The Humanist Part of the Techno Dissent Discussion

by Gary Berg-Cross

I do like the term and think of myself as a humanist -  secular humanist. And in the Washington Post recent series on Tech Doubters kicked off by Joel Achenbach's THE RESISTANCE. I see that there may be an opportunity to get the humanist position, even the progressive, nature centered and deliberately rational, progressive secular view into the conversation.  At least this can be in regard to the human-technical interaction in society.

The article kicks off the issues thus way identifying people uncomfortable with how the internet and associated technology is influencing modern life.

"They are the digital dissenters.

They see tech companies tracking our every move.

They want to go back to the basics – to a world where the interests of

humans come before robots, algorithms and the needs of Silicon Valley.

 Meet the people on “Team Human."n.” █ 

From a distance I don't much object to this stance.  I don't like the invasion of privacy with companies (or governments) tracking our behavior etc. And I share the view of human values being central.  It is just that I also appreciate science and technology and perhaps want more thought to go into its use. Some of the critics do too and Achenbach starts introducing them like this:

"Techno-skeptics, or whatever you want to call them — “humanists” may be the best term — sense that human needs are getting lost in the tech frenzy, that the priorities have been turned upside down. They sense that there’s too much focus on making sure that new innovations will be good for the machines.

'I’m on Team Human!' author Douglas Rushkoff will say at the conclusion of a talk."

Well again, I agree with part of these critiques including the judgment that parts of our digital age has nightmare elements run by digital "robber barons" who mine data our personal info for profit. So it is not paranoid, that one of the tech skeptics, political activist Astra Taylor keeps duct tape over the camera lens on her laptop computer. Someone might be listening.

There are many people who have this view:

"You could fill a college syllabus with books espousing some kind of technological resistance. Start the class with “You Are Not a Gadget” (Jaron Lanier), move on to “The Internet Is Not the Answer” (Andrew Keen), and then, to scare the students silly, “Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era” (James Barrat)."

Also cited is Pope Francis' recent encyclical “On Care for Our Common Home” which "contemplates the mixed blessings of technology." He acknowledges the marvels of modern technology such as the beauty of an aircraft or a skyscraper), but warns of potential dangers,unless technological development isn't been matched by "development in human values and conscience." There might be a spiritual ting to Francis' values though.

I might a bit more uncomfortable with the broad brush labeling of techno-skeptics as humanists. There are some qualifications to make along the way.  

I would agree with the point that humanism, and in particular a secular humanist position has potential here. There is something lost in blindly designing things for machine culture in an arms race, first to the market, winner take all style that we have. I would feel some affinity to both ‘believe’ in humanism and trust (well hope) in a fair view of technical innovation;which includes that humans find some meaning in through work (Jörns, 1997). As the article notes we currently have a problem here:

 “The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings."

Yes, and humanist values could be the basis of doing this in a human friendly way.  The humanist movement, has what Roy Speckhardt calls a forward-thinking outlook with an emphasis on critical thinking and self-reflection. It also has a naturalist outlook which wouldn't want an intrusion of spiritual values into this conversation. So that type of humanism is what we want now.  It is more sophisticated than a human vs. computer labeled wrestling match. Secularism, understood as the dominance of naturalistic and scientific thought over supernatural explanations of reality, was seen as the future for America and might be seen in light of techno skepticism a solution again. What come along with a "progressive secularism" view is a belief-stance that human beings are alone in the world and must act responsibly by forming their ethics solely from their human experience, human reason and science (source Is Reality Secular?: Testing the Assumptions of Four Global Worldviews.)

To me then is not an either machines/computers or us issue (human reason & science apply), although I can understand dissent in the face of an un-thought through tech "advance" imposed by a morals-free system.  Few of us want to be slippery sloped or bludgeoned into accepting an unacceptable future. The problem is as much a slow versus fast thinking for-profit style. In a deliberate manner we may be able to answer how humans and smart, communicating systems can usefully interact and profit all human life not just the masters.

It seems to me it also the values of a shallow capitalist culture (the robber baron image again) allowing tech use for company profit.  It is the old fire is good or bad depending on how you balance its use within a cultural system. We need reflection to do this.

Chance Conversation with a Free Mason

by Gary Berg-Cross

On a recent trip by train I ran into a friendly and helpful fellow, a native of France who had worked in the US.  As we exchanged info and I identified my self as a Secular Humanist, he surprised me by saying, "Isn't that a bit like Free Masonry? "  I hadn't made the connection and some early Mason statements do talk about a belief in God along with their three great benign principles:

• Brotherly Love – Every true Freemason will show tolerance and respect for the opinions of others and behave with kindness and understanding to his fellow creatures.
• Relief – Freemasons are taught to practice charity, and to care, not only for their own, but also for the community as a whole, both by charitable giving, and by voluntary efforts and works as individuals.
• Truth – Freemasons strive for truth, requiring high moral standards and aiming to achieve them in their own lives.but indeed a quick comparison of values  confirmed that we both had an interest in a secular non-religious society, separation of church and state, equality, tolerance, and a general concern with individual liberties.

 

Tom Flynn's New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, does not have an entry for Free Masons. But my  new traveling friend assured me that modern Free Masonry, at least in France is more secular and follows the post French Revolutionary idea of  laïcité (which is discussed in the New Encyclopedia of Unbelief)  a concept denoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs.

 

As noted in one article at http://www.praxislodge.org/humanism-secularism.html, generally there are some common key principles and values that show up in things Manifestos by the Mason and Secularists:

• Freedom of conscience of all people, and that it is an essential component of liberty, equality and fraternity
• Separation of religion and government, and religious and spiritual tolerance among all people.
• Freedom of the press as a necessary component of maintaining the inalienable rights of all human beings, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• The need for higher education and life-long learning
• An impartial judiciary system as essential to guaranteeing the preservation of human rights
• Arts and sciences as essential elements in the progress and evolution of humanity
• Efforts that work towards global environmental and ecological sustainability as essential to the survival of the human species

After the trip it took me only a little while to track down the history of position of Liberal European Freemasonry regarding religion.    In 1877 the Grand Orient of France decided to abolish the requirement that a candidate profess a belief in God. A blog on Free Masonry discusses how they defined their position:

"Whereas Freemasonry is not a religion and has therefore no
doctrine or dogma to affirm in its constitution, this Assembly has
decided and decreed that the second paragraph of Article 1, of the
Constitution (requiring a belief in Deity) shall be erased, and that for the words
of the said article the following shall be substituted:

"Being an Institution essentially philanthropic, philosophic, and
progressive, Freemasonry has for its object, search after truth,
study of universal morality, science and arts, and the practice of
benevolence. It has for its principles absolute liberty of
conscience and human solidarity. It excludes no person on account
of his belief, and its motto is 'Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity."

They went bit further discussing the freedom of beliefs in a January, 1918 statement that  is attributed to a member of the Grand Orient of France in the article:

"The Grand Orient of France and the Three Great Lights" published in the Builder:

"The Grand Orient of France, while it respects all philosophical
beliefs, insists upon absolute liberty of belief. This does not
mean that we banish from our lodges the belief in God. The United
Grand Lodge of England on the contrary desires to make a belief in
God in some manner compulsory. The Grand Orient of France is much
more liberal, since in proclaiming the absolute liberty of belief
it permits to each one of its members the liberty to believe or not
to believe in God, and by so doing desires to respect its members
in their convictions, their doctrines and their beliefs."
Free Masons, like other freethinking groups, do have a continuum of people  who tend to be non-religious but tolerate religious members. Some might say they are secular rather than anti-religious.

Images

Trowel at Free Mason site: http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-f=1_1037884&N-fa=1034623&N-p=6839215&N-play=0&N-s=1_1037884&N-u=1_94762

French Secularism: http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2010/12/les-assises.html

 

Climate and Secular Change

By Gary Berg-Cross

Some important topics like secular humanism and climate change are hard to get accepted by people for one reason of another. Secular humanism has its principles, goals and core ideas laid out in the various Humanist Manifestoes.  But to many it explanations and approach aren’t satisfactory.   Part of the reason is that is an inconvenient threat to biblical and older views of the world and a God who intervenes in natural phenomena and is indispensable for salivation.

Coming to grips with climate change is another one of those difficult topics where complex, scientific evidence and reasoning comes in conflict with simpler and perhaps emotionally satisfying non-scientific beliefs. People’s immediate experience is with weather and local weather at that.  This easy understanding gets confused with climate as it in entangled with common sense and verbal habits (always a factor in discussing atheism and concepts of God too).  So people say you “can’t change the weather” (or predict it well going past 10 days) and these seem to be powerful arguments against knowing about climate change with a needed degree of certainty.  If fact they are not good arguments at all. One may predict a green house will be warmer than its surroundings even on a cold day.

You can see and example of how particular issues, often statistical in nature, get resolved  such as how much warming is going on in Antartica  see- On Edge-Pushing Statistics and Climate Basics. Statisticians like Noel Cressie have directly investigated  "Uncertainty
Quantification for Regional Climate Projections in North America" by studying the various model projecting temperature change that is projected for North America 30 years in the future (2041-2070). Regional Climate Models (RCMs) projections are run up to 60 years into the future for "small", 50 km x 50 km regions in North America.

The results including degrees of uncertainty are analyzed statistically for all regions and all four Boreal seasons. The preponderance of results throughout all of North America, as shown in the pinkish figures below is one of warming, usually more than 2°C (3.6°F). As Cressie asked, "is this hot enough for you."
 

 

 OK so there is converging and ever increasing evidence and a scientific consensus on climate change exists.  What about regular citizen's beliefs?  It's a function in part of macro weather. Following a winter of record snowfall in 2010, the public’s acceptance of climate change fell to a low of 52 percent, according to the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change (as published by the Brookings Institution). After 2011's mild winter, support jumped to 65 percent.  Still fewer think it human caused. 2012 polling conducted by the Pew Research Center suggests that a greater number of people in the U.S. are accepting the reality of climate change. 67 percent of Americans said that there is now  "solid evidence" that average global temperatures have been rising in recent decades. That's a gain of 4points over 2010 and 10 points since 2009. Yet only 42 percent say this warming is "mostly caused by human activity," according to Pew.You know, the climate always changes.. Maybe we'll have an ice age...

Recently some scientific efforts have been directed at such phenomena and understanding why belief in climate change has decreased rather than risen as more evidence has been generated. It turns out there are a variety of complex psychological, and cultural reasons for this as well as scientific.

One obvious factor is complexity of space, time and factors. There are lots of facts to consider and models to integrate since almost every aspect of our planet influences the climate –

ocean circulation,

weather patterns,

plate tectonics (over long time) and ,

atmospheric dynamics are just a start.

A change in one of these affects climate and progress has being made in modeling each although the interaction of factors with each other and the climate is still a challenge.  But like the weather everyone has something to say on the matter even if the complexity is ignored in most opinions by laymen. Psychologically we like simple answers and simplifying problems down to familiar terms.  Still understanding is possible to the literate and astute who have the time to study it.

But there is a problem with space and time. The impacts are somewhat off in the future or impacting far away space like the artic now (Super Storm Sandy being an exception which did get our attention.) . But  these demand action and costly action now. So there is a mis-match and what is being asked (see recent blog on protests) for now is some sacrifice for some hypothetical gain. What is being asked for is deferred gratification. It’s not like cleaning up a park or a polluted river. There we can often easily track responsibility for a problem and results can be quickly seen and rewards such as return of fish in river a known reward. 

Handling climate change is new and the expected rewards far off and maybe beyond our lifetime.  No matter how much we slow the growth of emissions, we may not see the benefits in the short-term. Thus, climate change activists are asking fellow citizens to sacrifice something concrete (say my investment and retirement portfolio) now for potential benefits that may not be evident for many years to come.

 

In its own way this is a bit like what secularists are asking of religious people – sacrificing some comforting habits now to avoid down sides over time. We need to have the maturity to understand the dangers of climate change and the wisdom for that may translate as a useful skill for the advancement of humanist and secular thinking too.

 

 

 

 

Images
 

The Psychology of Climate Change: http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/

Noel Cressie ergional models of climate change: http://www.stat.osu.edu/~sses/collab_warming.html

Sacrificing investments:http://grist.org/article/2009-11-05-climate-psychology-in-cartoons-clues-for-solving-the-messaging/full/

 

Religious addiction: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_27_4

 

Humanist’s Hippocratic Oath

by Gary Berg-Cross

Following the mortgage meltdown that prompted the current crisis were those theoretical constructs known as financial models Emanuel Derman and Paul Wlmott had an article that appeared in Bloomberg Business week called “The Modelers' Hippocratic Oath”

In the article they listed the oath and I thought it might be of interest and amusing to the Secular and Humanist community and adapted it slightly as a more pragmatic. Of course we have many obvious principles in the various Humanist Manifesto's but the oath is a bit more general and might be thought of as aimed at some thinking behind the principles as well as communication about such principles.

Humanist’s Hippocratic Oath

~ I will remember that I didn't make the physical or social world, and they don’t exist to make my musings and opinions look good.

~ Though I will use my knowledge and experience to boldly write about important issues, I will not be overly impressed by my attempts.

~ I will never sacrifice reality for elegant language and simplifications without explaining why I have done so.

~ Nor will I give the people who use my idea false comfort about their completeness and accuracy. Instead, I will endeavor to make explicit my assumptions and oversights.

~ I understand (and hope) that if done well my work may eventually have significant effects on my community, society and its economy, many of them beyond my comprehension.

 

And of course, "First do no harm."

 

 

Images

 

Hippocratic Oath: http://the-hippocratic-oath.soft32download.com/screenshot/

 

Do no harm: http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2011/09/14/ron-rosedale-neurodegenerative-disease-hormones-and-diet/

 

 

 

Let’s talk about Something Else: Teachable Moments and Unreachable Minds

By Gary Berg-Cross

In the abstract, casual moment it’s sometimes hard to get average folks to talk about topics like secular humanism, natural ethics and the like.  Sure these are important topics, but in the normal flow of things they can be a heavy lift and off putting.  But since it is important we should understand natural opportunities for such topics in the context of larger issues that ARE on the agenda to be discussed.

Following the Newtown shootings there has been justified focus on the topic of gun safety and why such things happen. There has been just a bit of discussion of non-religious views of the situation and the grief. It is what some call a “A teachable moment” – a term used widely in discussing learning and education, as a time when learning a particular topic, task or idea becomes possible or easiest for situational or developmental reasons. The concept is ancient with common sense predecessors like interest, motivation and ripeness. But it was popularized (and became perhaps too much of a buzz phrase) by Robert Havighurst in his 1952 book, Human Development and Education. The concept is also widely applied to therapy as an observation that some interventions are only successful when the “time is right” and the patient ready and open to consider something new. Religious messages often jump into these debates, witness the influence on healthcare discussions.

Of course there are other factors needed such as having the right teacher/therapist/parent/leader at a teachable moment.  A good teacher is someone not only able to communicate knowledge, but one who is a credible source also and one able to hold individual/group attention that goes along with learning.   So in the gun discussion good communicators identify where they are coming from, such as, “my perspective is as a gun owner.”  Of, course this is an easier category to understand than saying “my perspective is as a secular humanist,” so in a teachable moment we have to be ready with some back up, non-threatening explanation that includes the idea that I don’t have to be in the gun-owning tribe or with the religion belief crowd to have a say on a topic of interest like the ethics of guns. That’s probably even more difficult for people coming from the New Atheist tribe, but it is something we need to get accepted as part of the discussion of things.

As we enter a time when immigration, climate change, lowered defense spending and stimulating job growth will be big topics along with gun safety it seems appropriate to consider whether we have reachable minds.  Is the national thinking cap and cultural climate receptive and ready for freethinker’s perspectives? Can we help make it so?

A start is to work for acceptance of freethinkers as part of the conversation. Perhaps attention will be distracted and go elsewhere or sideways. We’ll see if people are interested, but it is likely to be a difficult task. In ‘Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam’ Nick Turse bemoans the fact that there was no public interest in Vietnam war crimes allegations. The public mind was largely closed and  unreachable. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre were aired, but stirred only a very brief public outrage before subsiding into indifference as talk moved on to more acceptable topics. The Winter Soldier hearings, which Vietnam veterans like now Senator Kerry participated in, were largely ignored and the testifiers treated with disgust. As John Tirman noted in a WAPO review of Turse’s book:

Turse has the journalist’s faith that exposure will result in justice, but in the case of war, there’s little evidence that the public wants to know more about atrocities, much less act upon them. British scholar Kendrick Oliver made this argument brilliantly in his book on My Lai, showing how reactions to revealed atrocities follow a pattern that ultimately leads to a rally-round-the-troops phenomenon. One could contend that war, by its very nature — and not just in Vietnam and Cambodia, but in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan — similarly leads to indifference to civilian suffering or even to blaming the victims.

This is the type of reaction freethinkers face all the time.  Revealing that one's thinking is flimsy and biased can lead to people digging in and rallying round their comfortable and unchallenged beliefs. It’s in part the problem of minds being closed by a drive towards loyalty, stability, respect for authority and group cohesiveness along with purity of thought.  Perhaps we’ve learned a bit of lesson, but still what is needed are teaching moments with the right voices ready to take up the issues.

 

Images

Chuck Hagel: http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/12/18/chuck-hagel-as-a-teachable-moment/

Teachable Moment: http://findability.org/archives/000629.php

Good without God moment: http://generationatheist.blogspot.com/2011/08/teachable-moment-by-shannon-b.html

Paul Kurtz’s Integrated Vision in Quotes- Part 2

By Gary Berg-Cross

Sept 8^th from 2-4 WASH MDC hosts a panel on the life and work of philosopher Paul Kurtz.

Here are a few of the thoughts that make up part of his Integrated Philosophy and his life’s work at the same.

Scientific Naturalism (Paul follows his mentor Sidney Hook)

There is a second meaning of naturalism, which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical-chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture.

Paul Kurtz, "Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism?" Free Inquiry (Spring 1998)

The Role of Intelligence

Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems.

]The Humanist Manifesto II, http://paulkurtz.net/Articles/the%20human%20manifesto%20II.htm

Pragmatic Naturalism

 "Science is not interpreted as an esoteric method of inquiry, but is continuous with standards of critical intelligence used in common, ordinary life." Kurtz, Paul, 1990, Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism, Prometheus Books.

Free Inquiry

Free inquiry means that any effort to prevent the mind from exercising its right to pose questions is unwarranted. Skepticism is a vital principle of inquiry. This principle implies that the reliability of a hypothesis, theory, or belief is a function of the evidence, by which it is supported. If a claim is not justified by verification,
we ought to be cautious in holding fast to it. Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism

Eupraxsophy

There is no word in the English language that adequately conveys the meaning of secular humanism. Secular humanism is not a religion; it represents a philosophical, scientific, and ethical outlook. I have accordingly introduced a new term, eupraxsophy, in order to distinguish humanistic convictions and practices from religious systems of faith and belief. Affirming Life - Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 6. Editorial

New, Positive, Rational Skepticism

New Skepticism encompasses inquiry rather than doubt. It is Positive and constructive. The transformation of negative critical analysis of claims to knowledge into a positive contribution. The key principle of skeptical inquiry is to seek, when feasible, adequate evidence and reasonable grounds for any claim to truth in any context (paraphrase)

Secular Humanism

The secular humanist paradigm has six main characteristics: (1) it is a method of inquiry, (2) it provides a naturalistic cosmic outlook, (3) it is nontheistic, (4) it is committed to human ethics, (5) it offers a perspective that is democratic, and (6) it is planetary in scope. I should point out that many allies within the freethought or rationalist movement may accept one or more of these characteristics without accepting them all. Some mistakenly consider secular humanism to be equivalent with atheism, others with methodological naturalism, and still others with humanistic ethics. Secular humanism, however, is broader than any of these views; for it provides an integrated scientific-philosophical synthesis that encompasses all of these and more. This is sometimes called "naturalistic humanism." Ultimately, secular humanism proposes nothing less than the complete implementation of the agenda of modernism. This agenda in fact has yet to be fully implemented; what is necessary for it to occur is a post-modernist New Enlightenment.
-- Paul Kurtz, What is Secular Humanism (2007) page 23

Planetary Vision of Humanism

The overriding need is "to develop a new Planetary Humanism" that will seek to preserve human rights and enhance human freedom and dignity and will emphasize our commitment "to humanity as a whole." The underlying ethical principle "is the need to respect the dignity and worth of all persons in the world community." Thinkers as diverse as Peter Singer and Hans Küng also emphasize the need for a new global ethic beyond nationalistic, racial, religious, and ethnic chauvinism.
-- Paul Kurtz, What is Secular Humanism (2007) page 53, quoting from the Humanist Manifesto 2000

Joyful Exuberance

Humanists find exuberance to be intrinsically worthwhile for its own sake. This is usually identified with happiness. The Greeks called it eudaimonia, or well-being; this meant the actualization of a person’s nature, with pleasure as a by-product, not for the solitary moment, but in a complete life. This entails some moderation of a person’s desires. But I add that, in joyful exuberance, there is high excitement, the intensity of living, throbbing with passion, engaging in daring activities of enterprise and adventure.

Joyful exuberance is enhanced when we not only fulfill our needs and wants, but creatively express our goals and aspirations. It denotes some degree of excellence, nobility, even perfectibility, of a person’s talents and achievements. It comes to fruition for those who find life intensely worth living and at times exhilarating. Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 6.s

Affirmative Stance

I believe that a person should take an affirmative outlook. There are always problems in life, old and new, uncertainties, and unexpected contingencies. The optimal way to deal with this is not to give up in despair, but to move ahead using the best intelligence and resources that we have to overcome adversity.
-- Paul Kurtz, from snowy Buffalo, NT, "New Year's Message from Paul Kurtz" (December 31, 2001) from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-k2.htm

Image Credit

Top Graphic – created by Gary Berg-Cross

Forbidden Fruit: http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/paul-kurtz/forbidden-fruit/_/R-400000000000000301151

Affirmations: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/295112.Affirmations

Considering Some of Paul Kurtz's Thoughts

by Gary Berg-Cross

Paul Kurtz has had a long and remarkable career as a public intellectual which includes major contributor to secular humanism but also to critical thinking, ethics, skepticism and American philosophy in general. From a perspective that started in the 50s by 1980 he could look at 30s years of struggle to advance the humanist community against the rising power of fundamentalism and still has perhaps good advice for our current struggle. There is some backlast, fundamentalist similarity

As James A. Haught noted in Fundamentalist Political Power in America

The historic U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1962 and 1963 against government-led school prayer, plus the 1973 opinion legalizing a woman’s right to choose abortion, along with the easing of social stigmas against gays and the like, all convinced them that Satan was gaining control of America.

Evangelist Jerry Falwell coalesced this group by forming the Moral Majority.

What to do as fundamentalism tipped the ballot balance to conservative hero Ronald Reagan and the 80s and 90s saw growing politicio-religious influence of groups like the moral majority? It was the issue facing the humanists, secularists (and the country) at the turn of the century and we feel it surging again.

Writing in the 80s Paul Kurtz drew up analysis of the problems and added some reasonable strategic ideas. These have sometimes been simplified down to an accomodationist label and contrasted with the New Atheists’ strong anti-religious stances and statements. As one might expect from a strategic and philosophical thinker the Kurtz position is, I think, more complicated than can be covered by the passivism evoked by the accomodationist tag. Here is a very small bit of the advice he offered the Humanist Movement back in the 8Os:

“First it is vital that we offer strong negative criticism of false religions and ideologies. All the great religions have grown by attacking those about them. As secular humanists, we need to defend skepticism, nontheism, agnosticism, atheism, and we need to question false doctrines found in Judaism, Christianity,, Islam and Marxist ideology, as well as the newer cults of unreason. Moreover, we need to guard against the intrusion of religion into our secular institutions.

Second, we need to enunciate the positive thrust of humanism. That is why humanism is more than atheism, for humanism is committed to an alternative set of ethical values. We are not simply negative naysayers; we have a constructive, alternative perspective full of meaning and significance.

Third, we should not clothe our message solely in rational terms but must make it eloquent and dramatic, appealing to the whole person, including his emotions, and expressing both the tragic and numerous elements of the human condition. This means we are committed to the expansion of the creative dimensions of humanism.

From “The Future of the Humanist Movement”, Free Inquiry, Fall, 1983, reproduced In Defense of Secular Humanism. By Paul Kurtz(1983)

I take this argument to subsume some of the strategy of the New Atheists. Point one is supportive of that effort and Paul has said that New Atheists have had a positive impact. People are talking about the issues.. But point 2 adds an important aspect to a strategy. You need to be positive as well as negative and go farther into discussion of things like ethics and how we live. As Kurtz said in interview speaking of the New Atheist writings:

“But for the secular humanist, it is not so much the stridency of these books that is at issue, as it is what’s missing from these books. Are there any ethical values and principles that nonreligious individuals can live by?"

I would add that point 3 shows Kurtz’s a John Dewey-like psychological sophistication of human understanding of factors, as discussed in earlier blogs on associative thought, cognitive biases and the role of emotions in holding on to beliefs.

In my opinion Kurtz has lead a noble life. His many ideas  span a long period of time are deep and remain contemporary.  Many would profit from hearing considering them. 

To this end WASH’s MDC chapter has invited a panel of 4 people who know him well. The will be on hand Saturday, Sept 8^th, 2 -4 p.m. at the Wheaton Regional Public Library, 11701 Georgia Ave to discuss this and his effects to build a constructive secular alternative to religion.

The Panel: Edd Doerr, Stuart Jordan, Margeret Downey and Nathan Bupp

Please come and invite your friends. The meeting if free and open to the public.

Image credits:

Margaret Downey and Nathan Bupp: Provided by them

Edd Doerr: http://humanism.ws/featured/former-aha-head-embarrassed-by-negative-humanism/

Stuart Jordan: http://www.instituteforscienceandhumanvalues.net/appearances.htm
Wordle graphic at the top was created by Gary Berg-Cross from the Kurtz quote used above and is publically available online.

Notes from the Humanist Strategy Wars and Sharing Humanist Values

By Gary Berg-Cross

In the free thinking community there are bound to be disputes and honest differences of opinion about difficult but important issues. Think of Aristotle and Plato or Newton and Leibnitz as detailed in the book Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World. (Or Stephan Jay Gould and most evolutionary theorists). Just because gifted people think on an issue, doesn’t mean there will be an easy convergence. Paul Kurtz and Richard Dawkins may agree on many scientific things and taking an atheist stance. But they may not agree on the tactics of keeping up community momentum & the vision needed to build toward a less faith-centric world. Dawkins as a representative of the New Atheists, believes that religion writ large tends to fundamentalism that is so radically absolutist, anti-intellectual and uncompromising that it is extremely harmful. In reaction the strategy is that religion must be publicly discredited and opposed for the good of society. This side of freethinking takes a confrontational approach and is contrasted with what was called the "don't rock the boat” crowd in an earlier article on this Blog. The New Atheist side has been presented on the blog recently, but less about the alternative has been blogged here, so I thought I would jot down a few things drawing on Paul Kurtz’s earlier writing.

Kurtz’s position reflects a less confrontational style and his concerns about a strident approach were evident in a 2010 Buffalo News interview. In that interview he deplored a hot focus on attacking religion. The worry is that it might come at the expense of other broader humanists goals (such as articulated in the NEO-HUMANIST STATEMENT OF SECULAR PRINCIPLES AND VALUES: PERSONAL, PROGRESSIVE, AND PLANETARY)

"It's become fixated in recent years on atheism, the criticism of religion," ..And I think that's a strategic blunder. Not just a strategic blunder, but a philosophical and ethical one, as well…. Let's say the atheists are successful, and religion continues to decline, so what do you have, a vacuum?" …. "That's really the burning issue in America today: How shall I live? What should I strive for?"

Kurtz, unlike the New Atheists, sees a place for believers in the broad spectrum of secular humanism for some time. It’s just a practical consideration of how society may evolve in manageable steps. Without a working agreement on some shared values for the common good any movement toward a more humanist societies (based on humanist principles as linked to above, rather than faith) will go nowhere. We might hope that enough of us share core values, although some express these in religious forms and others in human terms.  Then if so we can move ahead on some things and iron out wrinkles from old thinking as we progress. This is perhaps the idea developed somewhat in Robert Wright's (at times confusing) book, THE EVOLUTION OF GOD. Why do people believe in a figurative concept like God and Religion? One useful view of God is as a concept, like a cultural tool, that people use for various purposes such as to discuss and justify values. Such a belief is not a matter of truth grounded in external reality, but one of a concept that serves a purpose. Kurtz developed this view in his 1958 article "Functionalism and the Justification of Religion" (a book chapter in In Defense of Secular Humanism ).

We get a sense of this functional role of the God concept from the still familiar old style God/Religion Biblical concepts crafted in the Bronze Age. The guiding principles could be  pretty harsh (such as an eye for an eye and an Old Testament God that is vain and vengeful) but could be useful tribally. Common concepts holds tribes together. They helped provide a way of life and serve more as artistic justifications of things than scientific. Our standards for justification has changed but fundamentalists still find value in them, while some humanist's strategy is to continue and speed up  the evolution of the ideas and provide alternative tools.

So the argument is that if the attack on these old, unevolved concepts is just one of scientific truth, it misses the larger role that concepts play in giving meaning to people’s lives. Such old concepts are used in the sense that they ought to be true rather than are true. But in this way we might say that some humanist concepts will appeal to religious people who will see that they ought to be true and provide increased benefits. Evolved principles should replace and might the older concepts by substituting for their functional value. Framed this way the idea is to not just attack the "truth" of an idea, but to work on making others believe in humanist evolved values. This is one group's strategy for adapting some figurative concepts (and their implied values) over time. It’s happened before as the “love thy neighbor” addition found in Christian writing evolved in top of the earlier Jewish writings. Caring for one’s neighbor is a good concept to believe in and a value to share with others. Viewed as a humanist ideas may help evolve figurative religious culture. One view of the reality of the situation was expressed this way:

"Religion will be the medium by which people express their values for a long time to come, so it's important to understand what brings out the best and the worst in it." Robert Wright

Image Credits:

Paul Kurtz: http://peruhumanaratio.blogspot.com/

Book Festivals for Freethinkers

By Gary Berg-Cross

The Baltimore-DC area gets its share of book festivals. The 2 day 2012 National Book Festival on the mall is coming up in September followed by the Baltimore Festival. There is the Virginia Festival of the Book. The Bethesda Literary Festival of 2012 was just held in April and yesterday I attended a grand, free 1 day book festival in Gaithersburg modeled after the National Book Festival with writing workshops, exhibitors, book sales, book signings, children’s entertainment and activities, blue grass music food vendors, and a Coffee House featuring poetry readings and musical entertainment. And yes there were authors. Both national and local authors there to speak under tents to answer questions and sign books. These covered a wide range of topics with a generous number of children's books, memoirs, historical novels e.g. on (J Edgar Hoover), mysteries (Tom Alngleberger), politics & news, sports, comedy, fiction, and non-fiction. The non-fiction category included its share of Science talks. I heard and saw Marc Kaufman’s slide presentation on astrobiology (“First Contact”). He was just one of many fine speakers and I’m already looking forward to next year’s event. What I didn’t find at the Gaithersburg Book Festival were any authors of works on atheism, non-believers, skeptics or secular humanists. To be fair I didn’t find philosophers either, but why not some of our fine “local” non-belief authors like Sean Faircloth or Rob Boston? They are great speakers and have presented to WASH chapters recently. And of course there were authors at the Reason Rally. Perhaps all it would take is a bit of
organizational effort to see if they are interested and then put a word in the organizer’s ear. Anybody out there know Founder and Chair Jud Ashman or the new owners at Politics and Prose that was the official Bookseller?

It’s something to think about for next year. I’m sure that if one of the national figures, like Sam Harris, has a new book there will a chance for one of the big venues, but I sure would like to have a secular voice heard at the local festivals. I imagine that we have enough organizational presence to make this a reality in the DC Baltimore area.