My confusion surrounds the almost mystical assertion that individuals (or trees) take on a fundamental nature different from their own in the presence of other humans.

jonthompson,

I guess I may have misinterpreted your original post, because I would certainly agree that the fundamental nature of humans (or trees) is not changed by participation in government (or a forest). I would argue that certain characteristics, physical for both examples and behavioral for humans, emerge only in the course of such participation. Trees and humans have both evolved to live in groups, and our fundamnetal nature (a slippery concept, I admit) has been selected by this environmental pressure as much as any other. So to some extent what we are includes the characteristics that emerge in such group settings, but these characteristics might remain forever unexpressed without the settinng to elicit them.

What I was primarily responding to in your first post was the assertion that,

...people exist in reality, yet governments do not….[government is]a human construct devoid of any meaning in empirical analysis…

I think governments and forests have characteristics as wholes which the constituent parts do not exhibit, and the constituents are meaningfully (though perhaps not fundamentally) altered by participation in the whole, so in this sense forests and governments have a real existence which can be analyzed empirically. That’s really all I was getting at.

Barry,

Perhaps at times I offer more rhetoric (which might be inflammatory because it is true?) than I ought to. It is hard to keep passion and substance separate.

I understand, as I am often guilty of the same. Passion fuels the actions which make our lives meaningful, but can also interfere with the effectiveness of those actions. It sounds like the inflammatory tone (which I think inflames because of how it is written, regardless of the veracity of its content) comes from both your passion for promulgating your vision of humanism, and perhaps some specific disaffection for CFI/CSH based on personal experiences there. I have read your writings on your website, and much of it is cogent, eloquent, and I believe truthful. I only offered my comments above on the tone of your messages, and your lack of response in a couple of other threads to arguments opposing them, because I do think you have real, useful ideas to offer. And I hate to see good ideas ignored because of personal animosities or because they are presented in a way which repels a potentially sympathetic audience by implying any disagreement must be based in ignorance or timidity. All I am suggesting is that firebrand rhetoric may stimulate action in some contexts, but it also evokes automatic rejection in others. If you have truly given up on the community in these boards, then there’s no point in posting here. But if you have not, then you’ll get more more real consideration of your ideas if you convey them in a more measured tone.

I do not think atheism has a role in politics or economics the way you suggest I say it might, but naturalism does.

Since religion is having such a dramatic, and detrimental, impact on politics and economics in our country right now, I have to believe that taking religion out of politics, and replacing it with scientific naturalism, is important. Perhaps we should more properly call that idea “secularism” rather than “atheism,” but I don’t think the battle against religion can be only a minor or irrelevant part of the overall humanist program when religion holds such a pervasive and pernicious sway over our public institutions.

Anyway, thanks for your response. I look forward to more discussion!

Thanks…..

mckenzievmd said: I understand, as I am often guilty of the same. Passion fuels the actions which make our lives meaningful, but can also interfere with the effectiveness of those actions. It sounds like the inflammatory tone (which I think inflames because of how it is written, regardless of the veracity of its content) comes from both your passion for promulgating your vision of humanism, and perhaps some specific disaffection for CFI/CSH based on personal experiences there. I have read your writings on your website, and much of it is cogent, eloquent, and I believe truthful. I only offered my comments above on the tone of your messages, and your lack of response in a couple of other threads to arguments opposing them, because I do think you have real, useful ideas to offer. And I hate to see good ideas ignored because of personal animosities or because they are presented in a way which repels a potentially sympathetic audience by implying any disagreement must be based in ignorance or timidity. All I am suggesting is that firebrand rhetoric may stimulate action in some contexts, but it also evokes automatic rejection in others. If you have truly given up on the community in these boards, then there’s no point in posting here. But if you have not, then you’ll get more more real consideration of your ideas if you convey them in a more measured tone.

Well said, and thanks. I do need to be more carefull that my ideas are not lost for the passion.  And I post on these forums, actually, because I have not given up on anyone who blogs here (even Doug :wink: ), and I think there is much chance for moving CSH (CFI is another beast) in the right direction… based on the “will” of the people (humanists in this forum).  That I have much hope the empire will listen… Well, that’s another story   :( 

atheism vs religion

Brennon said: Since religion is having such a dramatic, and detrimental, impact on politics and economics in our country right now, I have to believe that taking religion out of politics, and replacing it with scientific naturalism, is important. Perhaps we should more properly call that idea “secularism” rather than “atheism,” but I don’t think the battle against religion can be only a minor or irrelevant part of the overall humanist program when religion holds such a pervasive and pernicious sway over our public institutions.

Brennon:

And secularism will be irrelevant once we dismantle the state. 

Re: Government: Who Needs It?

[quote author=“Barry”]

gmgauth said: I think the Center for Inquiry has been sorely lacking in it’s examination of the superstition of the State. So, I’d like to ask anyone here, including representatives of the Center, some questions about the following irrational and logically contradictory beliefs:

Greg:

Humanism was radical during the Enlightenment, but that was over 125 years ago.  Humanism needs to be radical again!  Who will take that challenge?

Thanks for this response Barry. I have to admit, I was a bit “skeptical” of the kind of reception I’d get, but I still think it’s worth making an effort, if only to get people thinking about these questions.

Some of your comments fascinated me, though, and left me with a few questions for you: What do you define as “Capitalism”, and why do you consider it anti-humanistic? Also, why don’t you include religion/superstition in that list?

[quote author=“mckenzievmd”]I would certainly agree that the fundamental nature of humans (or trees) is not changed by participation in government (or a forest).

Do you see a distinction between government and society?

[quote author=“mckenzievmd”]I think governments and forests have characteristics as wholes which the constituent parts do not exhibit, and the constituents are meaningfully (though perhaps not fundamentally) altered by participation in the whole

Excellent point. The distinction is one to be mindful of. However, I think this raises a new set of questions. Humans are endowed with certain characteristics that set them apart fundamentally from trees, so I think we can dispense with the trees for now. But, do you believe that, when humans cluster into groups they choose to call “government”, that the various characteristics they acquire from that organization justify their use of force against those who are not members of that group?

Re: Thanks…..

[quote author=“Barry”] I have not given up on anyone who blogs here (even Doug :wink: )

I haven’t given up on you either, Barry!

Capitalism

What do you define as “Capitalism”, and why do you consider it anti-humanistic? Also, why don’t you include religion/superstition in that list?

Hi!

1) Supernaturalism and superstion IS on my list of things we need to move beyond.

2) There are so many reasons captialism is not humanistic, and indeed anti-human… that I do not know where to begin.

Re: Capitalism

[quote author=“Barry”]There are so many reasons captialism is not humanistic, and indeed anti-human… that I do not know where to begin.

Would it be better if I opened this question in a separate thread? I’d really like to hear what your thoughts are on the topic…

Capitalism

Would it be better if I opened this question in a separate thread? I’d really like to hear what your thoughts are on the topic…

Well, we should open a topic called Capitalism Vs. Humanism, and when I can, I can put some thoughts together.  In the mean time, look at my comments in these current topic-blogs:

1) Classical Liberalism, the Enlightenment and Humanism - www.cfi-forums.org/viewtopic.php?t=1541

Do you see a distinction between government and society?

Hmmm, a question I had never considered…I guess I see society as the sum total of interactions, within instituions and privately, between people living in a community. For practical purposes, right now the scale of community that best encompasses a society is the nation state, though that hasn’t always been the case and need not necessarily be so. I see government as one of many structured institutions that make up society. Of course it is a unique one in that it either arrogates or is ceded certain powers over the populace not available to other institutions. Again, this hasn’t always been the case (e.g. the Catholic Church through much of European history)

do you believe that, when humans cluster into groups they choose to call “government”, that the various characteristics they acquire from that organization justify their use of force against those who are not members of that group?

I do, and I fear this is where we will find a fundamental disagreement. I agree with you that the characteristics humans express in the context of participating in a government (and note I said “express,” not “acquire” since I believe these are part of the fundamental nature of humans already, they just require a certain social context to manifest in a particular form) often do harm to society. The tendancy to seek more power for oneself and make venal use of the power one acquires from participating in government is a real force for evil in the world. It’s a major reason (though only one of many) why many poor countries are unable to use what resources and assistance they have to improve life for the populace as a whole. However, I also believe governments can be designed which do more good than harm, as I believe ours does (though the balance is a lot tighter now than any time in my lifetime).

The libertarians I know (and I have had this discussion with many since my wife is one and worked for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell at one time) seem in general to believe that the characteristics people would exhibit in the absence of some formal governmental instituion with coercive power to regulate behavior would be far more cooperative and rational than not. I see no evidence in history, psychology, or the modern world for this.

As I have stated elsewhere in this forum on the subject of “human nature,” I believe the evidence instead suggests quite strongly that without the restraints imposed by a government with coercive powers, the strong would exploit the weak and the quality of life for all but a very few would be much poorer than obtains in a system such as ours.  I don’t see humans as primarily rational, altruistic, cooperative, compassionate, tolerant, or any of the qualities that would have to dominate our behavior for an ungoverned population to thrive. Doug has already expressed quite well in this thread some of the specific functions and justifications for government that I could list, so I won’t repeat them. I think he is basically correct in suggesting that the tendancy of a rational secular humanist to prefer a Keynesian/New Deal economic system with a representative/democratic political structure versus a laissez faire free market system and libertarian or anarchist political structure ultimately boil down to whether one holds a view of human behavior that looks like that of Hobbes or that of Rousseau.
In that respect, I think Hobbes was a lot closer. Still, both doug and I have acknowledged that the evils of specific governments are legion, so there is a lot of room for discussion of the best way to control these short of eliminating government entirely, which even the most passionate libertarian is likely to realize is a vision either impossible or at least a very long way off. Thanks for the excellent and challenging ideas!

Barry,

Very pleased to read your most recent posts!

...secularism in a state a necessary thing for any sort of representative democracy to survive….The best way then, to confront religion, is first to seperate the sort of religion you and I find dangerous from other forms and designs of religion, and then to advocate for secularalism in democracies and for the ideas of naturalism for all of humanity. Secularism (church/state seperation) and “spreading” naturalism is the way to go here, and not pushing or promoting atheism. Atheism is minor compared to naturalism, and it is negative, narrow, and inflammatory; atheism is a philosophical result of naturalism in the end, and a real naturalism - which includes determinism - is sufficiant to move us past the problems we have with religion.

Absolutely! I think, then, we can agree that separating religion from the powers of the state and then marginalising (and potentially replacing?no, now I’m dreaming) religion through the force of real understanding (aka scientific naturalism/determinism) are laudable goals, and at least the former is potentially achievable since there is something of a history of secularism in America, though it has been squeezed out of the mainstream since the 50s at least. Plenty for both of us to work on here in as humanists in the political arena.

Then once that is achieved, we can begin to argue about whether it can or should be the case that

secularism will be irrelevant once we dismantle the state.

[quote author=“mckenzievmd”]I agree with you that the characteristics humans express in the context of participating in a government (and note I said “express,” not “acquire” since I believe these are part of the fundamental nature of humans already, they just require a certain social context to manifest in a particular form) often do harm to society. The tendancy to seek more power for oneself and make venal use of the power one acquires from participating in government is a real force for evil in the world.

So, you agree then, that coercive institutions like the State are fundamentally destructive, because they give rise to circumstances that permit the aggressive elements of man’s nature to express themselves, is that correct?

[quote author=“mckenzievmd”]As I have stated elsewhere in this forum on the subject of “human nature,” I believe the evidence instead suggests quite strongly that without the restraints imposed by a government with coercive powers, the strong would exploit the weak and the quality of life for all but a very few would be much poorer than obtains in a system such as ours.

You don’t see this statement as fundamentally contradictory to the first quote? If an institution like the state is a social arrangement that encourages aggression, how can we expect it to “restrain” that very same aggression expressed in other contexts? Isn’t this just an equivocation, of sorts (In the sense of, “Well, it’s better to have one big violent gang, rather than dozens of small ones”)?

government and society

Do you see a distinction between government and society?

You know, there should be a way to unite the political (governance), the economy, and society.  Takis Fotoupolos talks about how Inclusive Democracy does just this.  What is ID?

“The ID project, consists of two parts. The first part deals with the chronic multidimensional crisis which began with the establishment of the system of the market economy and its political complement, representative ‘democracy’, about two hundred years ago. It concludes that the ultimate cause of this crisis (economic, political, social and ecological) is the concentration of power at all levels to which the dynamic of these two institutions, inevitably, leads. The second part consists of a proposal for an inclusive democracy, whose main characteristic is the equal distribution of political and economic power among all citizens, as the way out of this crisis and also as a means to establish an alternative society securing individual and social autonomy.” - Fotopoulos (2005)

coercive institutions like the State

So, you agree then, that coercive institutions like the State are fundamentally destructive, because they give rise to circumstances that permit the aggressive elements of man’s nature to express themselves, is that correct?

I don’t know about Brennon, Greg, but I surely agree with that idea!