Who are humanists?

They come in peace for all humankind.

      Some contemporary celebrity humanists... Asimov, Twain, Jefferson... a list... another list... more lists of humanists... Einstein...Tyson... About humanism... Quotations... FAQ... "Brights"

Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. (Humanist Manifesto, continues)

Hitch alive

Sifting through my personal archives for a fitting Hitchens tribute, on this sad morning of his demise, I come across a dawn post from October 2010 titled alive:

We talked about the varieties of humanism yesterday.

I really like the version that sees humanism fundamentally as an expression of the love of life.

Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.

This sentiment was given unexpected voice recently by Michael Gerson, George Bush’s old speechwriter, writing of Christopher Hitchens’ joie de vivre and his special talent for friendship.

In earlier times, without derision or irony, this would have been called “humanism,” a delight in all things human — in wit and wine and good company and conversation and fine writing and debate of large issues. Hitchens’s joy and juice put many believers of my acquaintance to shame — people for whom religion has become a bloodless substitute for life. “The glory of God,” said St. Irenaeus, “is man fully alive.” Hitchens would hate the quote, but he proves the claim.

I don’t think Hitch hates the quote. I don’t. The best humanists are fully alive, as Hitch seems to be in these sadly dwindling days of his cancerous physical decline. Glorious days.

The days, as Emerson said, are Gods.

Do humanists need a chaplain?

Or a church? Or even a community center?

P."Zed" Myers thinks not, emphatically, but at Harvard they've got one, namely Greg Epstein. [HarvardHumanist's YouTube Channel] They've been debating the whole concept of humanist communitarianism on Twitter (#humanistcommunity).

Myers notwithstanding, I've often heard humanists, atheists, and secularists of various other stripes express regret at not enjoying the conviviality and "fellowship" available to church-based religionists. Some of us have the Church of Baseball, of course; but for others Epstein is pushing to create something more like a community of non-believers. He's been hosting talks, not quite sermons, in service of that goal. Jennifer Hecht gave one recently:

"Armageddon in Retrospect"

Just caught up with Kurt Vonnegut's posthumously-published Armageddon in Retrospect: And Other New and Unpublished Writings on War and Peace.  It's introduced by his son Mark, who observes that his Dad was "an optimist posing as a pessimist" who believed in writing as a spiritual exercise. It did not come easy to him.

He rewrote and rewrote and rewrote, muttering whatever he had just written over and over, tilting his head back and forth, gesturing with his hands, changing the pitch and rhythm of the words. Then he would pause, thoughtfully rip the barely written-on sheet of typing paper from the typewriter, crumple it up, throw it away, and start over again.

Makes me miss my old Smith-Corona, as well as Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. He said:

We Humanists behave as well as we can, without any expectations of rewards or punishments in an Afterlife... We don't fear death, and neither should you. 

And then he said "I thank you for your attention, and I'm out of here." Simple, honest, clear. Thankfully the books remain.

heaven all along

On Fresh Air the other day, Billy Collins noted Emily Dickinson's "radical" style of free-thinking, as evidenced by this poem:

SOME keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.
Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.
God preaches,—a noted clergyman,—
And the sermon is never long;
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I ’m going all along!

Pagan poetry: there's none better.

Jennifer Hecht, herself a pagan poet of the first rank, has lots to say about Emily and many others in Doubt: A History. They both deserve shelf-space in the Essential Freethought Library.

[CFI's alternate lists]

"Shiny, Happy Atheists"

Well written, Messrs. L.*

Why is it that we almost never see the noun “atheist” without some pejorative adjective like “dyspeptic,” which Judith Shulevitz shoehorns into her review of “The Faith Instinct” (Dec. 27)? Are the great majority of atheists really sour and sulky, angry and indignant?

Some unbelievers, uneasy at being the only group known by what it does not believe, have started the Brights, an organization that declares its faith in a natural world, without supernatural intervention. The atheist Einstein professed awe and wonder at this earthly home of ours, and I have not read a word of grump in anything he — or William Butler Yeats, or Matthew Arnold, or a number of other nonbelievers, have said. C’mon, play fair.

*RICHARD LETTIS
Ramsey, N.J.



(Re “Atheists’ Ad Campaign” (letter, Dec. 10), about the American Humanist Association’s ads:) Rather than continuing to remain publicly invisible, the association has recently been fulfilling its mission to raise the visibility and respectability of humanism through ads and other activities. Members of A.H.A. identify themselves in various ways — humanist, agnostic, atheist, freethinker and so on. Our ads reach out to kindred spirits to let them know that they are not alone in their nontheism.

Some people are “embarrassed” by the public acknowledgment that we are humanists. People of good will are not offended simply because others assert differing beliefs. I am not offended by those who say they are good because of God. Similarly, they should not object to others saying they are good without God. As long as we are all good, we can be united in our good works. And this unity is what A.H.A.’s ad campaign can accomplish.

*Mel Lipman
Las Vegas, Dec. 10, 2009
The writer is immediate past president of the American Humanist Association.

(published in the Times)

goodness

"Humanists have always understood that striving to make the world a better place is one of humanity's most important responsibilities. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality -- millions of people are good without believing in God." Seems like something that would go without saying, but saying it on subways and busses will stir up lots of animosity. Will the humanists' new ad campaign also provoke intelligent discussion, in class at least? I'll get back to you on that.

But on a related front: how good are we, really? Students repeatedly report ("this is just my opinion, but...") that on their view humans will never learn to cooperate with those of different background and ethnicity, or to tolerate those with different religious or political views.

As I said in class: let's keep the books open on that, new research seems to indicate that we're natively more sympathetic towards others than convention supposes. We have it in us, in germ, to be better people.

“We’re preprogrammed to reach out,” primatologist Franz de Waal writes. “Empathy is an automated response over which we have limited control. In fact, I’d argue that biology constitutes our greatest hope. One can only shudder at the thought that the humaneness of our societies would depend on the whims of politics, culture or religion.”

Yup. Politics, in particular, has lately been a let-down. (I write while still absorbing the disappointment of what looks like a ramping-up, and not the beginning of the end, of what has now become Obama's war in Afghanistan.) If we're going to keep hope alive we may have to trust ourselves more than my students' reports indicate we should. Can we take it on faith, folks-- and on accumulating evidence!-- that we can do better?

Yes, we can.

thoughtful

Nick Kristof likes Robert Wright and Karen Armstrong, allegedly "less combative and more thoughtful" than the New Atheists. (Stay tuned for future discussions of Wright and Armstrong.)

Kristof's little grenade is mostly intended for Richard Dawkins, who insists-- not entirely persuasively, but wittily and entertainingly-- that he's not strident at all, just gently satiric.

He's plenty thoughtful here, and funny. And he's right on target with his critique of the unconscionable indoctrination of young children into traditions they cannot begin to understand. It really does border (at best) on intellectual abuse.

And I can corroborate the claim that more attention, if not always more "raised consciousness," accrues to those who care less about being nice than being noticed and taken seriously. Humanists and most atheists have been "nice" and marginal forever. They've been sitting and chilling (as Marcus Brigstocke advises the religious extremists) and getting nobody's attention.

So yes, Mr. Kristof, an armistice in the religion wars-- a move away from intolerance by all-- is a great idea. Its time will finally arrive when the extremists stop persecuting and killing the people they deem immoral, and when "thoughtful" religious moderates in every Abrahamic tradition stop forgiving them for it... not when atheists and humanists shut up.

Vonnegut family values

Noticed an Indiana license plate the other day, inscribed "In God We Trust," and was reminded of the deep conservative strain in many of the Hoosiers I have known. Most of them are stand-up human beings who'd give you the shirts off their backs, etc., but there does seem to be something very traditional about that neck of the heartland that imprints itself ineradicably on its natives. The land of Quayle's coded "family values" seems no seed-ground for free thinkers. (It did spawn some public-spirited libertarians dedicated to spending, lavishly and liberally, the interest of Pierre Goodrich's fortune... I enjoyed my Stoic weekend in Indy two years ago. That's another story.)

But then I recall that Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was from Indianapolis. Hi-ho!

So it's not quite as big a surprise, on further reflection, to discover a "magnificent victory monument for a rational outlook on life." The man who said "love may fail, but politeness will prevail" did not spring up from a vacuum.

His great-grandpa was Clemens Vonnegut.*

Perfect! Love may fail, but irony will also prevail.

==

*"We believe all that science teaches until it is superseded by new discoveries and knowledge...Our belief is built on reason, observation of nature, history and experience. We believe in the brotherhood of man...We believe in virtue, in perfectibility, in progress, in stability of laws of nature, in the necessity of improving the social condition and relations." Clemens Vonnegut (1890)

humanists and atheists

"Humanists are right to think that there is more to life than atheism, but wrong to think that they are the ones to provide it," says humanist Austin Dacey (and D.J. Grothe agrees). The gist of his view, I gather, is that humanism is not an alternative religion and should not aspire to be one. "The point should be to make the mainstream culture more secular and humanistic, not to create a new secular humanist subculture."

Well ok, I guess. We'll talk about it in the "Atheism and Spirituality" course. But it seems to me there's no reason why humanists should not be happy to embrace the claim that a more humanistic mainstream culture would also be more (naturalistically) "spiritual." And there's every reason why they should be averse to reinforcing the popular prejudice that humanists, atheists, and secularists generally are best defined by their aversions. Tell the people what you're for, if you really want to move the culture forward.

But maybe such sentiments mark me as a spiritual humanist, rather than a secular one. Guess it's time to go back to the old Humanist Manifesto, the movement's seminal (non?-) sacred text.

But wait... those humanists called themselves "religious." (Their first affirmation: "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.")

Is there such a thing as a humanist fundamentalist?! This is going to be a very interesting course, I can't wait.

Sagan's pragmatic pluralism

Sagan and James: both were humanists, contending that we (each and all, as individuals and as a species) have the opportunity and the capacity to make a constructive difference in the world.

James's variety of humanism was also inseparable from his democratic pluralism: "No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the others, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately, and profoundly to respect one another's mental freedom... then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things." Will to Believe

This is a coupling, humanism + pluralism, that I think Sagan shared. He did not share the conventional religious impulse, but neither did he treat it with scorn. The Dawkins-Hitchens "take no prisoners" style may be more entertaining, but it's definitely not more constructive.

at home in the universe

Can naturalists and humanists be "spiritual," not religious? I've already enlisted Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins as yea-sayers, and Carl Sagan. Varieties of Scientific Experience, based on his 1985 Gifford Lectures ("The Search for Who We Are"), deliberately mirrors William James's famous Gifford-based Varieties.

Sagan admired James. Both were passionate about the human quest to be at home in the universe, on our pale blue dot, "the only home we've ever known."

He was a very good advocate for NASA, for science and rationality, and for the evolutionary worldview. We do speak for Earth, we have walked far.

"Two billion years ago our ancestors were microbes; a half-billion years ago, fish; a hundred million years ago, something like mice; ten million years ago, arboreal apes; and a million years ago, proto-humans puzzling out the taming of fire. Our evolutionary lineage is marked by mastery of change. In our time, the pace is quickening."

A quickening evolutionary pace is not flatly incompatible with NASA's 40-year detour of distraction, but isn't it really time to refocus on our next "final frontier"?

Dawkins and Dennett on Darwin and spirituality

"Can we be spiritual but not religious?" Jesus and Mo say no, I say yes... and I have strong ("bright") allies in Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett.

If by "spiritual" you mean something like, "outside of space and time, and continuous with the same conscious memories and experiences forever," they agree: No, we can't.

But, if by "spiritual" you mean something more like "alive to our actual place in an evolving cosmos, unblinking in the face of personal mortality but fully open to the possibility of some naturalized sort of transcendence or other," they agree emphatically: Yes, we can.

(But be forewarned: the video techs intrude themselves regrettably into this uncut post, and really disrupt the flow of a very engaging conversation, about ten minutes before the end; but stick with it, or "ff" thru it... the end is well worth suffering the annoyance. Dawkins' reading from his Unweaving the Rainbow definitely belongs in an anthology of humanist "hymns" that will certainly include Carl Sagan, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, and all my other favorite philosophers. But, somebody please slap those techs for me!)

Oh, by the way: Dan Dennett, like Jackie Robinson and William James and many others on whose shoulders we humanists proudly stand, is another pragmatic meliorist in the rich American tradition: there's plenty of goodness is the world, but it needs more. Let's make some.

“New Atheism”

Harvard’s “humanist chaplain” Greg Epstein disapproves of the atheist “fundamentalism” of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, according to the Associated Press:

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on the verge of explosive growth, but they are concerned that it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism. "Humanism is not about erasing religion,” he said. It’s an embracing philosophy."
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703310370

Yes, but humanists should not uncritically embrace any belief anyone cares to entertain under the guise of religion, or automatically extend benign respect and deference. Steven Pinker is right: “It’s only the sense that religion deserves special respect – the exact taboo that Dawkins and Harris are arguing against – that makes people feel that those guys are being meanies when applying ordinary standards of evaluation to religion.”

On the other hand, Epstein is right to worry about tarnishing humanism as mean-spirited. (Remember Madalyn Murray O’Hare?) The times we live in will be far better served by friendly atheists like E.O. Wilson, reaching out to religionists for common ground in hopes of preserving the earth (The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth -- Norton '06; scroll to the bottom of this page to see YouTube video of Pinker, Dawkins, Harris, and Wilson)

But on the other other hand, I’m with Dawkins when he bemoans the abuse of children in the name of religious education. Children have a right to their native agnosticism, free of indoctrination. Philosophy can help with this, I am convinced. We need to be philosophizing with all our children from the beginning, arming them with the critical tools to think freely and creatively about their world and its future. More on this in future posts.