Humanism | Factonista

Posts Tagged ‘Humanism’

The Young Turks: A Growing Voice For Reason

Tuesday, March 10th, 2009

The Young Turks (TYT) is a burgeoning American independent news and views organization. With their daily, even-handed, candid, insightful and humourous coverage of various issues across the political spectrum, TYT’s YouTube channel has amassed a massive following. They are a demonstration of the sort of standard that major news media does not live up to. They ask the hard questions. They call spades spades.

Their success has not gone unnoticed. Host Cenk Uygur has been an invited guest on a number of major news broadcasts (e.g., CNN), contributes to the Huffington Post, and has received a flurry of endorsements and support in his self-declared candidacy for a spot on CNBC primetime.

Of particular interest to the freethought community is Uygur’s advocacy for reason and secularism. He will flat out say on news media that the religious right is out of its collective mind. He has stated flat out that our religions are not reasonable belief systems. And most recently, he reported on the size of the nonreligious segment of American society (15% according to the just-released study out of Trinity College in in Hartford, Conneticut), and how the nonreligious are the third largest and the fastest growing religious/nonreligious group in the country. He also acknowledged the nonreligious minority’s history of being marginalized, distrusted and denigrated and the imperative that this block of society mobilize. After stating his membership in this community, he reached out to his co-non-religionists and declared

“Lets stand up and be heard. ‘Cause they’ve run over us for too long. We’re the logical ones. So lets be heard.”

On the other side of the page, he exclaimed that those members of the religious right who are so far gone as to be wishing for the end of the world are the ones that we need to be marginalizing.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkqeLuWsSrA

I encourage everyone to check out TYT’s YouTube channel.

Tags: cenk uygur, Humanism, reason, religion in america, the young turks, Trinity College
Posted in Commentary | 3 Comments »

Pursuing The Eradication of Faith

Monday, January 5th, 2009

Whilst this has a bold title, the actual implications are mundane. Here at The Edger, we are in the process of assimilating the direct goals, discourse and method of various secular humanist enterprises. We wage war with approaches and two-pronged forks end up bleeding in one’s hands. Such is the dealings when it comes to ideas. And one idea which seems to sent quivers down the spines of spineless people is the eradication of faith.

Consider this recent comment from perhaps my favourite Chris Ray post. This is Comment #25, from BluffingtonBoast:

In all, the murders, genocides, starvation and killing brought about by atheists either trying to excise religion from the populace by sheer force, or by their own lack of moral compass easily approach the billion mark. And you call yourselves ‘humanists?’ Try putting the pre-fix IN when having the gall to breath the word. In fact, the Mickey Mouse poll you run at the top of this blog dispells [sic] any doubt. The great majority of your responders would prefer a world without religion at the same time they express they would pursue that goal actively. Which means exactly what…???

Not only is this insulting, saying we have “no moral compass”, it is also patently bizarre.

As many know, I find the term “atheist” unhelpful. We are all atheists but specifically Bluffington has focused on the god of the old testament as somehow more special than other gods. As if the god of the Bible is more reasonable or believable than Thor. I would speculate that Bluffington does not believe in Thor or Filli Mukullu, so he or she is also an atheist. His or her lack of belief in Thor is also responsible for the deaths and so on that the apologist sides love to bring up, in some sick blood-thirsty satisfaction. Yet somehow the nonbelievers in one particular group’s god is er more responsible than the nonbelievers in the other gods… IF you’re confused, then welcome to my club. It makes no sense to say atheist caused this or that, because we are all atheists.

I also find the word “humanist” unhelpful and do not call myself that (now at least). Regardless, let us question this fact further: Do BluffingtonBoast and others honestly believe that The Edger readers are going to murder, pillage and destroy churches, mosques and temples? And what of the excellent writers at Edger, who constantly talk about equality, liberty, justice and beauty – without the usurpation of religious bigotry to underpin such ideas to the blackboard of dogmatic truth. Whilst promoting such important (not even good) ideas, how is it that with a second blink they would destroy, hurt or promote destruction?

BluffintonBoast has set up a false dichotomy: either there is religion, with people tolerating it and being respectful or there is no religion which is brought about through destruction and pillaging. But that’s not true. Chemistry “eradicated” alchemy, astronomy “replaced” astrology – yet, were chemists grabbing their bottles of acid and tossing them into the homes of alchemists? Were astronomers taking their telescopes and bashing the heads of “seers” and their crystal balls? Of course not. That is patently absurd and an insult to human sensibility if one considers it as such.

The growth of ideas is simply the coming to fruition of budding knowledge. Old ideas and world-views, like astrology and religion, once shaded our eyes as we gazed into the beautiful, mad world around us. But soon, from the same roots as astrology and religion, arose better and more lucid ideas. The ideas we call astronomy and humanism. These grew higher and we could climb and see more of the world. But religion and astrology, blocked by the growing forms of these better ideas, should wither and fade back into the soil of the human past. But there are those who vilify and feed these old plants, keeping them alive, turning them into weeds. They crawl along the bark of these new ideas, trying to gain the light and pulling these better ideas down.

So when those of us who selected from the Mickey Mouse poll to “actively pursue this”, what do we mean? Our words are the length of our armory. Religion can be replaced by promoting better ideas and not respecting the ideas – forget the people, the ideas are what we are dealing with – of religion. We do not have to. So if we mock, chide and dismiss foggy notions of talking burning bushes and blood thirsty gods, it is not a precursor to destroying churches. I love churches, I love mosques and temples. I remove my shoes when I enter, I pray at friends houses when they ask me to. I respect the people but not the ideas.

Not only is it insulting to suggest we desire blood, it is a complete misunderstanding. As chemistry replaced alchemy, so will the wonder of the present moment, the beauty of science, and the love of fellow humans replace religion. It will eradicate faith. I doubt it will ever happen, but yes, Bluffington and others, I do plan on actively seeking that goal.

Tags: alchemy, Astrology, atheism, chemistry, dogma, eradication, Humanism, religion, science
Posted in Commentary | 1 Comment »

On the 60th Annivesary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Wednesday, December 10th, 2008

The word “human” sends out shockwaves; reverberations that quiver with expectations and disappointments. “To err is human,” Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Criticism, “to forgive divine.” But just before this often (mis)quoted line, Pope says more fully:

To what base Ends, and by what abject Ways,
Are Mortals urg’d thro’ Sacred Lust of praise!
Ah ne’er so dire a Thirst of Glory boast,
Nor in the Critick let the Man be lost!
Good-Nature and Good-Sense must ever join;
To err is Human; to Forgive, Divine.

Pope could not have been more wrong. It is not “divine” to forgive – there is no celestial force needed to warrant forgiveness. To err and forgive are both human and only human. Of course, in this context Pope was referring to the great power of forgiveness, as “great power” could be synonymous with “divine”. It is in this way, and only this way, that forgiveness receives the mantle of divinity. And nowhere is this “great power” of human interaction and fraternity so boldly put forward, so beautifully contended, and so carefully laid out than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHH).

Today is its 60th birthday and seems as good a time as any to reflect on its articles, its implications and its necessity for living. This is worthy of a book and the great AC Grayling^* has done just that (for most of his publishing career). It is a sad reflection that people do not have or know the UDHH. Of course, we all know of it, but how many realise its importance? As a suggestion, I would ask all those to follow the links I’ve given above and print out the UDHH, stick on the wall and to quietly reflect on it.

Let us briefly see why it is important. The Preamble begins in the steadfast gleam against the bullying of divine and political tyrannies from our past:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Humans first before words, ideas and opinions. There is no propitiation toward a totalitarian dictatorship in the sky; there is no grovelling at the feet of men or gods or statues; there is no discrimination or rejection of these rights to others, based on colour, creed or country. “All members of the human family” only stresses everyone and the inherent fraternity of human beings (and scientifically provable relation of all living things to a common ancestor).

Here’s the beautiful thing: These Articles can be contested (Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”; Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”). These are not resolute, divinely given rights – they are, by definition, human rights. We may contend on each article, we may perhaps find some ambiguous – perhaps we may not fully condone others.

For example, Part 3, of Article 26 states: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” Yet, when we consider the resolute poison that can be fed to children, given their credulity and trust in elders; when we see the damage done to those who suffer from psychological disorders from “hell” and neuroses passed down from the Bronze-Age; when we consider, for example, that private schools can teach that “Evolution is just a theory” or “Evolution is wrong!”, does this Article really sound appropriate? Should this Article really be adopted universally? In Africa, children are still taught to see witches and to be viewed as witches (and then murdered out of fear). Thus, in this light we may question and be sceptical.

Indeed, my hope is that we scan this document for ideas we find unsuitable. Taking this example of Article 26, Part 3, there may be good and bad reasons for employing it. We may discuss and debate, be open to change of policies. This seems perfectly reasonable and at least we can all agree on this process, if not the Article’s stipulation itself. (A good case could be made, using the other Articles to justify Article 26. For example, the right of every individual to be free from oppression.) The beautiful thing is just this: It is a human declaration and we all know it. By being human, we easily sit with it and can shift the gates of appraisal, when Articles find favour or dismissal.

By contrast, a declaration given by a god, numbering only 10 is not amenable to change. The 10 Commandments, or Decalogue, is found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy (of the “stone the non-virgin on her wedding night” fame). There are sometimes noted to be more than 10 but that is beside the point. The 10 Commandments demand the worship of this god, Yahweh. This command to worship and grovelling takes up large parts of the commandments:

1. I am the Lord your God

2. You shall have no other gods before me

3. You shall not make for yourself an idol

4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Correctly described by Christopher Hitchens as the “throat clearing” part of the commandments, it then launches into a self-righteous expose on the idiocy of human sensibility. As if to say, “by the way, murder is wrong”, “by the way, stealing is wrong”, “by the way, respect your parents.” There is nothing incredible, beautiful or revolutionary in the Decalogue and, nowadays, quite insulting to the majority of people. Yet, it finds its place in many important arenas and public places. Nowhere in the Decalogue, by the way, is there any mention of compassion or respect (I’m not focusing on the New Testament in this article and using the Decalogue simply as a contrast to the UDHH. I expect critics will mention Jesus and his lovely message).

One list, from a random desert god, from a pantheon of others, who chose a group of people, who weren’t in Egypt, to escape from Egypt, demanding to worship “Him” who helped them escape from a land they were never captive in the first place. It seems perfectly silly to me. Yet it is “divine”, it is not “human” and – instead of being rejected or, at least, changed – it is held to be perfect because it is divine. This is backwards and illogical. It seems no fault that the Decalogue is exactly what Joseph Kony’s The Lord’s Resistance Army uses as its basis for child-soldiers and zombie factories; its disgusting affront to human rights.

Kony is of course a soft target. But think of a scenario where someone using the UDHH, the basis of which stems from the writings of Jefferson, Paine, the intense fraternity explained by Russell, Kurtz and Mandela and Desmond Tutu, is going to turn tyrannical and bloodthirsty. It is not impossible, but it seems unlikely. Why then this paradox: the blatantly human declaration receives openness to change, discussions, and dismissals but finds little to no acceptance amongst tyrants – But one that is “divine” from a “loving god” can easily be imagined in the hands of any raging warlord (as the examples of any theocratic regime show).

It is the acceptance of humanity, first and forthright, that is important now. It is more important than whose theology is more correct or can prove the existence of a god. First, let us establish the peace we all want. Let the world allow the ash of war to settle. Let us help our fellow men and women (and especially children), wherever they are, to liberate them from oppression. It is not charities that will help, but the charitable spirit that keeps charities alive. But that spirit must be fostered into organisations and movements that will actualise the human behind the beggar, that will liberate the human from the “untouchable” he or she is. This, and not giving them money or constant supplies of food, will help more (indeed, charities are needed for the basic living but the long term goal of human restoration will be alongside and not despite charitable organisations. Just in case the reader thinks me too sceptical of charity!).

Russell said “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.” And this ghost smiles over the echoes of UDHH. It is a sense of hope, a sense of gratitude that we gaze onto the lines of UDHH. Six decades has passed since its appearance and still we are nowhere close to liberating our fellow man. But I am optimistic it will happen: We are, by our very nature, compassionate beings, I sincerely believe that. We must begin by allowing us to channel such reserves of hope and love and compassion as we have, into arenas which are barren of such qualities. Guided by knowledge, we will get there and with the spur of, if not love, then empathy. Even if there is a god, it seems he would be more proud of us creating a “brotherhood of man” for the sake of them being fellow beings than forcing them into the shadow of worship.

On both levels, every one wins. And it is this notion of the liberated human that is the undercurrent for longstanding Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

* – Grayling has a beautiful series of blogs, concerning the different articles of the UDHH, avalaible at The Guardian.

Tags: anniversary, fear, freedom, Humanism, liberty, religion, terror, UN, universal declaration of human rights
Posted in Featured | 2 Comments »

On Evil

Sunday, November 9th, 2008

I am fascinated by evil. My years spent studying the psychology of individual behaviour was eclipsed by a subtle paradox: Why do people do evil deeds? I am now attempting to formulate why, how, when and what it means for us. This is the domain of us as humanists, attempting to bracket ourselves within naturalism; It is important as we have removed the chains of supernatural explanations; We have removed the hope of balanced scales in an afterlife with angels and scales and Pearly gates. We therefore have to look at those we dub evil, whilst holding refrain from reflection – for indeed, they are human like us. A broken mirror reflects despite its breakage. As much as we coat them in the brush of “monster”, the tabula rasa of a human being resides. They are not “monsters”, they are humans. We might not like them (we might rightly loathe them), but we need to engage with the essence of what warps the human frame into the crooked posture of monstrosity.

I have yet to distinguish what I find more fascinating: That people do good or that people do evil. Rodrigo’s beautiful post describes his (and my own) awe at the inherent good that resides within people. I am an optimist about our species, though that often does not come across in my work. I have yet to be disappointed with the ordinary person refusing help in accidents, collisions, muggings, and other unfortunate events that might befall us within the blink of a passing eye. A reaching hand is grasped because it is from another human. The fingers find others and there is a fit, the completion of the human puzzle.

But my optimism is not shrouded in naïveté. And it is for this reason I am heavily focused on evil. I believe that nearly everyone wants to help others; I believe nearly everyone understands respect, tolerance, freedom and wants it for others (especially loved ones); and this occurs everywhere beneath the politics and religions. What then turns some of us “evil”? And what does it mean for us?

These will be a series of ongoing posts and many answers will not be reached or even dealt with now.

What is evil? Is evil the 150+ children a day raped in South Africa? Is it the torture, raping and killing of children all over the world? Is it the systematic dehumanising that occurs to women, in religious countries? Is it the millions suffering under the “Dear Leader” in North Korea? I’m sure one could sit for days conjuring these lists like genies out of lamps. I want to funnel out the large scale into a singular key-hole vision on which to focus.

I define evil as the deliberate removal of the human within another human (known in psychology as dehumanisation); it is the forceful pain, torture and abject abhorrent treatment of another living creature (I want to restrict it to other humans in these articles, though I do not feel any less for the cruelty toward other animals).

I define it also as a useful linguistic device, as Professor Adam Morton writes in On Evil

We call acts or people evil when they are so bad that we cannot fit them within our normal moral and explanatory means. To call what Hitler or Pol Pot did ‘wrong’ seems to understate its nature to the point of error … [O]ur horror drives us to a special terminology.

The extent and purpose of his book is to show how dangerous this linguistic gymnastic we all perform can be: We tend to think that these “monsters” are so far from normal human sensibility, they must be something we can never know. Evil might be seen as something of an empty vessel, in which the dubious nature of incomprehension is seeded. Basically, we say evil when we think “I could never do that!”

Why is it dangerous? Because we tend to think of ourselves as not capable of such acts, of such horror, of such… Evil. But there is extensive literature within psychopathology which destroyed that view for me, several years ago. Whilst writing a paper on the Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC), I witnessed videos of the ordinary policeman confessing untold horrors to the victims’ families.

I distinctly remember one black police officer.

Already there is something loose and clanking in the works: A black person working for the “wit mense” (Afrikaans, pronounced vit mensa) was tantamount to treason for the oppressed black communities. As a police informant, one was exempt from all the dangers that lay like paths of daggers beneath the feet of all non-white races. But one was also the target of scorn from one’s own people. Thus, this officer seated on an old plastic chair; thus his cemented face and distant eyes; thus the sunlight behind him sending dust clinging to the tissue clutched in the quivering hands of the mothers before him. His small voice began describing each and every assassination he helped commit, each target one of the women’s sons. His sad, downcast eyes were raised and held with great strength, as he sought some humanity in the eyes of the mothers. Speaking in Xhosa, he described each and every death, to each individual mother. Even as I write this, I am struggling – so vivid was the video and the emotions.

The mothers allowed the tears to flow, mimicking the morbid words. Each a tiny dagger aimed at her once-dead heart. That part of her that was once alive was killed by this man, and yet he would revive it one last time – only to describe how he killed the son. All the sons were anti-apartheid activists, some from the same village as himself. All the mothers were incredibly brave, taking every word and transforming them into a tear, which left never to return to rage inside them. Only one mother stood up, tore her clothes and stormed out crying. After the end of all his tales, he sat back and said: “All I ask is that you accept me as making many mistakes. I do not ask forgiveness from you. That I must ask from God. That I must gain from myself. I am very sorry. I am very sorry.”

Before you let the tears flow, the most beautiful moment occurs later. After many minutes, one mother rose, took his hand and said: “You are one of our children. We can not hate you. Those times were dark.” Another rose and took his other hand and said “My son is gone. You are not. You are our son.” The others joined them and each began hugging him and promised “We must all do what we can now that the darkness is passed. Now, we must go forward together into the bright future.”

These are the brave people of my country. These are the people who looked at evil, sitting before them. Each looked and heard the evil done unto their son and witnessed their hearts quiver with bitterness; Yet they felt, like an alchemist transmutation, their leaden hearts change to gold.

Was this man “evil”? Perhaps, under the circumstances he performed an evil deed. Before the cries of “Nuremberg replies” ring out, I still consider what he did wrong. I still believe many ordinary, loving people, we brought to evil acts because of the oppressive regime that clutched this beautiful land. The sunlight only rose to send fingers further through this country, with no abject repayment in sight. Only forgiveness and what that means to other humans. The TRC and such interactions were at the very essence humanist: They sought the engagement of one human to another, or perhaps many. They sought their forgiveness, their understanding (in many cases, they did it to avoid prosecution and therefore that defeats my argument. But I hope, dear reader, you will allow me to focus on those who did it for the sake of seeking forgiveness). What happened here was the identification with one human to another; one human realising this could have been my son, my daughter, my husband, my brother. Thus, the human was restored in every one and the crooked frame of monstrosity shattered, and the ambling human walked upright.

I am minimising to a great extent in an attempt to seek the beautiful moment that is possible (the most difficult and often never claimed one), past the horror, past the evil. I am attempting to make the case that evil is a dangerous and alienated paradihm, in cases where perhaps more good could arise from looking past the monster, which is only a shadow, and into the being that casts it. I have done this in my own life, with particular instances, and become better for it. What I am interested in seeking now is whether this holds, whether this is true. I do not know, but I want to. I believe it to be. Though we are not angels and evil is too often so vile that no heart is big enough to transmute our abhorrence into forgiveness.

I do not know. But I hope this stirs something. I believe too strongly in my species for it not to be so.

I will continue in my next article dealing with how ordinary people become evil and what we should be aware of in ourselves.

Tags: adam morton, apartheid, evil, Humanism, kim jong il, north korea, psychology, psychopathology, south africa
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »

Raise Your Voice

Sunday, October 19th, 2008

It takes a lot to get me angry. But if I look for it on the Internet, I can find it. When reading about Lisa McPherson – who died as a result of Scientology – my blood boils and my fists contract. When I read a website that documents “3,254 people killed, 235,558 injured and over $455,070,000 in economic damages” from quack medicine, frauds and snake-oil merchants who are simply there to make a quick buck, I am ready to burst.

I want to address the question of being involved in sceptical circles, in being (a kind of) social critic. Why do it? “Why do you care about these things?”

I don’t care who you are, dear reader.

I don’t care what your religion, culture, nation or background is. I don’t care what you think of atheism, secularism. I do, however, care about you as a human being. I do care that we try to live as a respectable species, fighting for knowledge, fighting for equality everywhere – all the time. Make no mistake, I want to see past the barriers of incredulity, set up by trenches of ancient ideologies and barbed-wires of recent quackery.

I raise this, to raise your eyes. To raise your voice. I want you to speak out. If you value others’ lives, if you value the gift of reason, if you want to see some peace filter through the nonsense, I am calling upon you to raise your voice. Be it in any words of any format: Through keyboards, microphones or telephones. Be it in talks, conferences, papers, radio-shows.

I am angry and I want you to be angry. We shouldn’t have to settle for 130 children dying each year because their parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses. We should fight, shout and keep kicking as we hear about Muslim women being killed for leaving abusive husbands, when we hear that “[m]ore than 25 … “honor killings” have been confirmed in Britain’s Muslim community in recent years”. We should raise our fists against the retardation of sensibility when reading:

In Saudi Arabia, the Islamic police prevented schoolgirls from leaving a burning building because they were not wearing headscarves and abayas; 15 of the girls died in the inferno.

[Or] The president of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, a renowned center of Islamic learning, described the proper method of wife-beating in a television interview: “It’s not really beating,” Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb explained on Egyptian television. “It’s more like punching.”

Why should we remain silent about these things? No longer should people have to die from this. No longer should Muslim women have to face charges of death, stoning or flogging for being raped.

Words can be bullets, no less than ideas can be foundations for change. I don’t care who you are, at this moment, and I ask you to not care who I am either. In this time, we must be able to recognise idiocy, lunacy and the proud march of unreason that parades through our streets, in our backyards, crushing whoever so steps in its path.

And there is little way to stop it, as it contorts into something new. My own president caused undue harm in denying the link between HIV and AIDs. He was supported by the ever-horrid Minister of Health who stated eating fresh fruit and vegetables could prevent AIDS.

Reason comes in fits and spurts, it seems. Dominating every aspect of our lives is a fertile ground for unreason, some parts in full bloom others already seeded. There’s a great deal of it to be torn down, so that we are able to not only lead lives, but actually save them. It is time to start being more aware of the nonsense out there. Please, help us fight this. We may be fighting against certain people and their very bad ideas, but we are also fighting for every single human being to live as a fully-fledged individual, regardless of race, creed, culture.

I don’t care who you are, but if you have fingers or a voice, you can start changing the tide today.

EDIT – The question remains: Why do I care and why should you? Am I pessimistic, negative or cynical?

No! On the contrary: My reason for raising these points of retarded lecherous thinking is to show that we can do better. I believe, quite strongly, that we are better than these things. We are capable of greater good and greater kindness. Instead a lot of people are more worried about other people’s dress-sense, sexual relations, and other vicarious interferences, than they are about happiness, fulfilment and basic respect.

We need to connect on what we know (we are all humans with similar loves, hates, desires) rather than kill each other on what we can not know (god, the afterlife, and paradise). We can do better, I really believe we can. That is why I care and so should you.

Tags: Humanism, islam, lisa mcpherson, quackery, reason, scientology, women
Posted in Feature | 7 Comments »

Reading Your Antagonist

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Many would suppose that the proper title for this article should be: Know Your Enemy. In fact, Bertrand Russell advises us to use reason when dealing with those we hate, whilst “safely leaving” emotion and intuition for those we love. Often this is forgotten, as sceptics (or “skeptics”, depending whether you speak proper English or Americanese), nonbelievers and scientists are protracted against a wall of emotion, their ideas and personalities the target of incessant emotive attacks. But scientists and skeptics themselves are guilty of being angry, hostile and patronizing to those who disagree with them.

This tells us something, namely: It’s very horribly human.

But, consider the maxim of leaving reason for antagonists and intuition for loved ones – and surely a balance could be struck. An ideal no less for being asserted. I do not think it’s perfect – however this idea is not meant to be. I view it as a foundation from which thought may spring, reason may flow and truth may prosper.

You would never rest a building on a single brick, but many bricks like it! Similarly, if we find other ideas, catering for reason and emotion we have an advantage of advancing our investigations into the supernatural, the non-science and the plain stupid (you can decide which category to slot creationism, Tarot cards and astrology).

The central way I believe we can promote reason in this Discourse of Difference is through the interaction of intelligent antagonists. For example, I am a big fan of the work of Alister McGrath – except for his The Dawkins Delusion? Reza Aslan’s book, No God but God, provides a beautiful history of Islam for the average person. Reading these books, gives one a sense of the numinous and transcendent, longed for by nearly all of us. We are beings capable of the greatest usage of reason, of galvanizing truth into a spurious waft of beauty. We should never limit our approach to using only confirmatory writings, but be willing to test our reasoning against those who are equally charged in their own defenses.

This is why I enjoy public debates and gladly participate in them. I do not like saying “know your enemy” as being central to this piece because they are not our enemy. I hate the label of “enemy”. It retracts from the position of making them into friends, allies or, at the very worst, acquaintances. Be not afraid to read why Francis Collins is able to bifurcate the need for evidence in one area, yet gladly give over to a frozen waterfall for the belief in the monotheist god. Sure, you might laugh at this – but I believe Collins believes (with bad reasoning, but nonetheless I can tell you why only after reading his book The Language of God: A Scienist Presents Evidence for Belief. He does not.) Perhaps my interest in people’s minds disposes me to be interested in difference and needing to quantify world-views into singular paradigms. Regardless of this, I do think that it important for us to read antagonists’ books, no matter how silly they may initially appear.

Be secure: There is no such thing as too much knowledge, too much information and, when reading a book, NO information. You might pick up a copy of John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker and be able to refute all his arguments – but it doesn’t stop you from enjoying his writing style, his explanations of mathematical concepts and his knowledge of David Hume. As a book reviewer for Skeptic magazine, I have to read books that I do not necessarily want to but have often had my mind changed.

And yes there is quite a lot of nonsense, set as an affront to sensibilities; Sylvia Browne comes to mind. This should not stop you from investigating her, finding out why she’s a fraud, a hypocrite, a morbid pestilential old bat^*. Nonetheless, find out why people love/hate her. This is my appeal to everyone, believer or none, psychic or Truther, astrologer or mediums – to investigate all claims surrounding your views. The best defenders and communicators of atheism, scepticism, science, humanism and naturalism (like Michael Shermer, for instance), are always those who know the antagonist’s viewpoints as well as their own. Sometimes, the very reason why you are an atheist, for example, is because of how well you know your opponent’s minds and points. But never stop investigating.

We have entered and engaged in a dialogue, not a shouting match. The yelling from pulpits is dying, the choirs are becoming silenced and belief without evidence is not standing up to the scrutiny of avid investigators. The point is to end this shouting match and begin a conversation, based on the long abandoned fragile animal called “reason”. Let us begin that conversation now…

_________________________

*I am aware this is namecalling, but it was done deliberately

Tags: Alister McGrath, atheism, Humanism, michael shermer, religion, science, Skeptic, supernatural, Sylvia Browne
Posted in Commentary | No Comments »

Non-Belief and Family (a short digression)

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

I found myself rudely awakened to forced submission. I am sure many who are currently under the roof of a believer (parent, guardian, etc.) feel the four walls, holding up that roof, should cave in to allow the light of reason to shine in. It is much to our dismay that we are forced into the woeful submission to their supernatural, celestial dictatorships. But this is not a rant or whine – it is, as with most things I write, an investigation. This is to the simple question of WHY.

The day which I was bated into is called Eid-ul-Fitr; it came at the end of the month of fasting (which I did not do), as a day of worship (which I did not do) to relish in the achievement of being closer to Allah (which I did not feel at all). The sleep had barely fallen from my eyelids when vaguely the morning light rudely lit my unkempt room. I will skip the emotional details that these engendered through that day and get to the meat of this body I create with words.

The mosque was dusty, stuffy and with the amount of sniffing, coughing and phlegm you would be forgiven for thinking it an ICU. The sonorous Arabic verses droned to a repeated chant, enabling the name of the Muslim god to be lost amidst the fecundity of pluralist recurrence. After shuffling forward, my father, my younger brother and I sat. A curtain divided us from the women, as is so encouraged in every faith it seems. I am a child of feminism and long for the equality of genders. The monotheist god seems uncomfortable around woman, as most of us know. Like some adolescent, sexually repressed hormonal teenage boy, the god of the Quran and Bible is one to quickly dismiss women into swathes of clothes, bedraggled undergarments of denigrating titles and male-centred dominance (cooking, raising children, copulation for the cycle to continue).

I am a child of Darwinian explanations for life. I am particularly averse to “god did it” as stifling of the growing and searching human mind. So, perhaps we can give the ranting, misogynistic, anti-science imam that day a double-score against my sensibilities.

Score 1: “Is Allah not great that he made us eyes to see? Is Allah not great that he made air for us to breathe?”

Score 2: “My sisters, why would you not want to keep your hijab on? When people see you walking down the street, they can say ‘there goes a Muslim woman’. Why would you remove that and go about naked around the world?”

In one foul swoop, he pulled the veils over the truth of the natural world and tied it with a pin behind the head of every woman whose voice he could reach.

I expressed my disgust for this hypocrite of a man who also said “we want equality and truth and justice”, then proceeded to pray only for Muslim brothers and sisters around the world. Presumably the Christians and Jews in conflicts weren’t doing the exact same thing? Whose side is the monotheist god on? He does not want equality – that is the tribal mindset, wanting your own side to win for no reason except they endorse your belief without evidence. What about longing for peace, compassion for every man and woman, the stimulation of knowledge and reason? My father replied to this by saying the imam is speaking to the masses, he is not particularly interested in raising those concerns. I see that as a poor (but true) reason unfortunately. His baby-talk of human capacity for reason already sanctions parsimonious helpings of clear-thought.

I believe those helpings could be given in more quantities, added with the flavor for the “appetite for wonder”, and be based on reason.

The problem is hereby narrowed and targeted: The penetration of truth, logic and reason. When voicing my reasons for disliking and showing no respect for belief without evidence, my father justified his faith with “It is important as it is socially cohesive force in our lives. It is the only one we have to bring the family together.” Thus I found 2 important aspects: The easy and dumbed-down dealings in large quantities of nonsense, as opposed to the fine siftings for truth. Like holding a cup of sand in your hand, you should sift knowledge carefully and enthusiastically with forefinger and thumb seeking grains of golden truth. Instead, religious faith deals you buckets of sand and says: “Feast on dirt”. Abundant nonsense and carefully sifted truth. This is a problem.

Many people I speak to about belief usually lay down the problem of social-connections. You could be blunt and say “Facebook” but I see a human element which I can not ignore. I am usually dismissive of many knee-jerk responses to atheism, such as “you can’t disprove god”, “the world’s too beautiful” etc. and in each we can find a normal human desire expressed. But each of those can be shown elsewhere, based on reason and truth, to be far more tantalising than religious explanations. This reminds me of what WB Yeats once wrote about the anti-religious, yet devoutly faithful, William Blake: “To him the universe seemed filled with an intense excitement at once infinitesimal and infinite.”

I often compare it to gazing through a telescope at The Horsehead Nebula or believing in a Burning Bush talking to an old magician-prophet. The fact is everyone can take the first option, but it requires “faith” for the second. It is this that is the basis of my desire to see religion thwarted and other solitarist approaches to humanity destroyed, to see the promotion of science, reason and the beauty in the world and life, with compassion and respect to be our Constant Coda.

And I found the humanity in my father’s second explanation of the social cohesiveness. The point is this: What can we do?

I see this era as a transitory phase, as the bad, insane, inane and stupid ideas of religious flimflam will be weeded out to allow the growth of reason into fruition. It needs only the light of truth, so long obscured by superstitious fog, covering knowledge with its poker-face and poker-hand of false-secrecy to absolute truth.

Humanity needs humans. Humans need other humans. There are many occasions for gatherings, socialising and engaging with family. The problem of course is the tradition or the cultural aspect that religion takes. I think that this comes with its territory: Throughout our past, religious faith has been given a free-ride. I am not proposing humanist holidays – but I think within humanism we might want to encourage the familial aspect. Once we can focus on a penetrating thesis for a humanistic cohesiveness amongst family members, we could find religion taking another blow (I think it’s easy: It’s what happens anyway but without religious nonsense). Already we are watching its death-throes. The family is important, not because a god says so, not because a holy book says so, not because I say so: But because it’s important and beautiful for every human being. We need to learn to encourage a nontheistic view of this, yet configure it to counteract the dominance religion has on this subtle form of intrusion into our sensibilities.

Tags: family, Humanism, nonbelief, religion
Posted in Feature | No Comments »

The Evolution of Humanism

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Humanism is an extremely interesting brand of values and far too few people know what’s it about.

Its roots can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece, in the 6th century BCE. In fact, Greek pantheists like Thales of Miletus (”know thyself”) made the path for humanists later. Early freethinkers like him rejected their culture’s gods and preferred a naturalistic point of view. Pericles was such a person, who advanced science, thought, and democracy. Athens was an especially prominent place for these values. In its golden age, gods were only a subtle part of life, and participating in public debates was as much a civic duty as voting or working.

Fast forward a bit and humanism comes into play during the medieval time period in Islamic culture. This brand was subtle, and outward doubt was discouraged, though freethought was acceptable.

Renaissance humanism is most notably the era which we borrow aspects of modern humanism from. Values of science, debate, thought, and philosophy replaced those of the Roman church. 14th-15th century Florence was where this all started. The Italian Renaissance itself was a time of learning and opinions.
Not surprisingly, humanism of this time actually meant fascination with the classical (ancient Greece and Rome) world, which is why there was such an emphasis on learning. Contrasting with the Dark Ages, the image of man was all of a sudden transformed into one of high position, instead of all of humanity being a manifestation of sin and damnation. This time period, unlike the Dark Ages, was all about this life.

Though we can still make connections to its origins, modern humanism is more of a literal interpretation of the word. Today, humanism is about civil rights, and the power of humanity. Current humanism outlines a broad set of philosophies, but most notably, secular humanism. Like the humanism of Florence and the classical world, questioning and secular values play a big role. But with or without secular attached, humanism is still all about human reason, ethics, logic, observation, and thought.

It’s interesting to look at humanism in this historical light because secularism can be seen before the supposed birth of Jesus, and ultimately much before the spread of Christianity. While your particular bit of humanism (if any) may not be exactly like that of the Renaissance or classical age, you can at least appreciate the historical significance of philosophies older than their counterparts.

Tags: history, Humanism, renaissance, secularism
Posted in Commentary | 2 Comments »

Progress at the UN

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

CFI’s own Austin Dacey, representative to the United Nations, has been making some headway with the help of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in blasting apart the proposed “defamation of religion” additions to the Human Rights Council.

Basically the idea behind “defamation of religion” would be that individual countries could pass laws preventing you from criticizing religions. This is a short step from basically having the UN endorse blasphemy laws.

You can follow the latest updates from Dacey’s blog, The Secular Conscience, but here’s a quick summary of the (positive) progress they’ve been making:

The tide really does seem to be turning in the debate on combating defamation of religion – even to the point where there are hopes among some delegates that the concept will soon be buried, at least in the Human Rights Council.

Following attacks by France and Belgium last week on the notion of defamation of religion, several NGOs joined the attack on Thursday with several strong statements.

The Cairo Center for Human Rights Studies with Article 19, the European Center for Law and Justice, and Center for Inquiry in a joint statement with IHEU were among those who weighed in.

Gregor Puppinck of the European Centre for Law and Justice stated that they could not support the concept of defamation of religions or phobias when applied to religions or beliefs. The concept of phobia should not be employed as it did not describe reality but psychological instability. The use of the concept phobia victimised a part of the population. They also recalled that the concept of defamation was incompatible with human rights. It endangered the rights of religious minorities and would lead to international approval for blasphemy laws.

Tags: austin dacey, blasphemy, cfi, free speech, human rights council, Humanism, the secular conscience, UN, united nations
Posted in News | No Comments »

In the Teeth of Rainbows – Part 2

Friday, September 12th, 2008

Humanism and the Need for Wonder

What makes us human? What simply outlines and describes a human being? Whilst I would love to delve more into this, it is not the focus. Rather my point is this: The fact that we can pose such a question is itself something to be awed about. We like to think, arrogantly, we know what “intelligence” is, what “stress”, what “being human” is. We struggle with these concepts all the time. And I find John and Mary Gribbin’s answer the most correct, in their book of the same name: “Being human simply means being one of a variety of animal on planet Earth.” (1)

So should humanism rather be considered along the lines of PETA – that bizarre organisation that has turned into a cult? Why don’t we consider people when we fight for animal rights? We know through evidence that we are animals. There is no ‘seat for the soul’ or any form of Cartesian dualism, through which a spirit can slither and take residence. We are animals – of this there can be no doubt. If you doubt me, investigate our closest cousins, chimps. Helping, sharing, caring all linger alongside warfare, brutality and conquest (2). Our genetic makeup matches theirs 99.8% – the genes are of course exactly the same. People have a hard time realising their cousins are not just swinging from tree to tree but are those daffodils underneath too. That all life on earth reproduces essentially the same way is testament to the awe-inspiring realisation that we are all related. Not just us humans but yourself and your favourite goldfish, plant or flower.

Thus: What separates us from the chimpanzees, animal rights groups are trying to “save”? David Attenborough asked this, too:

Man has credited himself with several talents to distinguish him from all other animals. Once we thought that we were the only creatures to make and use tools. We now know that this is not so: chimpanzees do so and so do finches in the Galapagos that cut and trim long thorns to use as pins for extracting grubs from holes in wood. Even our complex spoken language seems less special the more we learn about the communication used by chimpanzees and dolphins.(3)

It is these sorts of realisations that science affords which spurn people toward more supernaturalist ideologies. We might refer to these as Unweaved Rainbow Realisations, after Keats’ charge against Newton. Once people’s rainbows have shattered into a thousand tinkling shards of painful truth, they are more inclined to seek other, more industrious rainbows (4). Rainbows up in the sky dictating our births (astrology); rainbows too complex for science to demolish (god, theology and the meanings of ‘holy’ books); rainbows that disguise themselves as valid (creationism and intelligent design); and rainbows, which once tasted, heal and help (homeopathy, crystal healing, angel-therapy). The pots of gold, though illusions, are still enticing. People’s yearning for beauty, meaning and wonder are a thirst for the numinous. And, like a man denied water in a desert, the illusion can still be as enticing as the actual: A mirage is no less enticing for not being true.

How then are we to promote humanism in the teeth of “rainbows”? Even by postulating science we seem to tread on our own toes: through science we appear to reduce humanity to simply being animals. There appears to be nothing “special” about us. And science trumps rainbows again and again. Humanity’s flight from reason is beginning to sound like the blur of jet-engines. Science’s answers are breed and breathe, not helpful in defining meaning.

And in the face of this, we know people would choose mirages over empty sand. But why do people choose superstition again and again? Science appears to make life dull, meaningless and utterly worthless. As I’ve said and as is my main point: science does in itself give no answer. It is a tool to discover the world and universe. It is the most powerful tool – so powerful that we have established facts that are true throughout the universe. No superstition can make such a bold claim and justify it.

But with all its power and beauty, science appears to dissolve humans from their core into lifeless husks pushed and manipulated by bacteria and a fragile brain. As Bertrand Russell put it at the beginning of What I Believe: “Man is a part of Nature, not something contrasted with Nature. His thoughts and his bodily movements follow the same laws that describe the motion of stars and atoms.”(5) People’s usual reaction is the sound of a rainbow shattering: No! I refuse to be scientifically measurable and subject to those same laws! I am special!

Yet, if we stop, if we breathe, if we ponder perhaps the rainbow reforms. Consider: a rainbow is no less beautiful in that we know it is a mixture of light and condensation. And life is no less beautiful, miraculous or awe-inspiring just because we are subject to physical laws. In fact we are not subjects, we are discoverers. The word “law” implies prescriptive, whereas Natural Laws are descriptive as the sky is blue. You can not defy gravity, deny germs. That is part of Natural Laws. Understanding these Laws has helped us create a better society (we have eradicated smallpox through our understanding of natural laws, to name a small example; we are able to make crops that help billions of chronically poor thanks to people like the great Nobel laureate Norman Borlaugh).

Yes. We are subject to the same descriptive equations that fit anything. If there is one human here and another human there, that makes two humans. Descriptions do not make it any less amazing that we are around to calculate such a simple matter! I find it incredible that I am “obeying” the same Laws as a entire planets and powerful stars (from where we all came in the first place).

I find that my connection to the universe is there, literally written in the stars. I do not want to be above the world I want to be part of it. I do not want to be some special being observing animals, I want to be part of a great animal kingdom myself. That we have touched the moon, the stars, the sky, that we all have loves, hates, fears, is testament to our need to belong. We all want to belong to something higher or greater than us – the aspirations for the numinous, by traversing the paths of rainbows – but I think humanism finally launches hooks to pull those rainbows down. Like a great sheet it must tumble. We must bring ourselves back down to earth.

We need only grasp that we are here, alone and dependant upon each other for this to work. Though the rainbows are beautiful, we must not forget they are still people. Whether you see a rainbow or a mixture of light and condensation, we are the same. We want to belong and there is nothing better to belong to than that great ape: Homo sapiens. We must eradicate the fear that science destroys the numinous and show it inspires the grandest connection of all: We are connected to the stars, the planets, the galaxies. All of us. If there is anything greater to be connected to, I have not found it. And I will even make a prediction based on the stars: I do not think there will ever be anything greater than this concurrent connection. Rejoice in your belonging to the cosmos.

And don’t forget to breathe.

REFERENCES

1. Gribbin, J. and Gribbin, M. (1998) Being Human. London: Phoenix Paperbacks.

2. I hate the term “going ape” – I find other apes to be more civil than most humans.

3. Attenborough, D. (1986) ‘The Compulsive Communicators’ in Life on Earth: A Natural History. London: Fontana Paperbacks, p. 302

4. Dawkins, R. (2006) Unweaving the Rainbow. London: Penguin.

5. Russell, B. (2001) What I Believe. London: Routledge

Tags: atheism, Humanism, science, wonder
Posted in Commentary | 6 Comments »

In the Teeth of Rainbows – Part 1

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

The Indelible Stamp

When words can not do, consider breathing. When you breathe in, it begins one of the most complex, beautiful and structured events to occur throughout the known universe. As air passes through your nostrils, the elimination of harmful excesses begins. It is a tough agent who is able to survive your body’s display of your immune system. After the air has passed through your nostrils, filtered by tiny hairs and mucus, it passes down into your throat. It then travels down into your lungs, caged behind your ribs. There your lungs fill like balloons. Blood is oxygenated – which attaches energy to blood cells to deliver it to every part of your body. The chemical reactions that take place, on even a microscopic level, would fill several blackboards of any chemistry lab. Yet this is happening right now, while you read this.

I have used words but words can do little justice to the intricate net of complexity, which begins its first stitching when we breathe. This is how we know we are alive. Strange as it may seem this is the answer to one of the biggest questions we face as conscious entities: “How do I know I’m alive?” Biologically the answer is: “You are breathing.”

But that does not make it fulfilling or all-encompassing of this question. Consider the Meaning of Life: in this same way the meaning of life is to pass on your genes. I do not find either of these answers satisfactory. I would never reply with “to breed” – even though this is the correct answer. I might not use this, but maybe some sexually active people might. Does this mean they are living more fulfilling lives than the rest of us? No. In fact it is, more often than not, quite the opposite.

Life and its mysteries are not dispelled by chemical equations and biology, or philosophy and religion. As Darwin said “there is a grandeur in this view of life”, viewing it through the wonder that science and open-mindedness afford. I can not sway you to accept science or naturalism as opposed to religion or supernaturalism. As I said, words can not do. But we have to ask, are we not awed at our existence through the discoveries of science? As opposed to the gibbering, slavish, pestilential existence that is so depraving on display, as grown men and women supplicate themselves before an invisible god. What monotheist god lavishes in carnal human exhibitions, as opposed to demanding us to cover our bodies, never speak of sexual doings, to shroud women from head-to-toe? Where is the humanity in feeling sickened by what makes us human, where is the humanity in hating the only gateway we have with this world, our world?

Humanism entails nothing supernatural to its tenets. We are dealing with the Here, the Current, The Brief Spotlight we have on this world. And we are unique in how we deal with that spotlight. Sir Peter Medawar (1) considers humans the only species to live in the spotlight, with a consideration for what occurred in the darkness of the past and the darkness of the future and we should not be wasting our brief time in the spotlight of the present.

And it certainly is brief. Our longing for something more, something intrinsically beyond our conception but which touches us at so-called “divine moments” is perfectly natural. But natural does not mean good. The leaves of plants are natural and there is a misconception regarding it to be healthy, or worse, good for us. Plants are a form of life – they don’t want to be eaten. To suppose that plants are healthy or good for us intrinsically is to give into the homocentric – the opposite of humanist – notion that something occurring naturally in the world is created for our pleasure. No it is not. Plants have poisons and toxins and thorns precisely to ward off groping fingers. Natural is not good: Cancer is natural, myopia is natural, but that is not necessarily a good thing.

Humanism then does not deny the numinous and transcendent (2), in fact as a humanist I’m trying to inspire it. But instead of directing our awe at something invisible, we should direct it at something beautiful. Even gazing at the incredible flagellum of Escherichia coli is enough to make any decent person pause. As I stated in an article for Skeptic (3), humans should feel ashamed at their pathetic form of transport: putting one foot in front of the other – when compared to E. coli’s powerful motors thrusting its way toward food. We fade into a monotone of ability when faced with the power of a micro-organism: creating propellers, make-shift cities that can destroy and travel, the ability to destroy hundreds of people by being inside their body. But don’t stop there: consider scientists using E. coli to create smart-drugs that can fight cancer as the cancer changes; consider it being the first organism to have its genes isolated. In fact, it is a minority of people on this planet who don’t have E. coli in their gut protecting them this instant (4).

And humans? Take a moment to look at the power of micro-organisms and reflect: It is humanity who are the slaves, not those bacteria who live in us. In fact, we could not live without most of that bacteria. My question is actually incorrect. I shouldn’t say “humans” – because if we took a measurement of DNA throughout our body, most of it would not be human. The question is actually this: where do these bacteria inside end and we begin?

1. Medawar, P.B. & J.S. (1977) The Life Science. London: Wildwood House.

2. I am averse to the word “spiritual” as it has too many connotations. But the idea is still similar.

3. Moosa, T. (2008) ‘Darwin’s Tiny White Box’ in Skeptic, Vol. 14 (3)

4. Zimmer, C. (2008) Microcosm: E coli and the new science of life. London: William Heinemann.

Tags: atheism, Humanism, science, wonder
Posted in Feature | 6 Comments »

The Unopened Gift

Friday, September 5th, 2008

Religion aptly offers comfort and a system of insurance of a fulfilling life. Religion provides one with a sense of worth and accomplishment.

Religion enshrines one in the self-induced ignorance that comes with the dogmatic declaration of faith. Religion breeds fundamentalism and in-group superiority that follows from the embodiment of dogmatism and faith.

Now take the term Secular Humanism and place it in both paragraphs. Do you notice how it fits snugly within the first paragraph, but seems more out of place than a vegan at a dairy farm in the second?   Secular Humanism is like a gift that we’ve crafted on our own, developed over time, and wrapped in pretty bows, but neglected despite its obvious benefits. It offers us all of the benefits of religion, and none of its side effects. That is, as far as we can tell.

I often find myself brooding in deep perplexity over the small acceptance of Secular Humanism as a lifestyle choice. If Secular Humanists do in fact have this world-bettering gift, then why aren’t people unwrapping it and indulging in its delight?

Well, I’m sure there are many reasons. To assume something so complex would beget a simple explanation is absurd based upon previous experiences, except, of course, in the world of science, where evolution offers a beautifully simple explanation. For the sake of time, I want to focus on just three reasons why I think people reject Secular Humanism – four if you count the reason that people don’t even know what it is.

1. Cold and Meaningless

The first reason is that people regard Science as cold and devoid of meaning, and if Secular Humanism relies so heavily upon the information of science then people tend to think that Secular Humanism must be cold and empty as well. But, of course, the whole is more than just one of its components and Secular Humanism adds exactly what Science, on it’s own, doesn’t provide us with – meaning. It directly addresses this first of reasons for its own rejection. Meaning, in the light of scientific evidence, gives us comfort and fulfillment without the bullshit. Secular Humanists don’t have to rely on appeals to faith and a higher power to gain meaning. Meaning comes from pleasurable traits that we’ve acquired throughout our evolution. It comes from loving another and being loved back, from getting caught up in the moment of something you enjoy doing, from helping another in need, from a sense of accomplishment etc,. Humanism implies that we, Humans, are the arbiters of our own meaning.

2. Lack of Community

The second reason I believe people reject Secular Humanism is that it doesn’t provide one with a community atmosphere like Religion does. Religion has buildings devoted to harboring community, and admittedly, much of the good that does come from Religion comes from its devotion to building stronger communities. Secular Humanism has relatively small numbers to form such strong communities.

However, Secular Humanists are building a strong presence on the internet. Many in the online community see the recently apparent cultishness around Richard Dawkins as dangerous, and against what Humanists stand for. I see it as community alongside a romanticizing of ideas. We must realize that communities sprout from the ranks of leaders, and Dawkins is one of them. There are pedestals to stand on in this world. The religious have theirs with Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Xenu etc,. We, the science minded folk, have the likes of Dawkins, Sagan, Darwin, and Gould.

3. No Afterlife

And finally, the third reason I believe people reject Secular Humanism is because of their fear of death. Religion provides one with the insurance of an afterlife, while Secular Humanism, to put it bluntly, doesn’t. That is, unless we let go of the traditional meaning of the afterlife.

From the movie Troy:

Boy: The Thessalonian you’re fighting…he’s the biggest man I’ve ever seen. I wouldn’t want to fight him.

Achilles: That’s why no one will remember your name.

An afterlife is defined as “a life or existence believed to follow death.” So then what about our self-made legacy; the love we shared with others; the things we’ve made; the work we completed; the contribution to the insurance of a future generation that lives longer, healthier, and more fulfilling lives than us? This is our afterlife. It is not selfish. It is humble and noble. And it is romantic in the fact that we are standing on the shoulders of past giants, contributing to this great play we call life, so that others can stand upon ours and hoist the good life up to the next generation.

Tags: dawkins, Humanism, Meaning, religion, science, Secular Humanism
Posted in Feature | 6 Comments »

A Neo-Technocrat Manifesto

Monday, August 25th, 2008

In my last article on Technocracy, entitled You Too, May be a Technocrat, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding on what I meant.

There was discussion about what the term Technocrat meant, and there was a great deal of disturbing observations about the definition I posted from Wikipedia.

People accurately pointed out that a purely meritocratic society would be very susceptible to corruption.

Some people thought that Technocracy was opposed to democracy, and in hindsight I can see why people thought that. Though I consider myself to be a technocrat and a committed apologist for the democratic process.

So I am coining a term: Neo-Technocrat.

I am using the term Neo-Technocrat so that I can discard any of the ideas of the original technocrats that we find antiquated, while still embracing the core themes of the original movement.

A Neo-Technocrat is someone who wholeheartedly accepts the democratic endeavor as the best current political system. A Neo-Technocrat does not dispute that the current western political system does provide society with skilled politicians as a result of the voting process. The only thing that a Neo-Technocrat wants to do to the voting process is make sure that the voters are better informed, especially on science and technology issues.

Another issue demanding clarification from the last post is the importance of the term “technocrat.” Technology is the ultimate utility of science. Even basic science, which by definition has no specific technological goals, is defended for its constant contribution to the development of technology. Using technology as the root word for a political idea implies that the vast usefulness of science is of great political consequence.

To call Neo-Technocracy some other word, which does not have technology in the name would not due the idea justice.

What Neo-Technocrats want is for scientists to be consulted by politicians and the public for issues where science is relevant. Neo-Technocrats believe this is going to be the norm for many political issues, especially if one considers the robustness of the social sciences.

Neo-Technocrats see that political language should be naturalistic, just as it is in science. The effect of this is that political discussion of ethics should be naturalistic in its premises, and humanistic in its conclusions. Humanism is a system of ethics built on what naturalism tells us about the world in deference to science. Neo-Technocrats see this as being a more universal approach to ethics.

It is not that Neo-Technocrats want Neo-Technocratic projects to eliminate all philosophy save naturalism and humanism, but we see these as being extremely basic and universally applicable to the whole of humanity. In essence a naturalistic basis for political discussion is a filter, which allows for discussion of testable phenomena to have its deserved prominence. This, again, makes a great deal of sense when one considers the robustness of social science. Questions such as what motivates crimes, greed in human nature, and other controversial behaviors have huge bodies of data in psychology, economics, and other social sciences.

Neo-Technocrats quite simply believe that when society takes in to consideration what is known by experts, society makes better decisions. There are two areas in which this must be achieved. One is at the level of the public, the electorate to be specific. The second is at the level of political decision makers, which include elected officials. This is achieved by creating policy infrastructure so that politicians consult scientists, and so scientific understanding is always strongly promoted to the public.

This may sound like a pipe-dream to some, but we have essentially had this kind of government in the United States before, with a trend towards having more in the future. Especially in the early years of the cold war. I would also argue that the United States was founded on similar principles.

Now the political discourse has strayed from naturalistic language into some kind of post-modernist la-la land where things like climate change are treated as though they were simply a matter of opinion.

This is unacceptable.

Tags: experts, government, Humanism, naturalism, ne-technocrat, politics, science, technocrat
Posted in Feature | 12 Comments »

Welcome to Factonista.org