CFI Forums

Positive, Proactive Humanism vs Atheism/Theism

2008-05-17T08:14:54-05:00

Do you agree that Humanism is about to shed its identification with atheism and instead become associated with humanists and Humanity?

I ask that because in my estimation the term “secular humanism” has been so damning over the years that one must wonder if we can ever lose the association people have for us as eternal combatants in the atheism/theism wars.

Since the ascendancy of the religious right within Bush’s presidencies, theism has become visible front and center and, while Humanism has had some moderate exposure on the coat-tails of the skeptics, who have been drawn into raging debates with fundamentalists, this has come at an awful price - our ranks are awash with simple atheists who fancy themselves freethinkers. Is there any prospect of us shedding these social climbers to become known for ideas about humans rather than denigrators of the god heads?

Gerald LaRue wrote an excellent essay on this issue called “Positive Humanism” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/positive.html in 1978 in which he anticipated that Humanism had to become known for its own projects, beyond the trivial mantle of atheism.

My concept of Humanism is that it represent our species, first of all, then the planet and finally the individual. The beliefs of Humanists outside these realms are not material, thus a Christian can be a (lower case) humanist if they perform good works among their fellows. Humanity has a severe need for responsible representation and governance overseeing the long-range prospects of our own kind.

Homo Sapiens is a lonely figure, suffering from an inability to control a cancerous weapons culture, while expanding its numbers like rats eating up the planet’s scarce resources. Nobody is calling down the militarists, who build atomic bombs and every manner of machine designed only to maim and murder our own kind, wasting our wealth and talent. Humanists must introduce the concept of “anti-human” activity and criminalize it. The military must be identified and outlawed as terrorist institutions.

In the end, all devices designed to injure any animal must be banned as cultural hygiene.

We have seen “political correctness”, despite its excesses bring benefits as it became fashionable, helping to unburden minorities and the disadvantaged. “Global warming” has aroused sympathy for the planet and our pollution problems.

Now we need to get to the root of the matter, through proactive Humanism, to address our impoverishment through arms races, our neglect of the UN, the rampant corruption and nationalism/jingoism that are all anti-human phenomena that Humanists can step forward to preclude and replace with an efficient order.

I ask you then, is there any hope that Humanists can get past haggling with theists and leave them in the middle ages where they and those arguments belong, the better to champion who we are and might become?

Taking Humanism Beyond Speciesism

2008-01-04T10:31:03-05:00

HERE is an interesting Peter Singer article that is critical of both The AHA’s Humanist Manifestos and, to a less emphatic degree, of The Council of secular Humanism’s The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles. The title of this thread is the title of the Singer article.

Peter Singer -
I did not sign Humanism and Its Aspirations, for my aspirations go beyond human interests and the global ecosystem. Why should we ground values in the welfare of human beings rather than in the welfare of all beings capable of having a welfare at all? That many nonhuman animals have interests and welfares is difficult to deny, for they are certainly capable of feeling pain and suffering as well as pleasure and joy. There is no nonreligious reason why the pains and pleasures of nonhuman animals should not be given equal weight with the similar pains and pleasures of human beings. (Of course, if the superior intellectual capacities of one being enable that being to have interests that a being with lesser capacities is unable to have, that may make a difference to how we ought to treat them. But this is not a distinction between humans and nonhumans, for some nonhuman animals are superior in their capacities to some humans, for instance, those suffering from profound intellectual disabilities.5)

In what it says about nonhuman animals, the Council of secular Humanism’s The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles is a little better than Humanism and Its Aspirations, but not a whole lot. It says that as humanists, “We want… to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.” That at least recognizes that the suffering of nonhuman animals matters. But what is “needless” suffering? If confining calves and pigs in crates too narrow for them to turn around makes veal and pork cheaper for those who want to eat it, some will say that the suffering of these animals is not “needless.” Ten billion animals are killed each year for food in the United States alone, and the overwhelming majority of them live miserable lives in factory farms. In the light of pervasive human prejudices that cause such systematic suffering, a stronger statement is needed. It is time for humanists to take a stand against this ruthless exploitation of other sentient beings, which is so powerfully buttressed by the religious view that human beings are God’s special creation and that he gave them dominion over animals.

Singer criticizes humanism (and secular humanism) for not including animals in the moral equation. I have heard this criticism before and I almost agree with it. I certainly agree with Singer’s point about animals needing to be included in the equation. I believe, as Singer suggests in The Great Ape Project that some sort of universal human rights ought to be extended to other species of great apes. I also believe that humans have a moral responsibility toward the wellbeing of non-sentient species to the degree that they are capable of suffering.

However, isn’t it a bit of a confusion to think that humanism is necessarily speciesist? As I read them, The Affirmations do not necessarily suggest that humans lie at the center of worldly importance. Simply that humans are in control of certain human decisions and actions, and that humans need to work these things out rationally and constructively.

I understand that Peter Singer feels that he has something of a “mission” to advocate improvements for animals and I would like to support him on this. Perhaps this is another reason why humanists ought to embrace the term “ethical naturalist” over humanist. Not that humanism genuinely places any sort of “higher” significance on the human species, but simply as a means of avoiding societal confusion that it does.

Looking for Thoughts on Starting a Diversity Club at Work

2008-01-04T11:00:06-05:00

Hi All,

I work at a large company in Silicon Valley, and recently noticed that no one had started a ‘Diversity Group’. Diversity groups in companies are used for a number of purposes, including bringing people together about a common concern.

For a good example, see Microsoft’s list here:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/diversity/programs/dac.mspx

One thing I’ve noticed is that there aren’t really any that are ’Humanist/Free Thinkers/Brights‘ etc.

So, two questions,

1) Has anyone seen anyone set something up at a major company in these areas?
2) Any suggestions on naming?
3) Anyone else in a major company thinking about doing the same?

On #2/#3, it would be nice if we took some time to work on the naming so that we could have something like (GLBT) that could be seen as a organized effort, instead of what it looks like now in the University clubs, which really doesn’t seem all that unified/organized.... Also, open to counter thoughts on this.

Anyway, the main point was, what do we think about Humanists getting a seat at the corporate diversity table?

-baloo

Dealing With Dying

2007-10-11T15:45:29-05:00

Free Inquiry has a special section of its current issue [Oct./Nov. 2007] on Dealing With Dying - found HERE

Humanist Homeland?

2006-02-27T11:11:12-05:00

What about all the Humanists having their own country? Say let’s go get a piece of Texas. All of us get together and settle in one town, elect ourselves to all the political positions. We could create a God-free zone! What say y’all? :D

Wes

We can CLONE HUMAN BABIES now. Opinions?

2008-01-22T09:32:05-05:00

Here it is, in the news.

We can clone human embryos now from human skin cells.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011700324.html?hpid=moreheadlines
headline: Mature Human Embryos Created From Adult Skin Cells

Opinions? Thoughts?

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

2007-11-17T17:57:01-05:00

Imagine prisoners, who have been chained since their childhood deep inside a cave: not only are their limbs immobilized by the chains; their heads are chained in one direction as well so that their gaze is fixed on a wall.

Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which statues of various animals, plants, and other things are moved along. The statues cast shadows on the wall, and the prisoners watch these shadows. When one of the statue-carriers speaks, an echo against the wall causes the prisoners to believe that the words come from the shadows.

The prisoners engage in what appears to us to be a game: naming the shapes as they come by. This, however, is the only reality that they know, even though they are seeing merely shadows of images. They are thus conditioned to judge the quality of one another by their skill in quickly naming the shapes and dislike those who play poorly.

Suppose a prisoner is released and compelled to stand up and turn around. At that moment his eyes will be blinded by the sunlight coming into the cave from its entrance, and the shapes passing by will appear less real than their shadows.

The last object he would be able to see is the sun, which, in time, he would learn to see as the object that provides the seasons and the courses of the year, presides over all things in the visible region, and is in some way the cause of all these things that he has seen.

(This part of the allegory, incidentally, closely relates to Plato’s metaphor of the sun which occurs near the end of The Republic, Book VI.)[1]

Once enlightened, so to speak, the freed prisoner would not want to return to the cave to free “his fellow bondsmen,” but would be compelled to do so. Another problem lies in the other prisoners not wanting to be freed: descending back into the cave would require that the freed prisoner’s eyes adjust again, and for a time, he would be one of the ones identifying shapes on the wall. His eyes would be swamped by the darkness, and would take time to become acclimated. Therefore, he would not be able to identify the shapes on the wall as well as the other prisoners, making it seem as if his being taken to the surface completely ruined his eyesight.

For me, this analogy reflects my own feelings after becoming enlightened to the Humanist perspective. In some ways I feel some compulsion to free those who are living in the cave of theism, but not as strongly, because I never experienced it like they do.

As I continue my journey of discovery, I feel that there may be new plateau’s of knowledge and understanding that I can reach by way of a kind of Platonic Idealism. I have been wondering about other possibilities that I may currently be blind to, due to the perspective I currently have and share with others around me.

To break free of these binds I have begun to explore Futures Studies. I understand that this kind of pursuit may be in conflict with a skeptical view favored by most Secular Humanists. However, most objections seem to come from a lack of will to participate in any dialogue that includes concepts that are not born out of the reality they live in today.

My question is, in spite of the desires for a different kind of world that embraces a more humanistic value system, why is it that most Secular Humanists are unwilling to participate in the development of a vision for a society that is more suitable to a Secular Humanist point of view?

Has our skeptical nature condemned us to a life that is forever in conflict with the reality around us? Or, are we really committed to the development of communities that would embrace our views? Is it not possible, even if not in our lifetime, to conceive of a community built upon Secular Humanist values?

Today, there are many communities built on Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Amish, Mormon, among other perspectives. Would we not also benefit from the development of such a community? Would it not help produce new generations of Secular Humanists? Do we believe that the concept of building such a community has some sinister overtones that would go against our principles? If so, what are they?

I want to leave this cave and live in such a community, I wonder if anyone else shares this desire?

Hey, this is my 100th post! Whoopie!

Calvin Chatlos’ Human Faith model, with my expansions

2008-01-25T13:48:47-05:00

What the hell, let’s try this.

With the ongoing discussion regarding “moral facts” and the foundations of ethics, maybe I can make a go of discussing the model I’ve lived with for more than eleven years now. I learned it from Calvin Chatlos, who has quite a few Humanist credentials and is also a practicing psychiatrist by trade - specializing in treatment of addictions as I understand it. His model is by far the best thing I’ve seen of this kind, and is in fact that only system I’ve seen that I can honestly call firmly grounded and systematic. So I’m inviting discussion of it. I propose to take it step by step. I won’t differentiate between his original model and my expansions on it, so in effect you’ll be getting my expanded version. You can read his article at http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/chatlos.html.

The model is based on distinctions. The first set of distinctions defines what a human being is, in ontological terms that we can work with. I hope that statement won’t prompt endless arguments over other questions regarding the nature of being human. This is intended as a functional model.

The first set of distinctions are what Calvin calls the domains of being: thought, emotion and action. (We could also include sensation, but that doesn’t get us very far with ethics, and it isn’t necessary to the purposes of the model. I have included sensation in my expansion on the model, but sparingly.) These domains correspond very roughly to areas of the brain: the brainstem and cerebellum (action), the midbrain, limbic system and hypothalamus (emotion) and the cerebral cortex (thought).

In one of our first sessions, Calvin asked each of us to express what we were thinking, feeling and doing at the moment. Try it yourself. I suggest that at every waking moment of our conscious lives, each of these domains is functioning; in other words, we are constantly thinking, feeling (emotionally) and doing something, however minimal we may think the activity in any domain is. At moments when we make ethical choices, the activity in each of these domains may be more obvious to it.

In eleven years I haven’t been able to think of any other domains. So I throw that invitation out as well. Can anyone think of another one, or more?

Let’s start with that.

Question on humanist manifesto III

2007-12-02T09:58:48-05:00

Sorry for rambling post here—maybe this is just part of Erasmus’ thread…

Doug, Occam, Zarcus—et al - based on the mention of a Capital District Humanist group I looked it up on the WWW
[url=http://www.humanists.net/cdhs/]http://www.humanists.net/cdhs/[/url]
This lead to the american humanist association and the manifesto stuff…

what does it mean that
[ Paul Kurtz would not sign Humanist Manifesto III?] (Occam Posted: 15 September 2007 07:13 PM )

(here is H III ) [ Humanist Manifesto III]
The question I started with is whether where it says

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

Does that mean that the signers think this is ONE of the sources of life’s fullfillment, the ONLY source, or the MOST IMPORTANT source. [url=http://www.humanists.net/cdhs/]http://www.humanists.net/cdhs/[/url]
(corrected typos 12/27)

Interview of Paul Kurtz in 11/14/2007 Skeptics Guide Podcast

2008-01-03T20:49:26-05:00

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive.asp

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe

Podcast 121 (11/14/2007) includes an interview with Paul Kurtz. Some discussion of the distinction between secular humanism and secular ‘naturalism’, for people like me who are new to much of this.