The New Humanism

Thank you for your thoughts, Robert. I'm delighted you've taken up the question of language - it is precisely to spark this sort of discussion that I use contentious phrases like "secular sermons". That there are others out there thinking about these issues gives me great hope - so please keep posting!

I think the oldest enemy of our species is neither religion nor the mundane pains of nature but rather the credulity that infects the manner in which our species deals with such things. Theistic religions teach people to value credulity above doubt and skepticism. Based on the acceptance of certain premises without condition, theism's social glue leads to the next credulous issue of accepting and valuing the idea of unity. Unity is an absurd idea and just about as probable as its gods are; always leading to ignorance, conflict and separation. Knowing that we humans come in such a diversity, we should learn to value and seek after harmony founded in a healthy curiosity and not unity founded in credulity. The desire for "extended families and close knit communities" is a fine motivation and foundation for any movement, secular or otherwise but any harmonious secular social group needs to look for its new traditions and progress in the fairness and the willingness to test all things.

Thank you for your comments, Guitar - I think your point about having a respect for both diversity and fallibility is extremely important. Perhaps that's the seed of another article...

Guitar, I disagree with your statements about unity. I think unity in diversity is an admirable value. Unity in homogeneity is the problem. Unity, of our species, of the ecosystem, of the universe, is a fact of reality. It's the lack of recognition of that reality, of the interdependence of things (and people), that causes so much trouble.

I find the message you have given James an extremely positive one. Many who first rationally decide to be a humanist do ask the question "So I'm a Humanist, now what?". In a way, I wish that being a humanist had a "Humanists for Dummies", which I suspect no humanist would read. Much of the talk or discussion on any humanist social networking site seems to be focused on "highlighting that they have left religion" but few talk about what you can do after that. I often felt that humanists are fairly outspoken, at most times too cerebral. The biggest challenge in getting anything done with humanists is made a much harder task because the old say "Herding cats with high IQ's and a propensity for individualism" applies.

I agree with the thoughts presented in this article, and especially like the analogy of our back foot being secure on the ground, promoting the idea of atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) and the other foot stepping forward, promoting a new basis for ethics. While I agree with the thoughts in this article, I disagree with the approach. Our movement is too small and fragile to fracture, and while I do consider myself a humanist, I find that most humanists try to promote a split where there doesn't need to be one. Continuing with the 2 feet analogy, both feet are needed. The back foot, the "atheist foot," must come first. Before we can begin to try to come up with new solutions to issues in our society, we must realize that the solutions we've come up with thus far are wrong (ie, the Bible doesn't have all the answers, there isn't a magic man in the sky who is going to sweep down and fix everything). Superstitious beliefs have been imbedded in our heads since childhood. This slate must be cleaned before we can rebuild a new code of ethics. Dawkins and the other "horsemen" are doing just that... and very effectively. True they don't go further and promote humanist ethics, but nor do they claim to. We cannot expect 4 authors to do all of the work for the movement. While I agree with humanists such as Epstein, and the author of this article, I think that they are needlessly critical of the "4 horsemen" and all of the followers these authors have. Why not bring this movement together, instead of forcing a division. If you are a humanist, and recognize that Dawkins hasn't yet laid out a new vision for society, lay one out yourself! Just do it; no need to criticize Dawkins; just do it. Instead, humanists tend to criticize atheists for not promoting a new ethical vision, but in the end, humanists are guilty of the same thing because they don't spend any time focusing on the "back foot," the rejection of God. Nowhere in "Good Without God" or this website (from what I've seen) are there detailed reasons to reject belief in God. Epstein's book focuses soley on the front foot... and this is fine! Dawkins can focus on the back foot, Epstein can focus on the front foot, and each side can appreciate the work the other is doing. It seems simple. I don't understand why we need to force a division into our tiny little movement.

John I attended the Harvard Chaplaincy small group discussion you led on Sunday, and enjoyed meeting you and hearing what you had to say. Please send me your email address so I can send you our Concord Area Humanist program. I think you may be interested in our Monday April 5 meeting, when Marguerite Robbins, who also was at the Sunday meeting, will be giving a presentation on non-violent communication. I also want to talk to you more about your topic on Sunday.