iHumanism

by Doug Berger

In my last essay I described some of the basic assumptions of Humanism. In this edition I want to talk about one of the prime precepts of Humanism, and all of Freethought.

Critical thinking is THE most important tool we can use to evaluate truth and to work out human solutions to human problems. You would be surprised at the number of people who think they know what critical thinking means and either have it all wrong, or use it incorrectly. Critical thinking is not just having two or more sides to an issue or story. Critical thinking helps us construct and understand a reasoned argument. It also helps us discover false arguments. The question of if we like the conclusion of the argument we reach isn’t that important, only that the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true.

Carl Sagan, astronomer and astrobiologist, in his book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark” (1996), gives some tools to use in our critical thinking. He says these tools are a ‘baloney detection kit’. Although Sagan focuses on science arguments, we can use these tools, with slight adjustments, for other areas of our lives. The tools include:

• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
• Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
• Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
• If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
• Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
• Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Sagan also describes thinks we shouldn’t do when trying to use critical thinking. Your argument or reasoning will fail if you use these:

• ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously);
• Argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out);
• Argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable.* Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives);
• Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• Special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
• Begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?);
• Observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers);
• Statistics of small numbers — a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”);
• Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
• Inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
• Non sequitur — Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
• Post hoc, ergo propter hoc — Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons);
• Excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”);
• Short-term vs. long-term — a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
• Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);
• Confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore — despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former);

The boloney detection kit isn’t 100% perfect but when used correctly it can help us make reasoned decisions about many areas of our lives.

Part of this essay originally appeared in the July/August 2006 Central Ohio Humanist. Doug is the founder and editor of iHumanism, editor of the Central Ohio Humanist, and founder and editor of the Secular Left blog. ©2006 Doug Berger, used with permission. Please give proper attribution if using parts of this essay in other works.

by Doug Berger

Most of us, when finally discovering Humanism and taking the plunge, ask ‘What’s next?’ Some of us wonder how to apply our new found philosophy to our daily lives. Even some of us want to learn about the different aspects of the philosophy.

This is the first of a series where I will discuss some of the items noted above. I will touch on what the basic Humanist consensus is and how to apply it in one’s daily life.

Of course since Humanism is not dogmatic and I’m not the Humanist Pope, I’m just going to express my view and interpretations of Humanism. You may not agree with everything I have to say, but I hope I give you something to think about.

In future articles I may include what other HCCO members and friends have to say about a particular topic.

To start this undertaking, I need to state some basic common assumptions about Humanism so you understand what I am talking about in later articles. You could call them assumptions, precepts, or foundations. They are based on my reading of various texts from Humanists about Humanism.

My sources include Corliss Lamont and Lloyd and Mary Morain for a start. I’ll try to introduce some other writers and thinkers about Humanism in later essays.

Humanism is a non-theistic worldview. Notice I didn’t say atheist or agnostic. That is because it isn’t about a belief or non-belief in a deity that is important. What is important is that a belief of or about some deity or force outside of nature is irrelevant to living ones life as a Humanist. People may feel good with the rituals or the traditions of a religion but those items don’t have any bearing on living as a Humanist.

In his book “The Philosophy of Humanism,” Corliss Lamont wrote:

Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness.

It is important to note that while a belief in a deity is not of primary importance, freedom of conscience is important. That’s why it can seem, from the outside, that Humanists are anti-religious. We aren’t “anti-religious.” We support religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all and when we do try and protect those issues we are speaking and acting against religious authoritarians but not the average people who may believe in a deity.

Humanism supports justice and equality for all. This idea is about fairness. Philosopher John Rawls wrote a book in 1971 called A Theory of Justice. Rawls lays out the basic idea.

First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. [Rawls, p24]

Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that:
a) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
b) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).[Rawls, 1971, pg. 303]

In 2001 he published a revised theory that had been corrected over the years since the first book but it still contained the core idea that:

Society’s institutions should be set up such that we would find the outcome fair and just even if we entered society without knowing in advance what our race, religion, or social class might be. We should consider the system just regardless of where in that system we find ourselves.

Of particular importance for Rawls in this book is the question of pluralism in society: if people differ on morality, religion, and philosophy, how can they live together in a single democratic society? Rawls argues that conformity on ‘comprehensive worldviews’ can only be achieved by imposing it via a repressive state; therefore, significant pluralism must be accepted. [Review by Austin Cline - atheism.about.com]

Humanism is a-political. Neither extreme is correct. Some Humanists have claimed one must be a Liberal while another group thinks one has to be a Libertarian. While applying Humanism to political issues tends to fit a more liberal outlook, the philosophy is not predicated on a particular political belief or agenda.

Most Humanists I know, myself included, are independent politically. We believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people while mitigating any harm to those who may be left out. It is also about finding the best solution for human problems and the best might come from the right or the left.

Lloyd and Mary Morain wrote in their book “Humanism As The Next Step”:

Consider these central ideas. We ourselves must take responsibility for making the world a better place in which to live, as there is no being or power, called by whatever name, to whom we can shift this task. We have the means to improve the world through effective use of our human abilities.

Humanism is filtered by one’s experiences and background so it important to have new experiences and to learn about other perspectives.

Lamont wrote:

Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-development with significant work and other activities that contribute to the welfare of the community.

We must be open to new ideas and challenges to our established ideas if we are progress and evolve toward a better world and life.

Humanism uses logic and reason tempered by compassion to find truth in our world. Rather than relying on faith or revelation, Humanists require concrete evidence and testable information. Using logic and reason to find truth has led to some complaints that we are cold people who support a survivor of the fittest social Darwinism. That’s where the compassion comes in.While we use reason and logic, we also have to remember that we are dealing with issues that affect people ? real people. What might be “true” from reason and logic may not be the correct way as it might do harm to others.

One concept that was “true” but not correct was Humanist support for Eugenics before World War II. It was a social philosophy, which advocated the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals were to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society’s resources, and lessen human suffering. Unfortunately, Eugenics was used to justify coercive state-sponsored discrimination and severe human rights violations, such as forced sterilization and even genocide.

Humanism is not static. It continues to evolve as new information and thinking comes up. Unlike the average theist, Humanists don’t rest when we find an answer. Like on the issue of Eugenics, Humanists can and do change our minds when new information requires it.

Humanism is first about the individual but the community in which we live is also important. It is pretty simple really. We as individuals are better off and happier when the community in which we live is happy, and the community can be happy when each of us, as individuals, work to make it so.

It isn’t an all consuming altruism but we do what we do to benefit the community because it will benefit ourselves.

Notice that many of these assumptions seem to overlap or are dependent on other assumptions. I’m sure many wish it could all be absolute like say the 10 Commandments, but what I like about Humanism is that these precepts feed on one another. It adds interest and complexity that make for good philosophical discussions.

Next time – How do we apply Humanism in our daily lives?

This essay originally appeared in the May/June 2006 Central Ohio Humanist. Doug is the founder and editor of iHumanism, editor of the Central Ohio Humanist, and founder and editor of the Secular Left blog. ©2006 Doug Berger, used with permission. Please give proper attribution if using parts of this essay in other works.

by Alistair Robinson

Most of us are outraged by the violent actions of animal rights extremists, but at the same time the movement’s ideas and assumptions are gaining a foothold in the media and the public imagination. From my own experience it seems that among the young thinking people of this country animal rights is a very attractive political and ethical stance. My question is this: how can we be sure that things such as empathy for animals, concern for their moral status, and a desire to put them on a par with humans, do not stem only from a false attribution of uniquely human emotions?

We have a predisposition to see ourselves in the world around us: we endow the universe with human characteristics such as consciousness, and call it God; we hear an expression of love in a cat?s purr; we see an ancient oak as dignified and venerable. This is anthropomorphism. We attribute human characteristics to the things of the world, and those things are independent of that attribution: the fact that we have decided that they have qualities of our own does not make a difference to the actuality of the things themselves. It is, though, natural and important to the way we perceive the world. Unfortunately this means that we often naturally perceive the world falsely, that is, irrationally. Now this is not always a problem (the dawn chorus sounds like joy, and it makes us joyful – so what?), and it is mostly resisted in the areas where it might bias our judgement to dire effect, such as science. But there is an increasing acceptance of anthropomorphism in supposedly rational debates about the differences between humans and animals. And as we shall see, even in some scientific research there is a susceptibility to it.

Leaving aside the arguments about whether or not animals have, or should have, inalienable rights, one persuasive argument for better animal welfare is that the inhumane treatment of animals is uncivilized: that it dehumanizes and brutalizes us. After all, our actions are conscious and chosen, because we are uniquely self-aware and free. We can see that if cruelty repulses us and evokes imaginative emotions and empathy (anthropomorphic as we are) then it might follow that continually straining these responses will desensitize us to cruelty in general, stripping us of our compassion for all beings, including our fellow humans. And this may be true for society as well as for individuals.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett suggests that just as the mistreatment of the dead bodies of our loved ones would be unacceptable to us – despite our knowing that the person has gone – so there may be a similarly good reason to treat animals well, no matter if our empathy and compassion are anthropomorphic. Culture carries with it beliefs and customs that are important to us, and not necessarily because they have obvious practical value or a basis in a true perception of the world.

I do believe that the humane treatment of animals is preferable for these reasons, but we are now seeing anthropomorphism encroach on the part of our society that should be free from it: science. Anthropomorphic conclusions are being presented as additions to our body of knowledge about the world. Some science is now being claimed – often, it seems, by the scientists themselves – to bear out the assumptions of animal rights activists: ?Does a hook hurt a fish? The evidence is reeling in.?¹

In this article I will concentrate on the ideas of cruelty and suffering. There are more fundamental problems to be tackled when looking deeply into animal rights philosophy: if we decide to give an animal independent moral status, doesn?t that mean that we presuppose the capacity to make moral decisions, and ultimately the capacity of consciousness? Can a species be conscious at all if it has not developed language? Some neuroscientists, as well as some modern philosophers, have said that it cannot. And then we have the controversy over the communicative abilities of chimpanzees. I will look briefly at consciousness further on, but here I leave these issues open, and turn to suffering.

A recent study by a team from the Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh concluded that fish feel pain, implying that angling is cruel. Researchers tested the neural responses of rainbow trout and injected the fish with mild poisons. A few incontrovertible statements can be made in the light of the study?s findings: fish have specific neural receptors that respond to heat, mechanical pressure and acid; the neurons fire in a way very similar to the firing patterns of human neurons in response to adverse stimuli; fish behave abnormally when their lips are injected with bee venom and vinegar, rocking from side to side and breathing very rapidly; and the abnormal behaviours and symptoms are not seen – or at least not to the same extent – either in fish that are simply handled or those that are given an injection of a harmless substance.

What are we to conclude from all this? It is truly an addition to our knowledge – it is especially enlightening on the evolutionary divergence of bony fishes and cartilaginous fishes – but can we conclude from it that fish feel pain? To begin with there is the problem that such a conclusion depends upon a scientific definition of pain, of which there is none. We might define it with reference to the actions of neurons in response to adverse stimuli, but this is only the physiological cause: when we use the word we mean the experience. Even behavioural responses need not be concomitant with an experiential mental state. It seems to me that an adequate definition must take in psychology as well as physiology and behaviour. So it might be that we cannot proceed strictly by deduction from the scientific results to the presence of pain. But why shouldn?t we make a reasonable conclusion based on some other reasonable assumptions? It may seem too obvious to be denied that if another vertebrate species behaves in the same way as we do under a corresponding stimulus, and if its physiological responses to that stimulus are the same as ours, then it feels what we feel.

We can see the assumptions being made here more clearly if we consider a definition, given by contemporary philosopher David DeGrazia, of another kind of suffering: anxiety. DeGrazia gives four components to anxiety, all having been observed scientifically in animals:

1. Autonomic hyperactivity (rapid pulse and breathing, sweating, etc.)
2. Motor tension (jumpiness)
3. Inhibition of normal behaviours
4. Hyperattentiveness (visual scanning, etc.)

These are the symptoms of anxiety that we see in humans. But it might be misleading to group these as a definition of anxiety, because we are accustomed to using the word to signify more than the physiological and behavioural symptoms. When we say anxiety and mean an experience, we cannot omit the thing that allows us to experience in the first place: consciousness of the self existing through time, or temporal self-awareness – the very thing that allows us to be aware of what is happening to us. And DeGrazia does in fact assume this to be the context of the four components, both in humans and in animals. So the definition above, if we are to apply it across the board, asks that we assume what we are trying to prove: that animals experience things in the way that we do.

I now want to present a candidate for the presumed logical argument of all those who claim scientific back-up for the idea that animals experience something akin to human suffering; that fish feel pain or that deer suffer stress. But first I must clear up my meanings. In my argument so far, pain and anxiety are more or less interchangeable. We might also add fear to the list. They are kinds of suffering that have behavioural and physiological symptoms, and that are said by some to be experienced by animals. So to make things simpler I will use the word suffering. Now, I have cast doubt on certain uses of the words pain and anxiety. Taking this further (perhaps too far), even suffering could be said to apply only to humans. So for convenience I will use it to mean simply the state of a being subjected to adverse stimuli.

For the science to be conclusive on its own, the logic needs to run like this:

1. The nature of both human and nonhuman suffering is in essence physiological and behavioural
2. The human and nonhuman physiological and behavioural characteristics of suffering are the same
3. Therefore nonhuman suffering is in essence the same as human suffering

The logic is valid but not necessarily true: statement 2 is definitely provable but statement 1 is disputable. It could also be seen as an example of petitio principii reasoning, where the conclusion is taken for granted in a premise, in this case statement 1.

This is something of a caricature, and I did state earlier that even if a deductive argument doesn?t work, we might still reasonably make conclusions. A fairer representation of the argument might be that the evidence points to the probability of pain and anxiety in animals, if we also accept that many animals are to some extent temporally self-aware, or conscious. Here we can see the same problem cropping up again: whatever the scientific results tell us, they need to be interpreted in a certain way if they are to lead to: QED fish feel pain. So the whole question turns on whether it is a reasonable assumption that animals are conscious, something that I cannot cover here in much depth. But crucially we have seen that the cited scientific evidence alone is silent on the question of whether fish feel pain, because it is silent on the question of whether fish are conscious.

Suffering does take on a different quality in a conscious, imaginatively emotional being. As we experience it, it depends upon our sense of ourselves, our sense of the passage of time and of the changing fortunes in our lives. When we are subjected to adverse stimuli we feel pain, anxiety and fear for the very reason that we are conscious of what is happening to us – we experience the stimuli, not only respond unwittingly to them. But because we share so much of our evolutionary history with animals, the outward signs of these responses are similar. We recognize distress in another human being and can be forgiven for attributing the same set of emotions to an animal if we see it behave in the same way.

Even if we are looking only at the science we find disagreement. There is evidence to suggest that fish do not have the capacity to feel pain. Previous studies have found that they do not have an area of the brain corresponding to our own neural pain-processor – the neocortex – so that although the same signals are sent to the brain, there is no recognizable pain-experience-producing region to go to when they arrive. This at least tells us that we cannot describe what it is like to be a suffering fish, because its brain processes the signals in an alien way. How, then, can we make any sort of moral conclusion on this, unless we simply decide – guided by taste, inclination and sentiment – that fish do experience something like human suffering?

Before I conclude, I will touch upon the problem of consciousness, which is probably the crux of the matter. I suggested earlier that a being cannot be conscious without language. Neuroscientists Gerald M. Edelman and Giulio Tononi have written that the concepts of the self and the past and future emerged only when language appeared in the course of evolution, in communities of speakers. There must have been an intimate connection between social development and the evolution of consciousness, and language must be the likeliest contender for that connection.

It has been argued that although we (a) use language and (b) are conscious, (b) need not depend on (a). If it did, the argument goes, babies would not be able to feel pain or experience fear before they developed their language ability. There are two points to be made here. First, it is probably true that new-born babies are not quite conscious. We nurture and protect them while knowing that from the outset they are developing, becoming more and more human. Second, modern cognitive psychology and linguistics tells us that a baby is learning language right from the start. New-born babies have linguistic skills, because language is partly built-in: it is not just a matter of filling an empty brain with vocabulary and syntax. It seems problematic, then, to back up the claim that language is not necessary for consciousness by comparing animals to babies, which are just humans in development.

But consciousness is another story – a complicated one and the hottest topic for philosophers today – and I must leave it there.

Few of us want to see animals being treated inhumanely, but we would do well to consider how our natural and perhaps inaccurate assumptions about the inner lives of animals can affect our understanding of the true differences between ourselves and other species. Animal rights has more adherents than ever before, and many who profess no passionate beliefs on the subject seem to accept its ideas. The media is currently highly responsive to claims about pain and stress in animals, and science at times is taking anthropomorphism at face-value, and allowing it to bias its conclusions.

This could well be to do with the mood of the age, one that happily brings man down a peg or two on the scale of importance at every opportunity. While it is to be welcomed that thanks to science we no longer see ourselves at the centre of the universe as destiny?s chosen creatures, we also need to keep ourselves from allowing the spirit of the times to colour our unique, rational understanding of the world.

1. Randerson, J. 2003 Does a hook hurt a fish? The evidence is reeling in. New Scientist May: 15

By Doug Berger

I wanted to take the opportunity to write an essay in rebuttal to an essay written by Jane Haddam that was posted on her official website in 2003.

Jane is a published author of several mystery novels and freelance articles for various mainstream magazines.

I have had the pleasure of discussing the points made in her essay on an e-mail list called “sechum” at Yahoo Groups, on which we both participated. We debated and argued the points and I think it is healthy for Humanists to read reasoned critical essays about Humanism.

I really recommend you read her essay in full so that my thoughts don’t appear like I am taking things out of context.

Here is the link: http://www.janehaddam.com/chd/notahumanist.html

The main thrust of her essay is that she takes an exception with the Humanism being expressed by the main national groups, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Council of Secular Humanism (CSH), on their website and in their official magazines. She feels that the groups exclude people with political philosophies such as her’s. Specifically she sees the magazines and websites promoting what she calls a “left-liberal” political agenda.

I first heard the word “left-liberal” in a posting from Jane on the e-mail list. She claimed that liberal publications use the term to separate themselves from Clinton Liberals who like former President Clinton are more centrists then classic Liberals.

In my research, most of the articles and essays using “left-liberal” came from obviously conservative websites and publications. I found one reference on a liberal website but the word was used more as sarcastic remark like when men say “Sorry, I’m just a pig” to women they insulted.

My conclusion is that “left-liberal” is used as a pejorative like “Liberal” is when used by people who don’t like Liberal politics. It is not just an alternative label as Jane claims.

Aside from that point, I feel Jane makes some points that Humanists should examine, but where I disagree with her is her insistence that a particular political viewpoint on an issue is an official view of all Humanists. I don’t agree that the lack of any one viewpoint from any magazine articles or books indicates anything about what the Humanist consensus is or what it should be. The magazines and books publish viewpoints that should, if anything, be rooted somewhere in the Humanist philosophy.

I also differ with Jane on what the Humanist movement should be about. She claims we should just be secular – dealing with only protecting the rights of secular people.

I don’t believe the Humanist movement will grow if we ignore our historic political roots. I don’t think that a majority of Americans would become Humanists if we just focus only on secularism or at worst, Humanism will become so generic it won’t stand for much of anything.

“At base, however, we’re still left with a situation where a secular American who believes, as most Americans do, that neither rights nor morals are entirely social constructs must put those convictions aside to join a humanist organization. The same is the case for Americans who are supporters of free market philosophies, or even modified free market philosophies. In fact, in some cases, secular Americans who hold views like that have to learn to keep their mouths shut.”

Jane brings up an interesting point about the nature of groups. I don’t feel that it is only limited to Humanist groups. Even in groups committed to a particular political position, some in the group will not have all their viewpoints expressed in the group. Look at the two major political parties in the US. You have a national platform, calling for specific action on some issues. These platforms were developed by the leadership of the party. I know that some of the planks in those platforms don’t make all Democrats or all Republicans happy. Those individuals choose to belong to the party because they find enough issues to support.

Organized Humanism doesn’t work exactly like a political party. We don’t have a leadership developing a platform. We do have more than one set of general overlapping principles that one can adopt if they find they agree substantially with them but we as a group developed those principles together.

I have observed some Humanists berating someone who had a different particular political viewpoint and I don’t agree that is the right thing to do. Humanists do and should argue and debate those issues rationally with all viewpoints included.

“If the secular movement wants to grow, it has to be a secular movement, not a left-liberal movement that tacks on secularism. That means not only making sure that the house organs publish more than one point of view when they address political questions, but that they spend more time concentrating on secularism than they do on politics. It also means doing something about the nearly monolithic cultural climate in secular groups and on secular discussion forums.”

I do agree with Jane that the national groups, the magazines they publish, and even some Humanists I have met do give the impression that one must be a liberal to be a Humanist. I agree that at least in the AHA, it does seem it is still 1968 and Humanists are suppose to battle “the man” and its oppression etc…

Where I do disagree with Jane is her insistence that Humanism should only be about the rights of secularists.

If I thought that was true I would jump ship and go back to calling myself an Atheist.

Humanism is a defined philosophy that incorporates reason, science, and logic to try and solve human problems. Humanists reject any supernaturalism for anything from morals to solutions to problems.

Humanism should include as many viewpoints on issues of interest to us. Humanist principles do not advocate and should not advocate one particular political viewpoint over all others unless that one viewpoint is seen as the best way to address the problem or issue.

I think the reason that Jane feels she doesn’t fit into Humanism and why she claims that Humanist thought is too liberal is because the Humanist philosophy, as a whole, is “left” of center in the political spectrum. A majority of Humanists probably are tentative liberals even if they shy away from the label as many of us shy away from the Atheist label.

As another list participant put it, if a Humanist who is a conservative wants to make an argument of an issue from their perspective then they should. The fact that hasn’t happened often enough is because conservatives are a minority within Humanism not because the principles dictate it.

Jane then makes the following point:

“I have no idea why a “[c]ommitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry…in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions,” as CSH’s What is Secular Humanism page puts it, should lead inevitably to support for assisted suicide or the conviction that there is no objective basis for morality–if you ask me, it should lead straight to the opposite conclusions–but I do know that I am not willing to support organizations that promote policies I think are wrong.”

I have been following the assisted suicide debate in the media and on some of the Humanism e-mail lists. The main arguments against assisted suicide have been based on religious morals not secular ones. Religionists believe that suicide is a sin and therefore should be against the law. Most Humanists believe that it is the person involved who should make the decision and the state should stay out of it. We think of it as a rights issue not a moral question much like most of us support a woman’s right to an abortion even if some of us, like myself, don’t like abortion.

There is another non-religious argument against assisted suicide that involves the potential of abuse. Some people feel that a terminally ill person could be manipulated to ask for assisted suicide or it could be used to free up health resources by unscrupulous health care people.

The question of an objective morality is one of those debates that just doesn’t seem to end because the answer isn’t clear. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Jane feels very strongly that there is an objective morality and she finds opposite views repugnant.

Individual Humanist views on those issues do differ but the public face (the magazines, websites, and books) has tended to express one particular viewpoint. I believe that other viewpoints should be published as long as those viewpoints are drawn from Humanist principles.

Someone, outside the Humanist movement, could draw the incorrect impression that what comes from the National groups is the “official” view of all Humanists. We should be emphasizing the fact that the Humanist consensus isn’t dictated from Headquarters.

“Second, both magazines, and their parent organizations, redefine several philosophical issues as conflicts between “church” and “state.” That practice extends to many of the smaller organizations as well, like the Institute for First American Studies. Abortion and euthanasia are presented as if no one could ever object to either if they didn’t believe in God. Questions about funding abortion through Medicaid or providing condoms to students in public schools turn on presenting the “pro” case as secular and the “con” as purely religious.”

While I do agree we need to be careful which issues we define into a conflict between church and state, unfortunately she mentions the three issues that in fact are a conflict of church vs. state. The pro side is based on a secular argument and the con side is based on God’s law.

Arguments from secularists against abortion, euthanasia, and condom handouts have been made but the Humanist consensus on those issues happens to be one based on the conflict between church and state. That is how the debate in the public is framed. Since the “con” arguments are based on religious or subjective tastes the argument becomes part of the “Church & State” debate.

“Third, both major organizations–and most of the small ones–hold fast to a philosophical and scientific paradigm that is out of date anywhere else on the planet. Science may have abandoned the blank slate and environmental determinism decades ago, but organized humanism still loves them both. That love has consequences. It means that organized humanism is still promoting “relativism” in morality, not merely by rejecting absolutism–which would make sense–but by denying that morals have any objective basis at all. It means that organized humanism denies any basis for political and civil rights except the whim of the society that chooses to grant them. In addition, most importantly, it means that organized humanism is still fatally attracted to social engineering. If environment is everything, and rights don’t exist except when society decides to give them to you, it makes sense to push for the control of children and their upbringing and education. That’s how you “effect change” for “the good of society.”"

The issues she mentions in the quote above are issues that we Humanists debate a lot in person and on e-mail lists. Not all Humanists hold the same view on those issues. We don’t march in lock step with each other. In fact, those issues above aren’t even mentioned specifically in the various principles of Humanism printed by the AHA and CSH.

Viewpoints on both sides of the argument could be derived from the principles but these issues are political issues and in politics, you can have a wide range of thought.

“Organized humanism” doesn’t love the “blank slate” and “environmental determinism.” “Organized Humanism” isn’t promoting “relativism” or believing civil rights only exist on the whim of society. “Organized Humanism” is not fatally attracted to social engineering. Do some individual Humanists express those views? Sure. However the national groups don’t hold any of those positions nor would I want them to.

Again Jane makes the mistake in thinking that the national groups dictate the Humanist consensus or sanctions those views by publishing articles about them in their magazines.

I would go so far as to say that “Organized Humanism” doesn’t exist. Belonging to a group is not required to be a Humanist. There is no test or allegiance required. There is no political test either.

To be a Humanist all you need to do is read the principles. If you find you agree substantially with them then you are a Humanist.

As Jane found from personal experience, just because someone says they are a Humanist doesn’t mean they will act like one all the time.

I have met some Humanists who love the free market and think that Humanism should only be about protecting individual rights. They consider themselves Humanists because Humanists favor individual rights.

On the other hand I know some Humanists who are more liberal than I am. They are against war ‘period’. They believe we would be better off as a socialist state.

I can tell you that such ultra-liberalism is not reflected by a majority of Humanists I know or talk to. Using Jane’s arguments, one could complain that Humanism is too conservative since you don’t read any articles about building communes.

The point is that Humanism is not just about politics or only about one issue like rights. Humanism is a philosophy of life that helps find human answers to human problems in a rational way without the need for a God.

I think Jane’s essay expresses some problems with the public face of Humanism that should be looked at and changed if necessary. However, I don’t agree that organized Humanism is a political organization first, secular as an afterthought.

I don’t believe that non-Liberal viewpoints are actively excluded. Those viewpoints are a minority of minority philosophy. That doesn’t mean those ideas are invalid, only that such ideas are not supported by the same number of Humanists who support the opposite viewpoint. If you have many more people holding the same views then it naturally will be expressed in print.

Non-liberal viewpoints are needed to fill out our search for a consensus and they deserve the same respect we give Liberal ideas. We may not agree with them but we do need to listen.

Written on September 16, 2001

By Doug Berger

A big black smoking hole in one of the World Trade Center towers was the first scene I saw at 8:55 am on Tuesday September 11, 2001. Thick black smoke poured into the air. The reporters said a plane had crashed into the tower. At 9:03 am I witnessed, live on TV, a second jet come into view and plow into the other tower with a resultant explosion as thousands of pounds of fuel ignited.

“What the f***?” I remember saying while the commentators on the morning show were asking if they just saw what they just saw. They reran the video and yes it was a second jet crashing into the other tower.

As news people scrambled to get the story I scrambled to understand what had just happened. Both towers, symbols of New York, were on fire. I felt for the people in the tower, on the planes, and on the ground. What happened? Why did it happen? I did know that it was not an accident. Then President Bush made a statement while on a visit to Florida before getting ready to head back to Washington DC.

At 9:40 am reports came in that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon in Washington. The news showed video of the black smoke rolling up from the building. Now I was num. I really didn’t know what was going on or what to do. The news reported that all airports in New York and Washington were now closed.

Less than an hour later I saw, live on TV, first one then the other tower collapsing to the ground. All 1,000 feet of steel, glass, and cement cascaded to the ground. Another report came in of another passenger jet crashing in Pennsylvania. Now I was sick.

In a little more than an hour we lost more people in a series of connected events than had been lost in similar tragic events of the past.

I was scared at the possibility that more was to come and searched out someone to talk to so I called my mom. I told her I was fine and she said she was O.K. She is a travel agent and she was really busy at the time since the FAA had shut down all the air traffic in the country.

I stayed glue to my TV for the rest of the day only sleeping when my mind and body just gave out.

It has been a 5 days since September 11 and I am still nervous. On Friday I was downtown getting my paycheck and heard a jet flying low and looked up hoping it wasn’t another attack.

Also on Friday our President called for a National Day of Prayer, as if only believers need to gather with others for solace. Instead I met with a friend in a local park for a Toast of Remembrance to the victims as church bells rang in town.

Later in the day I got mad when I heard Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, evangelical Christian leaders, claim that because of abortionists, gays, pagan, and secularists making God mad, God removed some kind of protective cloak He supposedly put around the US since its founding 200 plus years ago. They said we all need to do is get back to God.

I was mad because they were blaming people like me for the causing the attack and that people like them seem to use these tragic events as way of making more money.

I said to myself that any God who would allow over 5,000 people to die at one time is really not worth following. If we accept what Falwell and Robertson said as true then we must also accept that the Islamic extremists who planned and executed the attack had God’s blessing. They went to Heaven according to their beliefs. I was even mad when Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, who I thought was more moderate than Robertson et al., said on two networks that we all need to find Jesus and go back to Him.

I am mad by these kind of comments because they fail to include non-believers and because this tragic event was a political statement mixed with religion. This event is a prime example of the dangers of mixing religion and politics and I felt the comments were leading us down the same road the terrorists used to justify their attack. If we did what Falwell, Robertson, and Graham suggested we would be no better than the terrorists.

To be frank, the religion of the victims and the terrorists would not have caused or prevented the event. It was a political statement and the only thing that mattered was the nationality of the victims and the symbols of the targets. This happened in the US, using US airline planes, and attacking the symbols of the US and the US Government. The terrorists seemed to have been members of a group that hates the US Government and its policies in the region of their homeland.

Through these days I wondered what it all means and after some reflection I believe that I can’t give up my Humanist principles because I am angry and sad or that I am nervous and uncertain about the future. It would be extremely easy to discard my Humanism and go to church and start praying to God again. But would that protect me or my fellow citizens from future harm. I know it won’t. Religion isn’t just part of the problem. We have cultural and economic intolerance. It seems people find many reasons to kill or harm other people simply because they are not like them or they feel they have been harmed in some way. Inequality breeds the intolerance and can lead to violence as we saw on September 11th. Some people become so desperate that they act out in a nasty violent way. They have nothing to lose.

What happened on Tuesday September 11th is not much different than all the other days we live. We don’t know if we will live anymore than we know if we will die. We could step off a curb and get killed by a bus or we could be the victim of a murder. An asteroid could plow into the earth tomorrow. Someone who works out everyday dies while someone who is a couch potato lives to be 100. Going to church or praying, or not, will not have any effect on those events.

We need to live the life we have the best we can with the knowledge that the day could be our last. It is O.K. to feel sad or uncertain or any other of the emotions I know we are all feeling right now, but we know we must move on. We can’t let these events paralyze us.

What about the future?

Our elected leadership, along with a large group of citizens, are talking revenge. I know I considered it myself hours after the event. It is a natural knee-jerk reaction. In this country, that encourages revenge for criminals by using capital punishment, it didn’t surprise me that the only response seems to be revenge.

I would much rather see justice. We have one of the greatest legal systems in the world and our civilization is based on laws created by the members of society. We need to find all those who helped support and finance these attacks and bring them to justice. The terrorists in the attack died and their supporters want to die too, so killing them through military action is exactly what they want. To give them what they want would be to give into their religious beliefs.

The President has said we are at war. I ask a war with whom. War is declared through legal means. That has not happened yet and I am afraid Bush is saying the words to look tough and to justify the use of military force. His words sound eerily like those used my the extremists who have been attacking US targets for years.

I am resigned to the fact that there will be revenge using military force. I also know that if Osama bin Laden is implicated, he will not surrender quietly nor will other terrorists who may be implicated. They want to die. Martyrs are seen as heroes even if they brought about their own death from their own actions.

I also believe that Tuesday’s events didn’t have to happen. From better security at our airports to addressing the reasons people like bin Laden believe terrorism is a good way to make a point, there were human solutions available before Tuesday. We must continue to work on these solutions even in this current climate of terrorism and revenge.

The events of Tuesday September 11th prove to me that Humanism really is the better way to go. I only wish others will get the message.

by Michael Werner

Humanism, I believe, is best seen as an evolving tradition, not fixed by either ideas or practices. In the early 19th century people, were atheists and agnostics, but there was no alternative “story” or narrative. Emerson tried to come up with a naturalistic story using the concept of the “oversoul” that was at best undefined and vague. All of this was until Darwin?s story. In the late 20th century we see elements of modern humanism evolving in the Free Religious Association where Emerson who had been a Unitarian minister, Felix Adler, founder of the Ethical Cultural Movement and a number of religious liberals and philosophers joined together. Also, we had the Free Thought Movement that was intensively antireligious. In the beginning of the 20TH century, quite independently, many sought to redefine and reinterpret religion in light of the best in reason and science. One thing that was becoming clear is that the functional aspects of religion seemed more important in peoples actual lives than the ideological ones. Functional aspects included such things as building of community, celebrating life passages such as birth, death and marriage, and certainly providing youth with ethical education. Getting religion to evolve became more important than rejecting it.

Two Unitarian ministers, John Dietrich and Curtis Reese met each other and found out that they were both preaching the same thing. Dietrich called his philosophy “Humanism” and that the word caught on as they were both widely known and influential. The Midwest in particular became a hotbed of humanism while at the same time in academia, the University of Chicago and Columbia University had several who aligned themselves with this new holistic, integrated naturalistic view. Remember things were a lot smaller then and all these people all knew each other or their writings.

In 1933 the country was in bad economic shape and humanists were both concerned for the future of humanism and the country as a whole. Thus was born the Humanist Manifesto. Its a product of its time being quite sexist in its language (but not its intent) and leaning towards socialism. (Remember that capitalism had failed miserably at that point). Still, it is a brilliant, clear, succinct document of where humanism had evolved to at that time. It was written primary by Sellers a University of Michigan philosopher . Half the signers were religious (Unitarian ministers and one Universalist minister) and the other half were educators and social activists. See the Humanists Manifesto I as its now known at: http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

During the forties and fifties humanism grew tremendously in particular in the Unitarian church and Ethical Culture. Edwin Wilson, a Unitarian minister, started a magazine called the Humanist that later evolved into a full-blown organization called the American Humanist Association. One thing they learned from the Free Religious Association experience was that if you don?t have a strong organizational element, humanism will not advance or be able to effectively represent its views in a theistically dominated society. The AHA became a very effective voice for humanism representing all nontheistic people whether they chose to belong to one of the many new humanist societies/churches/fellowships or whether they chose to live a non religious community life. It sought to not be just a bunch of atheists, but to promote a positive ethical life stance where the dignity of each human being was affirmed using the best tools of reason, science and compassion.

For me, one of the geniuses of 20th century humanism has been the blending of the Enlightenment and Romantic traditions realizing that we are not fully human unless we see ourselves as both thinking and feeling, neglecting neither heart nor head. As the great humanist Bertrand Russell said, “The good life is one informed by reason and motivated by compassion.”

There always has been an uneasy truce between those guardians of rationality and those asking for a humanism of heart and action. I have been proud to have been associated with many with both heart and head. Still, we all bring different skills and focus to our lives. All types of humanism?s with adjectives evolved; ethical, scientific, religious, secular, rationalistic. I personally have a problem with hyphenated humanism because I don?t think it is not in the spirit of humanism to be narrow. Narrowing humanism generally represents not different ideologies as much as a reflection of different personality “styles.” The more rationalistic gravitate toward rationalism as humanism, the more social activists contend that it is action that counts, seculars tend to be more inclined to be loners and noncommunitarian etc. Many cannot see these merely reflect their own biases rather that the way the world is or should be.

Paul Kurtz was the editor of the Humanist magazine and reflecting his style moved the magazine more toward the pole of rationalistic philosophy. (this was after a period before that emphasized the human potential movement including Maslow, Fromm, and social action such as the civil rights movement etc.) Paul Kurtz is a very effective promoter, intellectual, hard worker and was very successful. During this time the Friends of Religious Humanism was formed as they thought they were being neglected in humanism. Around 1978 in a bid for more power he quit/got fired depending on who you listen to Remember that the AHA is a member operated organization with an elected board from its members.

Paul then started his own organization/magazine with a self perpetuating board. This has allowed him to move quickly without the burden and messiness of democracy. He defined religious humanists along side the pope which they are not. (The AHA once did a poll and not one of those members defining themselves as a religious humanists believed in a deity). This positioning of secular humanists as the “true” humanists was a effective marketing maneuver to, as he has said in public, “Bury the AHA”. But, it neglects the history, traditions, and the fact that there are more organizational humanists in the Unitarian denomination than in any other group. Free Inquiry focuses on a rationalistic and almost libertarian, humanism that especially meets the needs of the “comeouter” and has done a good job on that focus. But, I would offer, is a narrow and incomplete and sometimes outdated form of humanism. Still, by focusing on the philosophical aspects he has done a clear and thorough job on that focus.

At this point, despite appearances, all humanist organizations live hand to mouth. There are others including Humanistic Judaism, the Humanist Institute, Ethical Culture, North American Committee on Humanism, Friends of Religious Humanism, Freedom From Religion Foundation. Each has its own strengths, positioning and focus. I think each does a good job on its focus, but all give only one image of a larger picture.

Humanism today is in fact more fragmented than ever. Many Unitarians have rejected humanism for they see it as “head only” and just a bunch of “angry, antisocial, old white men”. This is in part due to the influence of Free Inquiry. The new generation of humanists there are emphasizing toleration, and effecting real change in peoples lives. Humanism is decline at the present in Unitarian Universalist circles, but there is hope with some of the newer humanists there. Ethical culture has done a good job with their credo of “Deed before Creed” and have long been a potent source of social action. The Religious Humanism magazine represents some of the most advanced thinking in humanism. The Humanist Institute trains a next generation of humanist leaders in a cross disciplinary way. The book they produce yearly takes on a difficult topic with the faculty writing contrasting essays. The AHA continues to try to be an umbrella organization for all types of humanists. Humanistic Judaism is important for those naturalistic Jews who want to keep and learn more of their cultural heritage.

Humanism in the 21st century will have to evolve or die. We are caught in cultural paradox in a neoromantic postmodern age where we have to at the same time stand up for reason and science and at the same time evolve out of the old rationalism. It is in a humbler and more encompassing humanism that we have hope that humanism will survive and indeed flourish.

©2000 Michael Werner