Well, you are surprised I’m an “old geezer” (not quite yet I hope), and I’m surprised you are so young, given the insight in your essays posted here. But it really doesn’t matter: the issues we are confronting are perennial, independent of age. We first encounter them in philosophy and in self-questioning (“who am I”) when young, and then have to find a way to make a living and raise a family. So our attention shifts to more practical questions (“how can I get a job, or get a raise”). Then in later years, the same nagging questions arise again, because we never resolved them in those earlier years.

Having had another 40 years of experience doesn’t mean you have made any significant progress on those basic issues that have been with us since the time of the Greeks. And you have forgotten most of the stuff you read in college, so have to go back and resurrect some of those older texts to see why their ideas still remain with you.

Re: Optimism and Pessimism
I think there is a age-related factor here. Older people tend to get gradually discouraged (even if their personal life situation is going well)because they do not have the energy to fight the battles any more. So when they look at what they wanted to achieve and what they have achieved, there is always a sense of having not quite done enough.

To be pessimistic or optimistic about something requires that we compare where we wanted to be (or what we wanted to see happen in society) with what we observe around us. Given that we have very little control over the way of the world, all we can control is our attitude to things. I guess it is just biochemistry whether you see the glass as half full (the optimist) or half empty (the pessimist).

So it is good that you are optimistic about the prospects of Secular Humanism eventually sweeping the world. We need people to go fight the good fight. Unfortunately there are a few of us curmudgeonly cynics who just can’t get over the fact that the glass is still half empty, and that the water in the glass is still evaporating. So years from now (I fear) it will be three-fourths of the way empty.

Anyway, write an essay on something else that I can “curmudgeon” about.

Thanks,

DHQ

I must admit I am surprised at your age! Maybe I am just young and foolish (I am 22) and my ideas are overly optimistic due to inexperience. The strange thing is that I have grown more tolerant and less cynical about humanity as I have aged when it seems that the opposite is true of you!

Previously I hated religion with a passion; I have never believed it even as a child, however now I think that maybe I am missing out on something special (although I would never become a traditional theist, Buddhism is probably the closest to a ’set’ religion that I would be interested in).

I would be very interested in your thoughts regarding American religiosity. Fortunately I will be travelling to the US in December so I might get to see this first hand. I currently live in the UK (with Australia as my homeland) so I haven’t been exposed to much fundamentalism. I only ever hear about American extremism second hand.

Don’t worry about cluttering up the page! I’m glad the website is working as I intended it to.

An author by the name of Corliss Lamont wrote a book “The Philosophy of Humanism” (original 1949) which is actually available as a download from his web page (probably costs a few bucks) I think his views are very consistent with Paul Kurtz’ Secular Humanism, and predated them by a couple of decades. I first ran across him decades ago in college. So the general themes of Humanism are at least 50 years old, probably older, dating back to the writers and philosophers of the Enlightenment. Some of us agree (with you) that it is the most reasonable perspective to have on the universe and human life in it. I just am concerned it may be in retreat around the globe as religious irrationalisms continue to be promoted.

Hang tough,
DHQ

Re the future: I did want to be a little provocative in the remarks above; I’m not personnally sure any more what I believe about the human future. We seem to be living hung between two worlds: the older historical world dominated by faith, power politics, and a lot of ignorance about how the world really works, and the potential of a more pleasant and rational future. That thought is not original with me, of course.

But I am more pessimistic than ever that “humanity” can actually make that transition. Some of that is inevitable as one ages (I’m 66), but I do know I have undergone a personal transformation in views since my early years (in the 1950s and 60s) when I was very optimistic about the human future and the ultimate conquest of science and the demise of religion.

My early views were influenced by a lot of science fiction that portrayed humanity conquering the galaxy and usually had these stalwart, intelligent (white) guys (few wowen) leading the cause. I remain hopeful (as do you) that somehow the program of the Enlightenment can survive the onslaught of irrationalism both from within and outside our culture, but the issue does seem to be in doubt.

It is amazing how resiliant religious views are in the face of a global economic environment that is fueled by scientific and technological knowledge. Here in the U.S. we are experiencing the arguments between Presidential candidates about who is most devout, and I keep thinking: ‘what does that have to do with any of the problems the country and our friends around the world are facing’? But it is a reflection of what a lot of people (at least in this country) think is important in a leader: better to be devout than to have given any thought to crucial issues facing our future. I think it is fair to say that no acknowledged athiest or agnostic could be elected President in the U.S.

I agree, that people can partition their worldviews and live with two completely contrasting perspectives inside one head. One of the men who mentored me several decades ago had a PhD in math (he actually studied under Frege in graduate school), and had gradually become an applied mathematician and space systems engineer in his career. But he was also a devout Jew who traveled every year to Israel for his vacation. I never approached him about how he combined the two parts of his beliefs in one skull.

It appears, then, that a faith-based religion is not necessarily antithethical to a scientific world-view. The scientific worldview is used at work, the religious worldview governs personal life and activities. The two programs are seldom running in the head at the same time (the cognitive discontinuity you refer to). This is consistent with the perspective promoted by Stephen J. Gould before his death regarding the two “magisteria” and how they could fit together, each dealing with different aspects of one’s life. Dawkins thought that was all total nonsense, of course. In his view there is no place at all for faith in one’s personal metaphysics.

But that does not change my pessimism about the vast majority around the world who seem to have the faith (in something) without the science to compliment it. Maybe my views are due to a sampling error, but from where I sit, SH has not made the inroads and progress in the past decades that I had thought (hoped) it would. I still pick up The Humanist on the newsstands every month, but I am increasingly afraid it is not the wave of the future.

Maybe the Botzmann Brains will be more sensible when they take over things (more likely they will all be insane).

Cheers,

DHQ

Wow, do you really think faith is the way of the future?? I had thought that it would be the other way around (equating science with social maturity and religion with immaturity). I always believed there was an inverse relationship between religion and knowledge, such that as technological prowess and scientific knowledge increased, religious faith decreased.

I think there are two possible futures; one in which science dominates, and one where there is an amalgamation of science and religion (spirituality). Humans seem to have a fundamental requirement for the spiritual, therefore it should not be suppressed but rather overhauled to fit in with the advancements in human knowledge (it is simply embarrassing to take biblical teachings as truth in today’s scientific world).

You are right in saying that the two approaches to life are juxtaposed against one another. There is this dichotomy that stereotypes religion as emotional and science as rational/logical. Both appeal to two distinct groups of people. If either one wins the fight for intellectual dominance (as opposed to the combination of the two that should occur) I’m sure we will continue to see minority groups maintaining their original faith despite strong opposition.

I am intending to write an article on the origins of religion soon, so that should clear up my thoughts on the topic. However, I believe religion is so appealing due to an emotional immaturity; people fear death and need a coping mechanism. They also crave meaning and higher authority in life. Religious followers should trust their autonomy and independence as human beings rather than using ancient teachings as a clear cut method for living their lives. Indeed, we run the danger of creating a rising level of fundamentalism on both sides, as it is human nature to defend the indefensible in the face of criticism. The psychological concept of cognitive dissonance may help to explain this extremism we are seeing in recent times (which I hope to explore further in my next article).

Basically, it is my hypothesis that cognitive dissonance works to ensure the survival of fundamentalist positions due to the active filtering of contradictory evidence in an attempt to reduce internal hypocrisy. People like to be right!

DHQ, I think we will be finding in the future that extremism will venture into the cosmos (once the technology is available) as people attempt to escape criticism towards their views. Perhaps we will have purely atheist nations vs religious – an intellectual and ideological divide rather than racial or cultural.

The tenents of SH as you summarize them are largely intellectual: “Reason”, “Free Inquiry”, etc. The appeal of religion is almost totally emotional. That is why rational arguments against religious belief (e.g., Dawkin’s recent book, Hutchen’s book, and Dennet’s somewhat earlier tome) do not convince the believers. The SH approach (“let us reason together”) simply isn’t even in the same ballpark with the emotional religious majority in society. The approach of science and rationalism is to try to arrive at truths about existence based on un-emotional reasoning and collection of data about the world. The approach of religious conversion is to suppress reason and appeal directly to human feelings.

Those who enjoy a strong faith in Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, and any of a number of minor faiths (I exclude Buddhism and Zen as they are not faith-based as I understand them) did not arrive there by reason or argument, but by an act of faith, or early indoctrination before they had developed any independent reasoning capability. Thus trying to argue people out of their beliefs using “facts” about the world is a losing proposition: “facts” as understood in the scientific method are explicitly ignored or superceeded in making an act of religious commitment. And with the belief comes the metaphysics of God and what he wants us to do as translated for mere human ears by the leaders of the religious organization.

Whatever its perceived merits as a vehicle for human betterment, SH is a minority view today, and in some places (like the Islamic Middle East) is on the run, with little chance of gaining adherents. Even in the US, it seems not to be making much headway. Most people are more comfortable with a simple set of beliefs, including the one that “God is in his heaven and rules the world”. It is more comforting than the “descent from great apes starting 10 million years ago” story.

So to be provoking: I think SH is on the decline, and a hundred years from now will be but a footnote in history. (Of course, with its decline goes most of the social agenda of the Enlightment). There may be a few enclaves left in out-of-the way places like New Zealand, but Europe will be Moslem, and North and South America will be more staunchly Christian (or maybe nuevo-communist) to counter it. Faith is the way of the future (and the past).

Maybe the SH-ers can start a colony on Mars(?)

Take care,

DHQ

Life has to have meaning in the sense that we (building on the post by mjackson75) can look within ourselves, follow our dreams and grow into a better person. This does not equate to a single ‘meaning of life’ that is so often thrown around.

I guess I just have issues with people desiring ‘meaning’ to their lives. Perhaps its the choice of word, a more suitable term should be used, such as ‘making your life worthwhile’ or worthy. Even that introduces a type of elevation above others who are deemed to lead a life that is ‘not worthy’. Even so, this choice of word can deal with the presence of drug users, criminals etc who do not value their lives enough to grow from their experiences, instead choosing to live a life of excess and excessive stimulation.

I do think that each person’s life has meaning, or should, for that person. In other words, we get meaning to our lives through our external actions which stem from our internal values. If I want to be happy, I need to do what truly makes me feel good about myself…this is not drugs, those don’t help one to feel good about oneself. Instead, I value doing good for others, therefore, when I do good, I gain meaning in my life.

Secondly, very interesting article you recommended! I have extracted some excerpts that I found particularly thought provoking.

“He also wished to show that for all of communism’s contempt for the narratives of traditional religions, it relied nonetheless on faith and dogma. It certainly had its own conception of blasphemy and heresy, and practiced a grotesque and brutal method of excommunication.”

So true. The principles behind communism are, in my opinion, worthwhile to consider if the divide between rich and poor is to be abolished. It was brilliant how Neil made the analogy to religion; blind faith in the authority and aversion to criticism.

“I use the word narrative as a synonym for “god,” with a small “g.” I know it is risky to do so, not only because the word “god,” having an aura of sacredness, is not to be used lightly, but also because it calls to mind a fixed figure or image.”

In my article I purposely make use of the lower case ‘g’, not as a blatant show of disrespect, but rather as a sign of my skeptical attitude and unwillingness to attach such status to a concept in which I have no belief. It is comforting to know that I am not alone in this practice!

“Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, “Why are we here?” and, to the question, “What moral instructions do you give us?”, the science-god maintains silence. It places itself at the service of both the beneficent and the cruel, and its grand moral impartiality, if not indifference, makes it, in the end, no god at all.”

I do disagree with this point. Science gives us the best morals of all; the upholding of ethical principles and accountability (not to mention free-will and responsibility). Religion, by contrast, acts as a crutch, robbing the individual of their freedom through a requirement of an unquestioning, ’simon says’ attitude.

Reminded me of some of the ideas in this article by a fellow named Neil Postman (Chair of the Department of Culture and Communication at New York University):

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3631