The New Humanism

cont.... religious, in order to make this world a better place for all humans. Religions will not be disappearing anytime soon, so it seems to me that the "reasonable" thing to do is to find some common ground within the ethics of humanity, so we can real

Cont... really have hope for the future.

Of course, one of the problems people who are opposed to organized religion have is that they (we) are opposed to being organized in general. It can appear at times that atheist/agnostic = anarchistic/apathetic. Let's hope not for the new humanists and th

"Of course, one of the problems people who are opposed to organized religion have is that they (we) are opposed to being organized in general. It can appear at times that atheist/agnostic = anarchistic/apathetic" You make an excellent point, Larry. I hope that more nonreligious people will com to embrace the sorts of communities and organizations we are arguing for at The New Humanism.

A major reason atheists don't organize and they keep a low profile is because they are so often branded as evil, sinful, unethical and immoral. It is refreshing to see humanism come out of the closet as a positive, moral and caring philosophy. You don't need God to be ethical, and at the same time, believing in God does not automatically result in "good" behavior, which is evident when you see the numbers of high profile religious individuals who exhibit distasteful behavior.

What an excellent and inspiring beginning! Just when I was starting to despair, after witnessing the pointless and unending bickering at sites devoted to atheism, here I find someone making the points I've been trying to. Not just negation, but a positive assertion of value: just what we need.

I am a physician and former devout evangelical believer of 25 years who lost my faith over the past 2 years as a result of a reasoned analytical approach to my faith. Yes, science may get me well in the hospital, but it won't come visit me. Glad to be exploring Humanism. It would be great to go to a Humanist "church". The UU church is way too much of a plethora of religions.

Reading Good without God and learning about Humanism has been a bit of an epiphany. Though having long recognizing my own atheism, I have always felt without a deep sense of purpose. A "Schopenhauer nihilist," perhaps as Mr. Epstein labels. But, not really even that as I have also considered myself an empathic and compassionate person. To learn I am neither alone and that there is actually a philosophy and approach to life is heartening. I finally belong.

Welcome Sid, Paul, Wendy and BGD - it's great to have you here and we appreciate your comments!

Mr. Epstein, you wrote " In short, we are interested in anything that is good, without God." Without which, what or what kind of god? There is an old story, variously told and attributed, of an atheist who spoke on and on about not believing in God. After the atheist finished, a holy man who had been listening said "I don't believe in the god you don't believe in either." So, I'm curious - which god do you believe you don't believe in? I'm pretty sure I won't believe in that god either. Yet, our mutual disbelief in that god does not preclude that God exists.

I'm not clear why Humanism has to be non-religious. Sherwin Wine (z"l) was a rabbi, a graduate of a divinity school, and led a congregation. Greg Epstein was ordained by the rabbinical college which Wine founded, and is employed as a chaplain. If these fact don't indicate a connection with religion I'm a bit lost. Humanism today is endebted to those courageous men who drafted and signed the first Humanist Manifesto in 1933 -- most of whom (all males) were religious professionals. As one who identifies as a Religious Humanist, I don't see why "New Humanists" should eschew religion as a matter of course. Not all religion is theistic, not all religion is toxic. Let's keep an open mind and not toss the baby out with the bath.

I find the propositions of the New Humanism interesting, but ultimately too limited. Some years ago, I spoke at my local Unitarian Universalist Church on a proposal for Omnism, which I suggest holds great promise, but requires some careful development. Humanism is an expression of values without addressing the deeper questions of existence and reality. Understandably, conventional Western religion is problematic because of its dependence on miraculous claims and Tertullian's dictum ('credo quia absurdum' - a paraphrase, not a quote). But conventional Western science is no less problematic. Where knowledge was once unified, it was dichotomized for political reasons into mutually exclusive domains of value-neutral sciences predicated on methodological skepticism and value-laden humanities predicated on faith and scholastic methods. But, both domains are inherently deterministic - religion based on God and Miracles, and sciences based on Accident and Mechanism. One asserts Meaning and the other, Meaninglessness. When philosophy unified both, natural philosophy was not held in conflict with other branches of philosophy at all. Indeed, Deism was an apt expression of the Newtownian clockwork universe wound up by God to run down by Entropy. Teilhard de Chardin based The Phenomenon of Man, a theory of evolution projected into the ultimate future, in a philosophy that reconciled both science and faith. But Teilhard's approach, like many, esssentially invokes God in the role of meaning-giver, as how else can a meaningless reality make sense? Existentialism, of course, asserts that Man makes "his" own meaning, but that is hardly any more convincing than any of the claims of conventional religion. There are, I suggest, more compelling ideas in science itself. But, they require a deeper inquiry than science usually attempts. Conventional science operates by two fundamental principles: pattern (information) and process (energy) which combine as matter from which emerges all other properties through the meaningless mechanisms of random accidents. All of evolution occurs this way. Conventional religion has only one principle: purpose derived from God. But, in both instances, reality is deterministic. Mechanism produces meaningless order and miracles produce meaningful existence - one by Accident and the other from God, but both through no particular human intent, choice, or action. Various religions, of course, have different theological variations, but in the end, God determines human fate, whether by divine law or grace. Science, conversely, asserts that natural law rules, but again, without human will. Behaviorist theory in its extreme formulation outright denies the efficacy, if not existence, of human consciousness. Ironically, however, science itself appears to refute meaningless determinism. Ilya Prigogine received the Nobel Prize for his work on dissipative systems and structures in which he showed how entropy prevents determinism due to the one-way arrow of time, and permits self-organization in far-from-equilibrium systems. At the quantum level, virtual particles exhibit zero-point vacuum energy in what is usually explained as random spontaneous appearance and instantaneous self-annihilation, except in the event postulated as the Big Bang when slight asymmetry on a massive scale produces the Great Escape of particles from anti-particles that generates the birth and evolution of the universe. According to conventional assumptions, this all occurs by accident. But entropy suggests otherwise. Some process must actually organize the complexity that emerges. Mere mechanism is insufficient to explain functions in systems, as functions require purposes within assemblages. While mechanism is insufficient, miracles are unnecessary. Stephen Wolfram shows how simple rules generate extraordinary complexity, thus demonstrating the possibility of self-organizing complexity. Stuart A. Kauffman shows how this can operate in biological systems. Robert Axelrod demonstrates how computational systems can recapitulate moral evolution through mathematical logic. What these show, however, while subtle, has deep implications for reality: purpose at the most fundamental and primitive levels of quantum reality can function to organize indeterminate systems through the hierarchy of reality. Moreover, this indeterminacy links entropy as a randomizing process with self-organizing reality. Emergence is thus purposeful will indeterminate. Systems can be said to seek sustainability even as (or because) they are subject, in material form, to mortality. Sustainability is persistence despite mortality - that is, persistence of the patterns of systems despite the impermanence of the energy and matter of systems. We see this clearly in living organisms that grow and develop in fractal elaboration that replicates, regenerates, and recombines to evolve its self-organizing complexity. The simplest bits of reality manage a quantum computation in the binary decision "to be, or not to be" as David Bohm's implicate order organizes into explicate order, and them uses rules of self-assembly to boot its way up through the hierarchy of systems and reality, learning to act and organize greater complexity by utilizing structures emergent from the dynamics of reality - much in the matter of chaotic attractors. These dynamic structures are the memory by which systems learn, and then complexify into higher orders of action and learning. When reality succeeds in attaining neural organization, it can then operate as a cognitively coordinated system to control behavior as well as action. With cognition, organic systems can then create and use symbolic communication to organize and operate social, cultural, and artificial systems up to planetary scale, and perhaps beyond. But physics also shows us that huge structures in space at the scale of Black Holes can function as well as cosmic scale quantum computers. This suggests the possibility of cognition from the most primitive to the most cosmic scales of reality - cognition that operates by means of complexity, even chaos. Indeed, quantum computation employs the interference of chaotic patterns to store information. What we begin to see, in other words, is organization that arises from the indeterminacy of reality, rather than requiring either mechanical or miraculous determinism. That suggests a radically different interpretation of reality. We can conjecture that self-organization operates existentially because it must choose strategies to test in seeking sustainability. Evolution works experientially by selecting for patterns that persist in the complex tasks of sustainability, whether as material structures, genes, memes, or massive scale cosmic structures. Moreover, far from mere accidents, these actions appear to coordinate themselves and acquire coherence, consciousness, conscience, and all the attributes of living, sentient, and sapient systems. To comprehend these possibilities, however, we end up discarding the conventional explanations of both religion and science. Yet, we can propose new meanings of old ideas. For instance, we might define spirit as the purposeful flow of energy to organize the meaning, thought, action, behavior, and learning of systems. I need not claim that these explanations are true, but I do claim something like these explanations are necessary because we can show that the conventional explanations are inadequate on both sides. By this means, I argue that Omnism is a way to explain reality by showing what is possible, and what is not. If both conventional science and religion are inadquate, and we can show a feasible means by small modifications in the existing principles of science which result in an embrace of certain things normally reserved to religion (such as morals and spirit), then we have a way to formulate a new consilience in epistemology, ontology, and praxiology that succeeds as well in giving relevance to the wicked problem of sustainability. In any event, for reasons such as these, I suggest we need to extend our thinking beyond mere humanism to embrace a larger view.

My sincere congratulations, Greg, on your new magazine and on your concept that humanism must be inclusive, and no longer be dragged down or equated with simple atheism. It's got to the point where even the British Humanist Association is ashamed of their own name and have to call their campaign the Atheist Bus. Given that Richard Dawkins is a VP of the BHA, I think it's fair to ask that organization to remove humanism from their title. Inclusive Humanism must develop a voice of its own for which it is recognized by Everyman, and I think its proper study is species governance. Who talks about world federalism these days, and why not? There's a huge pocket of intellectual poverty right there that needs to be addressed. I completed an essay this year on collective or inclusive humanism if you have any interest in publishing it, in the mean I again thank you for picking up the reins of this noblest of traditions.

Dwight, If you'd like to write an essay for The New Humanism, please take a look at our submission guidelines: http://thenewhumanism.org/about

I just want to give my deepest thanks to Greg Epstein for taking his time to write this book and sharing it with the world. I have felt like an outcast for too long because I could not agree with being agnostic or an atheist. Neither fit my true beliefs whatsoever and I felt like I would be settling for less if I did chose one or the other. I feel great telling people I am a "Humanist" and I totally do not feel like I am "indoctrinating" people when explaining what it is to be a humanist. The Law of Attraction is spectacular! I am an army of one- I AM A HUMANIST!

I heard your interview on "Fresh Air" tonight, Greg, and I was so warmed and delighted about what you were saying, especially at the end when you talked about celebrating the holiday season. Both my wife and I are atheist/agnostic/humanists (does that put us on "the spectrum"?), and we are rasing a five-year-old boy in an enormously conservative and Uber-Fundamentalist Christian area. Recently, he has been asking us about God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, the whole works - because he's hearing about it in Kindergarten. What you said - about chillin' out about the effects this will have - gave both of us enormous comfort. Thank you very much. BTW - I edit Wikipedia as a hobby, and when I looked you up on Wikipedia, the article about you was very sad and slim. So, after listening to the interview tonight, I spent about 9 hours working on that article. I hope I have everything down correctly, and if not, I'll fix it. If you want, you may look at it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Epstein Just leave a comment in the article's "Talk" page if something needs to be changed. Happy holidays!

I also heard your Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross online today and absolutely rejoiced! Like some others, we live in an extremely conservative, Christian church-dominated town. (Rated the second most conservative small city in America, right after Provo UT!) As small biz owners, we are constantly subjected to offensive talk and attitudes to which we feel we can't respond. And our tolerance for it is wearing thin. (We are working on our escape from here.) Of course, our clients, neighbors and friends have no idea. They intend no harm. Can't wait to read your book! And i'm thrilled to now be part of this community!! Peace, Goodwill and Happy Happy New Year to ALL!!!!

Job well done on your Fresh Air interview, Greg. I am a former evangelical minister who has lost my faith over the past 4 years through a process of reasoning and the gradual letting go of superstitions. I'm still learning my way around the Humanist circles, but I am glad you've added this forum. I have tried to find a local group of like-minded people to fill the void of community that church had throughout my life. I tried the local UU church, but I have found a better connection with the local Ethical Society.

I hope you know what you are doing! Exchanging beliefs for theories, what is the difference? Placing faith in system, country, religion, or God what is the difference? We live in a time where everyone wants to be heard and yet everyone has forgotten how to listen. Everyone wants to be right. Everyone wants to be absolutely positive about what they believe yet no one real knows what to believe, so we create things to believe in. Science and religions don’t have all the answers. Faith, this is my faith life will take care of life that is all I need to know. I don't have to do anything. Why preach a cause that only separates me from embracing and understanding life. Not being separeted I can care about all people. In caring about all people i find my true self. I hear the true meaning of life. Can you hear what I am saying?