and the public understanding of humanism and nontheism in general. If the drums are loud enough, people wonder where they are coming from.
The only criticism I might have would be the demanding nature of those involved in this movement. Many in the ‘mainstream’ of our culture do not respond well to that. I can hardly blame those involved, though. There is a sense of urgency… for the bigotry and misconceptions are hurting all parties. Atheists and secular humanists do not want to be patronized, belittled, scoffed at, mistrusted, or condescended to any more than another person does. Discrimination can be subtle and indirect, which at times is even worse than outright hatred. The call to be heard is getting louder as atheists grow more courageous and comfortable.
Skepoet: Why do you think atheism is more stigmatized than say humanism? I mean, I label as an ignostic and even though that makes me a functional atheist, I know atheists get a MUCH harder time.
Jack Rivall:I think that, quite simply, the word ‘atheist’ or ‘atheism’ itself has become taboo. It isn’t too hard to find people attack or criticizing atheism and atheists. There are websites devoted to it, people who write columns about it, and you can even find them in letters to the editor of different newspapers. Very little of what you read there is justified. Occasionally, someone will make comments which fairly apply to some atheists, but it is very unusual to find attacks which fairly apply to all atheists or to atheism in general.
Never has there been more misconceptions, misunderstanding, and outright fallacies regarding nontheism. Why? Misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit a narrow, limited concept of atheism. Reliance on dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. Most ‘folks’ hear the word “atheism” and have been brought up in their communities and families to either pity, ignore, condescend to, patronize, or even outright hate a person talking or adhering to such a thing.
Like so many things, education is the answer to this problem.
Skepoet: Anything you’d like to say in closing?
Jack Rivall:Only that I’ve enjoyed your questions and hope that others may continue asking about secular options. My desire is to help promote freethought and an understanding of science in all areas of human interest. A quote usually ties things up nicely: “MUNDIS VULT DECIPI” (The world wants to be deceived) — James Branch Cabell
Poets, priests, politicians, psychics and psychoanalysts, and many others make pleasingly plump livings by simply telling people what they want to hear. It’s up to each individual to digest what they hear and are exposed to. I’d always say a dose of skepticism is prudent when evaluating claims posed as truth.
Skepoet: How would you like to introduce yourself?
Jack Rivall: They call me Jack Rivall (that’s pronounced Riv-uhl). I reside in Minnesota. I attended the University of North Dakota. I’m an activist for the defense of freethought, science, and freedom of inquiry in all areas of human endeavor.
Skepoet: When did you start identifying as a humanist?
Skepoet: What is your practicing definition of humanism?
Jack Rivall: My practicing definition of humanism is outlined and worded best by Wikipedia:
Humanism often (though not exclusively) refers to a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems. Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
Jack Rivall: I began identifying as a humanist when I was 15. After numerous ideological discussions with my parents, church leaders, and the religious communities at large, I grew more outspoken as a nontheist. I think the most basic reason for not believing in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. I was unsatisfied. As in my case, I think that once a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, they may realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary in the first place. The believers I’ve met to date have failed to meet this burden, though, and thus fail to provide good reasons to accept their claims. My father handed me a sheet of paper that he had printed out from a place called the Council for Secular Humanism. I read the declarations on the page, which may still be found here. As I read those bullet points I grew more and more excited. I’d found I wasn’t alone after all!
Skepoet: Why do you identify as an humanism as opposed to JUST an atheist, naturalist, skeptical, or rationalist?
Jack Rivall: This is a very good question. The issue of labels for irreligious peoples has been ongoing. Unbelievers have debated the proper way to describe their position. Some thought the term ‘bright’ would overcome the negative connotations that other terms such as ‘atheist’ have aroused in the past. Critics of the use of bright have commented that it is presumptuous for us to suggest that we are “bright,” i.e., intelligent, implying that those with whom we disagree are dull-witted or dumb. Clearly, many people have been turned off by the term atheism, which they perceive as too negative or dogmatic. Others may seek refuge in some form of popular “agnosticism,” which suggests that they are simply uncertain about the god question-though this may simply enable them to resort to “faith” or “fideism” as an artful dodge.
Each of the terms mentioned in your question implies different ideas held to be true by each ‘-ist’. My atheism only implies my lack of belief in god(s). My naturalism alludes to my worldview of scientific naturalism.
Skepticism is widely employed in the sciences. Skeptics doubt theories or hypotheses unless they are able to verify them on adequate evidential grounds. The same is true among skeptical inquirers into religion. The skeptic in religion is not dogmatic, nor does he or she reject religious claims a priori; here or she is simply unable to accept the case for God unless it is supported by adequate evidence. The burden of proof lies upon theists to provide cogent reasons and evidence for their belief that God exists. The doctrine of rationalism holds that the source of knowledge is reason and logic. This is usually contrasted with the idea that faith, revelation and religion are also valid sources of knowledge and verification. See the similarities? Hence the point of contention. Semantics, really.
Skepoet: Do you think humanism implies a political agenda?
Jack Rivall: Traditionally, humanist groups have tended to be more philosophical and educational rather than overtly political. I’m not sure any agenda is implied politically per se. In recent years, more humanists are thinking that it’s worth getting involved in politics not merely as individual citizens, but also as part of an organized humanist movement with coherent goals, agendas, and principles. Humanism actually has a lot to offer in discussions concerning the processes of the world and on a wide range of issues. Organized humanism hasn’t had much impact on politics as of yet. Perhaps that should change.
Humanism challenges religious politics on the right as well as relativism or identity politics on the left. Humanism upholds standards of human rights developed out of the Enlightenment against challenges from both authoritarian religious leaders as well as cultural relativists. Is there, however, enough there to constitute a political movement? I believe that a political humanism could potentially promote the valuable legacy of cultural humanism and expand the promises of liberty to all.
Skepoet: Do you see any humanist allies in theistic or religious communities?
Jack Rivall: Yes, typically among the more liberal theists. And, of course, among religious humanists. These are the folks who are less bigoted towards irreligious or secular humanists. Secular humanism itself is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues. However, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. That’s a tune we can all dance to.
Skepoet: Why do you think cultural relativism has become vogue at current?
Jack Rivall: I’m not sure that it has. I cannot say for sure. If it has, as it is suggested in the question that it has, I would ask, “Where?”
Skepoet: Do you find it ironic that the far right has started using both the legal and philosophical tactics of the left to push their agenda? Using the language of human rights, for example, as a way to stop critique?
Jack Rivall: Extremely. As outrageous as the Christian Right’s (‘far right’) overall agenda is, their specific arguments and beliefs can be worse. I have posted many articles exploring the arguments and beliefs advocated by the Christian Right in order to reveal just how awful, and awfully absurd, they can be. I’ve never seen any groups on the radical/religious right not claim to be the keepers of absolute truth – particularly when it comes to moral issues. Using their bibles and twisted interpretations of the Constitution, they advance incredible ideas about the nature of society and humanity which are inflexible and intolerant. Genuine democratic dialogue cannot possibly take place in such an atmosphere
Skepoet: In regards to relativism, I actually don’t either, but I have heard a lot of skeptics attack postmodernism in the humanism specifically for promoting relativism in some seemingly massive way.
(Part 2 of the interview with Mr. Rivall will be forthcoming).
Dr. Pascal Boyer, whose name has always seemed like a slightly ironic reference to a certain French Jensenist, wrote Religion Explained which really got to my views on the development of religion. I have always thought that limiting religion to claims about theology was both sort of Abrahamic-religion centric and misleading. I also thought that religion is a flaw in logic as sort of misleading too: myths often rationalist origins, but are no longer empirically sound. Rituals and sympathetic magic seem to come from seperate deep psychological needs.
I have also found debating anyone but apologists to be sort of a lost cause. I don’t know that people just cognitively choose their beliefs off of rational arguments. Rational arguments come MUCH later. Here’s what Dr. Boyer has to say on the subject for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:
Taking all this into account, it would seem that the “sleep of reason” interpretation of religion is less than compelling. It is quite clear that explicit religious belief requires a suspension of the sound rules according to which most scientists evaluate evidence. But so does most ordinary thinking, of the kind that sustains our commonsense intuitions about the surrounding environment. More surprising, religious notions are not at all a separate realm of cognitive activity. They are firmly rooted in the deepest principles of cognitive functioning. First, religious concepts would not be salient if they did not violate some of our most entrenched intuitions (e.g., that agents have a position in space, that live beings grow old and die, etc.). Second, religious concepts would not subsist if they did not confirm many intuitive principles. Third, most religious norms and emotions are parasitic upon systems that create very similar norms (e.g., moral intuitions) and emotions (e.g., a fear of invisible contaminants) in non-religious contexts.
In this sense, religion is vastly more “natural” than the “sleep of reason” argument would suggest. People do not adhere to concepts of invisible ghosts or ancestors or spirits because they suspend ordinary cognitive resources, but rather because they use these cognitive resources in a context for which they were not designed in the first place. However, the “tweaking” of ordinary cognition that is required to sustain religious thought is so small that one should not be surprised if religious concepts are so widespread and so resistant to argument. To some extent, the situation is similar to domains where science has clearly demonstrated the limits or falsity of our common intuitions. We now know that solid objects are largely made up of empty space, that our minds are only billions of neurons firing in ordered ways, that some physical processes can go backwards in time, that species do not have an eternal essence, that gravitation is a curvature of space-time. Yet even scientists go through their daily lives with an intuitive commitment to solid objects being full of matter, to people having non-physical minds, to time being irreversible, to cats being essentially different from dogs, and to objects falling down because they are heavy.
In a sense, the cognitive study of religion ends up justifying a common intuition, best expressed by Jonathan Swift’s dictum that “you do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into.” The point of studying this scientifically is to show to what extent we can expect religious notions to be stable and salient in human cultures, not just now but for a long time to come.
To me the implications here are clear, arguing the logical points of theism will only convince those theism who were deeply committed to the logic of their positions. In fact, as both Sam Harris and Dr. Boyer have discussed, it is easier to make people adopt rationalist and empirical positions OR even HUMANIST positions by attacking individual points of belief or misconception than by attacking their theological framework directly.
That is why I use the term ignostic to deal with theology. It is not that I just doubt G-ds or am a metaphysical rationalist. I don’t think most concepts of G-d are rationally defined enough to even formally reject. You are often talking about people’s undefined emotional and cultural baggage when you talk about theology. Apologists are the exception to this rule, but we all know that their attempts are pretty much post hoc and ad hoc rationalizations. I have known SEVERAL religious people who said as much and returned to a Fideist position.
Continuing my mission to get an operational definition of humanism, I talked to Russell Miller. Russell is more of a rationalist and a slight cynic, but his honesty and his bluntness has amused me since I “met” him on Facebook a few months ago.
Skepoet: How would you like me to introduce you?
Russell: Russell Miller – or was there more that you wanted from that?
I was raised in a religious cult for 23 years, and when I left, I slowly migrated away from Christianity and became an agnostic – and at the same time started adhering to the principles of humanism, although I didn’t really know that’s what they were.
Skepoet: When did you start identifying as a humanist?
Russell: To be completely honest, this morning. No, it’s not because you’re nterviewing me, but because I went and looked up what it means, I’d never actually paid much attention to the actual term before. I have believed in reason and rationality for a long time, and in the idea that there’s no God controlling everything minutely, and that our morality comes from our evolution and what we believe is right, not because of something divinely inspired. So I guess I’ve been a humanist for a long time, and I’ve been familiar with the term “secular humanist”, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen it as something I can actually call myself.
I don’t really see labels as all that important, really, anyway. A label is something that you call yourself so that other people can pigeonhole you into a box they’ve already made for you – you’re just making a suggestion as to which box they’ll put you in.
Skepoet: What is your practicing definition of humanism?
Russell: Essentially, not being stupid. I don’t have a problem with religion, really. What I have a problem with is people who see it as an excuse to be stupid. It has a place, and that place is that which is fully separated from physical reality.
Humanism is a statement, to me, that reason and rationality is sacrosanct – that we have a brain to use, and using that brain is one of the most sacred and valuable things we can possibly do as humans – and that not using it is much more of a “sin” against our nature than any rule that the religious people could possibly come up with.
There may or may not be a God – but even if there is, such a belief isn’t incompatible with humanism – as long as you are not being stupid at the same time.
Skepoet: What broke you out of religious belief?
Russell: My story is a very unusual one. I was born and raised in the Worldwide Church of God, which was, to be charitable, an extremely conservative quasi-Christian sect, and to be entirely uncharitable, a mind-control cult. I tend to think of it as the latter rather than the former.
Throughout my childhood, I was taught quite a few things that, even to my young, undeveloped mind, made no sense to me. Why did we have to keep the Sabbath? Why was I supposed to be “apart from the world”? Why does God demand all of these stupid and frankly unreasonable things from me? Why did we have to give 20 to 30% of our gross income to the church?
These are things that I managed to repress and keep to myself for survival. However, on Christmas Eve 1994, the WCG did a complete 180 into mainstream Christianity. All of the rules I’d had to live under all of my life? Gone. Or at least, optional. But I was still very scared, so I left for a while, but went back to Christianity because I didn’t know what else there was. After you’ve lived in a mind control cult for years, it’s wholly insufficient to just push the members off a cliff, saying “You’re free! Fly!”.
But… as I continued, I found nothing of what I was looking for. I didn’t find “Christian” people – there was no love, there was no caring, there was no concern. Just judging and having to pretend to be someone I wasn’t. After attending a couple of different churches… one Sunday I just got up and walked out. And I never went back.
I think the argument could be made that I never truly believed – but it took me 23 years to learn that it was OK not to.
Skepoet: Other than other kinds of beliefs that you held that were equally irrational but non-religious?
Russell: That’s a tough question, because all of my irrational beliefs, because of the depth that I was involved in that cult, have either religion or my father’s psychosis as a basis. I think that to answer your question, I think the idea that I have no worth, that no one could possibly want me or love me.
Skepoet: How did you move past that?
Russell: This answer is going to sound flippant, but years of psychotherapy. The only way to deal with these kinds of beliefs is to face up to them. You can’t push them aside, you can’t hide from them. You can only acknowledge them and move past them. And sometimes, you need help.
I think that one of the major disservices done to people by religion is the idea that Jesus (or insert God here) can heal you. No. Get help. ”God helps those who help themselves”, and if you’re afraid that your beliefs are going to be destroyed by psychological help, maybe they’re not all that worth believing to begin with.
If psychological help were available or mandatory for everyone that needed it, I wonder how many people would be religious. Certainly not near the number that exist now.
Skepoet: Also, strangely, the Worldside Church of God sounds like my experience with Orthodox Judaism (although, to be fair, I have never been an Orthodox or explicitly religious Jew) or New Kadampa Buddhists. Do you think these sorts of things are far more common in just slightly marginal groups than is assumed?
Russell: Slightly marginal groups? How about everywhere? Hell, even atheists can be dogmatic and stupid at times.
The problem is not that they’re common – they are, without a doubt. The problem is that they’re ignored. Religion is on a pedestal. All you have to do is invoke God, and immediately a large chunk of the population is going to assume that whatever it is you did, no matter how abhorrent, no matter how stupid, no matter how abusive or harmful, is God’s will. And then they will fight, sometimes to the death, to defend said behavior.
We, as a society, do not ever step up and say “I don’t care whether God ordered it or not, that is not acceptable.
I don’t care if you marry off 11 year old girls to 40 year old men in the name of religion, or if you just teach a child if they don’t pray every day the devil is going to get them and they’re going to hell. It’s all the same. It’s child abuse, and it needs to stop.
Skepoet: How do you think rationalism affects politics?
Russell: It doesn’t. Because there are not enough people out there who think rationally for the politicians to listen to them. You can’t get a politician’s attention if you don’t represent the views of more than 50% of the people they represent, and I hate to say it, but more than 50% of the people out there are religious, and thus have to one degree or another already checked their brains at the door.
The only reason that rationalism has managed to get any foot in the door at all is because so many different sects are fighting with each other that they will take a rational approach to law on certain things just so that they don’t get wiped out by a slightly more politically powerful sect. It’s all about religions fighting each other. As much as I hate to say it, we don’t even enter into the debate – and when we try, there come the death threats and the demonizations and, yes, sometimes even true bodily harm. They have no interest in any kind of rational belief structure or government – until their own religion is threatened. It is only our luck that a significant enough portion of people can think far enough ahead to see what would happen if another belief system got the upper hand, and that based on that they try to make sure that none of them can.
Skepoet: Do you think irrationalism has spread or declined with increased communication technology?
Russell: Oddly enough, both.
Do they have the ability to reach many more people than they ever did before? Yes. But the downside is more people than ever before have the ability to find out about them.
Many people, myself included, believe that the Internet had a big part in bringing down the Worldwide Church of God. They made a very effective effort to keep “Dissident” material from reaching the members – they were instructed to just throw it away unread.
But then came e-mail, and web sites such as “The Painful Truth” – and suddenly anyone who wanted to could learn what people were saying about them – and the ministers didn’t have to know. People started asking questions amongst each other, and emailing back and forth – and no one else knew.
Nowadays, the splinters are a shadow of their former selves – because every time they get a bite, that person just searches for them on the Internet – and nine times out of ten stay far, far away after reading what they find there.
For those who are more mainstream, it’s probably helpful and helps them to “convert” people they wouldn’t have been able to previously. For those more on the fringe – the Internet is probably the worst thing that could ever happen to them.
In an effort to, as one commenter put in, “nail Jell-O to the wall,” I decided to come up with an operating definition of humanism from its self-indentified practitioners and allies. Sometimes humanism seems almost a simple equation of “reason + compassion” and sometimes it seems like a complex sociopolitical movement. My first interview is with Barry F. Seidman.
For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Seidman, he has worked as a humanist/freethought community leader and events coordinator for the Council for Secular Humanism and the Center for Inquiry from 2000-2006. Barry has a BA in Video and Film Production from Rutgers University, and a MA in Science Journalism from New York University. He has been published in Free Inquiry, Philosophy Now, The Skeptic UK, The New Humanist, the Daily Record of New Jersey, Biotechnology News, Oncology.com, The Sciences, Skeptical Inquirer and EXIT. He contributed a chapter for the book anthology, “Opposing Viewpoints: Death and Dying,” and is coeditor of the anthology, “Toward a New Political Humanism.” Barry is also the producer of “Equal Time for Freethought,” a live radio program on WBAI-NY covering the scientific, philosophical and humanistic aspects of the Freethought world.
Barry vision of Humanist is more sociopolitical than the more recent versions of the Humanist Manifesto. This interested me because it seemed like a way to focus a humanist agenda beyond opposing theists. While Barry F. Seidman is slightly to the left of me and there some minor points on which I disagree with him such as characterizing Danish Mohammad cartoons being explicitly anti-humanistic (although I do think they were deliberately provocative), I find I agree with him more than I don’t.
Skepoet: I’ve notice you and the crew at equal time for free thought devote a lot of time to giving humanism and free thought more than just a secular and naturalistic world view?
Barry: Yes, we began as an extension of our then executive producer’s (Sara Kaye) previous WBAI program, Equal Time for Atheism, but soon realized that we wanted to promote a philosophical worldview rather than just articulate what we DIDN’T believe in. Of all the areas of which Freethought entails – scientific naturalism, skepticism, atheism, agnosticism, humanism, etc. – humanism was the only “ism” which fit that notion. Of course many self-identifying humanists define humanism in many different ways, but that may be another question of yours later on. But let me make clear that our umbrella term – Freethought – allows us to bring on board hosts and guest hosts who themselves may not be humanists, but who want to articulate a more general Freethought set of ideas.
Skepoet: Do you think atheism is necessary to humanism?
Barry: No. I think there can be humanistic elements to, and humanist “stands” made by religious folks and that these contributions can help create a planetary humanism for the 21st century. I don’t think atheists own the word humanism, in other words. Still, it is my belief, and I think there is much evidence for this, that if such a planetary humanism comes to be, most forms of religion would then disappear. I think Marx said it best when he argued “…the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.” What I would also like to add is that being an atheist in no way means you are also a humanist. I know of many atheists who have quite anti-humanistic ideals, so the two words are hardly interchangeable.
Skepoet: What is your working definition of humanism?
Barry: Humanism is a sociopolitical world view, informed by scientific naturalism, which holds that human societies are healthiest if founded on non-hierarchal democratic principles. Accordingly, a humanistic society – in recognizing universal interconnectedness – promotes cooperation in all areas of life, the peaceful and fair allocation of natural and human-made resources, and a commitment that individuals be encouraged and aided in achieving their fullest potential while in turn nurturing the larger society.
Skepoet: What do you think gets confused with humanism that isn’t humanism?
Barry: Some folks think atheism itself is all that’s required to be a humanist. Others feel humanism is merely a “human-centered method of inquiry,” while others say it’s an “ethical worldview” but don’t apply their own humanist ethics to the real world for fear of “politicizing” their humanism. I also think, and surprisingly this may be controversial, that you can’t hold right wing or even conservative ideals and be a humanist. The ethical codes are just too different.
Skepoet: What kind of agenda would a humanist have in your view?
Barry: Tough question. This can take a book, and probably will someday. Maybe you should be more specific?
Skepoet: Okay, let’s break a humanist agenda down into three areas. What do you think a humanist position on health care is?
Barry: Health Care, as President Obama said, is a right not a privilege or a responsibility. That said, there is simply no reason a wealthy nation should not be able to offer each and every person living within her borders full health care for free. Of course “free” means it has to be part of the overall budget of the government rather than individuals or families having to pay for it via for-profit insurance companies.
The problem arises, I think, not because people are unwilling to pay toward the entire society’s health care through their taxes (though some will argue this), but because people don’t trust what the government does with their money. But since they don’t really know where their money goes, or are told to believe that when it goes into the Pentagon, that it’s to “protect our freedoms” (when it’s really to protect the political elite’s privilege), they turn on social programs like welfare.
Also, because most people are wage-slaves and make little money in the first place, they don’t want their money going to others who may not work (for whatever reason) as hard if at all. This attitude is created by the divide and conquer method the State uses to get the attention off the low wages in the first place, and the fact that the real money is going to the few elite who then have to devise arguments through their proxies like Rush Limbaugh to pit whites against people of color, men against women, and Middle Class against the Poor. So the only humanist method to full health care for everyone is via real socialism.
Skepoet: What do you think a humanist position on education is?
Barry: On education, it’s really the same as with health care. All education including college and post-graduate work should be free to all. The way it is now, only the rich can get the elite education, which does not mean they gain any more real knowledge, but instead the “credentials” to get better jobs. Eliminate capitalism and education may instead be sort after for, well, education! I think the Modern School movement of the past and the notion of Democratic Education people from Alfie Kohn to Jerry Mintz talk about is the humanist way to go. Surely it will be more about education than indoctrination or work-place preparation than we see in religious and public schools respectively.
Skepoet: What do you think a humanist position of freedom of belief and conscience is? I have seen several atheists who come very close to wanting to restrict freedom of conscience and freedom of belief. Sam Harris seems to waver on this, and he is often linked to humanism. (Note: I was specifically referring to some statements in The End of Faith that appeared to advocate violence. I understand, however, that Mr. Harris has clarified his position on the matter. )
Barry: On freedom of belief and conscience (and speech I take it) we may need further dialogue, even in humanist quarters. Unlike Sam Harris – whom I would call an atheist and not a humanist – I feel anybody should be free to believe anything they want, religious, new age, racist, secular, humanistic, non-racist. . . whatever. Thought control – or conscience control – is certainly anti-humanistic. Likewise, people should be able to say in public anything they want, but this part gets a bit trickier. I think when speech is meant to rally people behind an idea – no matter what we think of that idea – that such speech should be always allowed. But when speech is meant to rally people to action, well, then it gets tricky. If we disallow people to speak to rally folks to achieve racist political policy, then we have to disallow people to speak to rally folks to achieve socialist political policy because in both cases there will be people who very much disagree with such policy. I think we can draw the line when speech is meant to incite people to violent actions, but it isn’t always easy to know what will or will not incite violence. I think it was clear that in a time of mass killings of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine by Western powers that the Danish Cartoons published by a right-wing newspaper was meant to incite violent protest. . . and it did. I may not use the word disallow to describe what I would do about publishing those cartoons, but rather use the word selfish and stupid. Surely that was an example of a non-humanist act, no matter what Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens think.
Skepoet: Do you think that there has been a recent movement to de-politicize humanism in ways that involve economics and to mobilize things that involve science in specific?
Barry: I am not sure there has been a recent movement to de-politicize humanism and move towards mere atheism and/or science advocacy, though that is what indeed has happened to at least one major American humanist organization since 9/11 – just when we NEEDED to talk about politics and economics, mind you – but there certainly has been for quite some time an overall unstated separation of politics-economics from what some have called “pure humanist philosophy” due to the early 20th century association of many humanists with socialism and Marxist Humanism. With the many anti-communist movements in the US since before WWII, many advocates of humanism like Dr. Paul Kurtz wished to separate humanism from politics because humanist politics were usually no more right-wing than New Deal democracy and often quite socialist and even anarchist. These leftist connections scared many American humanists because they thought humanism would become tainted with communism, but of course atheism itself – which these same people strongly advocated for – was already compared to “godless communism.” And so, after neutering humanism politically, atheism slowly became the core issue for humanist – rather than applied ethics – which opened the flood gates for capitalist, conservatives, Right-Libertarian and Objectivist atheists. . . . forever confusing the issue that humanist ethics opposes the core ideals of such ideologies. I think this is why so many self-identifying humanists talk about ethics but don’t apply them within their humanist framework, and this is why some people simply define humanism as “a human-centered method of inquiry.”
Skepoet: This may seem like an odd question, but I have always wondered if the socio-economic situation in the US has led to many people who profess humanism to be slightly distrusting of democracy because of the religious inclinations of a lot of the population?
Barry: As for humanists distrusting democracy, I don’t think this is the case. The ‘new atheists’ might distrust democracy because they want religionists to somehow keep their beliefs from influencing their political activism (and I am not just talking about their worry concerning religious folks breaking down the wall between church and state), but most humanists argue that democracy is central to humanism. The problem I have with that is not – as some would believe I might argue – that humanism is threatened when the core elements of Jeffersonian-Madisonian democracy are trampled on as was the case under the Bush administration, but that Jeffersonian-Madisonian democracy – representative democracy – is not democracy at all. The term “representative democracy” is as much an oxymoron as “anarcho-capitalism” or “capitalist libertarianism.” So what humanists fear is that some folks might decide that conservative, reactionary religionists and secularists might decide THEY are the proper representatives of the people (and there are many people who would, and do, vote for such people), when in a real inclusive democracy, no such thing could happen because ALL THE PEOPLE represent themselves and each other. To me, you can’t fully realize a humanist future society unless you have REAL democracy in place.
Skepoet: What do you think are the most important concerns for humanists in the short term?
Barry: I don’t know if there are any ’short-term” concerns that are not really long term ones as well. I suppose we really have to be vocal and vigilant about keeping President Obama’s feet to the fire and encourage him to make the progressive changes he promised in his campaign. And on what issues do we have to push him in the interest of making the here and now better? Universal, Single-Payer, Non-Profit Universal Health Care, bringing about the end of the Fossil Fuels Era to reverse Global Warming, and Global Economic Change that will severely tighten the gap between the rich and the poor so that we eventually HAVE NO rich or poor people in the world.
Skepoet: Do you think the current political situation will make humanism a more publicly viable agenda?
Barry: In a word, yes!
Reasonable Doubts recently released a podcast on Dr. Luke Galen’s Profile of the Godless at CFI Michigan and CFI international. Dr. Galen combined several prior studies with an extensive study on non-belief with a large enough sample to go into sub-populations of unbelief.
Dr. Galen also produced this pdf of his statistical research so easy disaggregation of the data can be done.
Here’s some interesting facts about Humanists in CFI: most people who identify as humanists will primarily identify as atheists when pressed, humanists and atheists had stronger contentment ratings than agnostics and “spiritual but not religious” types, humanists tended to be five years older than atheists (although both tended to be in their 40s in the median and average), and that humanists tended to take a more “agreeable” attitude towards the community.
However, Dr. Galen’s research does seem to indicate that despite the fact that people have a less of a stigma against non-believers if they used words other than atheists, non-theists tended to define themselves as a oppositional movement.
My speculation on the implications is that voices like that of Paul Kurtz, Sherwine Wine, and even A.C. Grayling have been displaced by voices like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. Also many people in the late forties came out of moderate religious households in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but people raised in the 1970s and 1980s grew up in polarized households.
One thing this leads me to worry about is that if we move away from being a marginalized group in the larger society we will many people lose a sense of direction.
What flaw I see in Dr. Galen’s study is that it almost strictly focuses on nontheists with formal group affiliations, but this misses probably a majority of the non-religious who have no such formal ties.
Lately I have been talking to Barry Seidman on facebook for several weeks. However, a mutual online friend pointed me to this essay by Mr. Seidman. I’ll start with the beginning premise of the article:
