We had a fairly small crowd this afternoon, but vigorous debate.
We started discussing the essay The Ethics of Belief (1877) by William K. Clifford.
We had mixed feelings abou the essay. Some found it a bit too rationalistic, treating the human mind solely on the basis of logic and not really practical in terms of how people live in society.
Someone brought up the notion of "holding your theory lightly."
That is, you may have a belief that you live by and that you find helpful. It may be reasonably true, at least within certain parameters. But you should be prepared that if you go outside your normal parameters, this theory may not work so well. You should be prepared to revise it.
We discussed whether we can live totally without myths, and in particular, the myth of romantic love. Some argued that it fine to commence a relationship knowing that it may not last forever, although you might want it to.
We discussed how it can be exhausting to question everything, so sometimes it's appropriate to defer to others, treat them as opinion leaders or a kind of authority, while still recognizing that no one is perfect.
One myth that people find useful is that whatever happens was "meant to be." Humanists don't really think the accidents of history are "meant to be" so an alternate way of thinking about it is that whatever has happened has happened and can't be changed so we must make the best of it.
Things aren't meant for the best, but they are what they are.
We then discussed what to say after someone sneezes. Some objected to "Bless you" because even with the word "god" dropped, they perceive it to be there implicitly. "Gesundheit" was the preferred term, as it means "good health."
We then discussed the basis of humanist morality. Much of it comes down to empathy. We see another person suffering, and if we identify with them, we suffer a bit ourselves.
But who do we empathize with? An evolution-based morality suggests that we should empathize with people based on the nearness of their relationship to us, and amount of DNA we share.
Many people have a class-based empathy by which they empathize with people who are like them in education and social factors, whether or not they are related to them, It is difficult for people in wealthy countries to empathize with the global poor who live at subsistence wages.
It would be great to empathize with everyone equally regardless of their race, class, or nearness to us, but that rarely happens.
We may even empathize with animals, though the mental experience of animals is no doubt quiet different and we may make mistakes imputing certain feelings to them that they may not have.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Discussion on conduct as a secular humanist
Today, I came across a pretty heated debate about the conduct that humanism should display towards religious people. What may make that thread interesting is that it rages over at cosmicvariance.com, a blog that is run, and largely frequented by, (astro-)physicists, cosmologists and their close realatives in the fauna of scientists that poke around in the very substance of our world. Not very surprisingly, almost all are critical towards religion, to say the least, but discuss very mixed opinions across a spectrum that ranges from respectful acceptance to harsh confrontation. See: http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/07/16/crackergate/#more-1801 . Left a lengthy comment, too.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Meeting Before Last
I wrote about the June 29 meeting here, and it drew a worthwhile comment from a local naturalist.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Meeting photos 2008-07-13
Here we are, proving that humanists can at least appear to be happy! All the photos at full resolution are here.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Humanist Small Group Meeting
Five people attended the meeting at the Harvard Club on May 10, 2008. We discussed in what ways and to what effect we “closet” ourselves as non-theists, i.e., fail to disclose or assert our humanist stances when the issue of religious faith arises. Other parallels were drawn between non-theism and minority sexual orientations, including the liberation of “coming out” as non-theists. We also discussed humanism (or the paucity thereof) in ethnic minority communities, especially African-American ones. The existence of a Black Humanists of Boston Meetup was announced, and relatedly, we discussed Anthony Pinn. The idea of showing DVDs about humanist topics and then discussing them, was presented. We considered various participants’ homes as venues.
In the course of describing our various religious (or non-religious) upbringings, one person posited that there are three types of non-theists: i) people who were indoctrinated successfully growing up and then became disillusioned, ii) people who grew up with religious instruction, but never believed it, and iii) people who were never burdened with the baggage of religious instruction or religious social groups. The first type is often still struggling to recover from indoctrination and disillusionment and identifies strongly with the “atheist” label, is wary of any discussion of spirituality because it recalls the dogmatic religious settings of their upbringing, and sees atheist groups as an unfortunate outgrowth of, and reaction against, religiosity in the broader society. The second type is less scarred than the first, but still quite concerned about defending against the social aggressions of religious people, and both the first two types are quite concerned about the political activities of religious people. The third type is less likely to identify with the atheist label, less concerned about traditional religions, and more interested in “humanist” spirituality and ethical discussion. The three types have different needs for humanist community.
We also touched on the influence of religious faith on policy decisions of elected officials. We considered both the possibilities that a) elected officials and politicians are as religious as they claim or b) elected officials refer to religious ideas merely to manipulate the public, without much personal faith. The second view was connected to the “neoconservative” assertion that the government should shore up religious faith to protect society against the corrupting effects of post-modernity. Those points led to an exchange about whether traditional religion is good for most people. Some took the view that religious faith alleviates suffering and provides meaning to most people, while others found such a perspective elitist and questioned the authenticity of religious belief for people with limited educational opportunity.
We closed with a challenge to provide an example of how our humanist principles affected a personal decision or situation. Some felt that their humanism had made it difficult to date people with religious beliefs or people who believed that social problems would solve themselves, without activism.
In the course of describing our various religious (or non-religious) upbringings, one person posited that there are three types of non-theists: i) people who were indoctrinated successfully growing up and then became disillusioned, ii) people who grew up with religious instruction, but never believed it, and iii) people who were never burdened with the baggage of religious instruction or religious social groups. The first type is often still struggling to recover from indoctrination and disillusionment and identifies strongly with the “atheist” label, is wary of any discussion of spirituality because it recalls the dogmatic religious settings of their upbringing, and sees atheist groups as an unfortunate outgrowth of, and reaction against, religiosity in the broader society. The second type is less scarred than the first, but still quite concerned about defending against the social aggressions of religious people, and both the first two types are quite concerned about the political activities of religious people. The third type is less likely to identify with the atheist label, less concerned about traditional religions, and more interested in “humanist” spirituality and ethical discussion. The three types have different needs for humanist community.
We also touched on the influence of religious faith on policy decisions of elected officials. We considered both the possibilities that a) elected officials and politicians are as religious as they claim or b) elected officials refer to religious ideas merely to manipulate the public, without much personal faith. The second view was connected to the “neoconservative” assertion that the government should shore up religious faith to protect society against the corrupting effects of post-modernity. Those points led to an exchange about whether traditional religion is good for most people. Some took the view that religious faith alleviates suffering and provides meaning to most people, while others found such a perspective elitist and questioned the authenticity of religious belief for people with limited educational opportunity.
We closed with a challenge to provide an example of how our humanist principles affected a personal decision or situation. Some felt that their humanism had made it difficult to date people with religious beliefs or people who believed that social problems would solve themselves, without activism.
Humanist Small Group - 8th Meeting
For our 8th meeting, we met against at Andala coffee house. We started off talking about robots and artificial intelligence, and how human intelligence works through a number of strategies, not just computational means. There was an conference in Amsterdam on human-robot interaction
We talked about global warming, and the Center For Inquiry’s complaints about a textbook stating that the science of global warming is still controversial (see op-ed by the textbook authors) Several in attendance thought that Al Gore was overstating things by saying the science was settled, though there was also discussion of whether the way one addresses the public has to be less nuanced if you want to have political change
We discussed whether Why won’t God heal amputees, though tasteless, is the way you have to get through to people.
We also talked why religious people distrust atheists. Is it the lack of belief itself, or is it the assumption that atheists don’t have a moral code? Buddhists don’t typically believe in god, but they get respect, because it’s understood they believe in a moral code.
Colin McGinn is a humanist philosopher who believes moral values can be arrived at through reason. He wrote Moral Literacy
We also discussed what people mean when they say they are “spiritual but not religious.” For some, it means they are religious believers but have a problem with religious institutions. For others, however, it can just mean that they are in touch with their emotions, especially positive ones like awe or exaltation which can come not just in a religious setting, but from viewing nature or having an intellectual insight.
We talked about global warming, and the Center For Inquiry’s complaints about a textbook stating that the science of global warming is still controversial (see op-ed by the textbook authors) Several in attendance thought that Al Gore was overstating things by saying the science was settled, though there was also discussion of whether the way one addresses the public has to be less nuanced if you want to have political change
We discussed whether Why won’t God heal amputees, though tasteless, is the way you have to get through to people.
We also talked why religious people distrust atheists. Is it the lack of belief itself, or is it the assumption that atheists don’t have a moral code? Buddhists don’t typically believe in god, but they get respect, because it’s understood they believe in a moral code.
Colin McGinn is a humanist philosopher who believes moral values can be arrived at through reason. He wrote Moral Literacy
We also discussed what people mean when they say they are “spiritual but not religious.” For some, it means they are religious believers but have a problem with religious institutions. For others, however, it can just mean that they are in touch with their emotions, especially positive ones like awe or exaltation which can come not just in a religious setting, but from viewing nature or having an intellectual insight.
Humanist Small Group - 7th Meeting
We met at Andala Coffee House in Central Square in Cambridge. We discussed the David Brooks column about neural Buddhism. If one takes Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion and looks at it as a source of hypotheses about psychology which can then be affirmed or denied by laboratory science, it can be a fruitful collaboration.
Someone else brought up the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, which are also philosophical statements that are compatible with humanism. Introspection can be a source of hypotheses about the mind, but it is certainly not infallible. Someone brought up the field of behavioral economics, and how some economists are challenging the notion that people are rational maximizers of their interests. The book, Predictably Irrational, gets into it.
Someone asked what humanists have to offer people in dire straits. One of religion’s selling points is to alleviate fear of death. Humanists can not offer immortality, but perhaps as science learns more about emotions people will learn how to deal with their fears without indulging in fantasies.
We debated Socrates contention that literally everyone should lead an examined life. Is it better to be dumb and happy or is it worth striving for intellectual or material progress even at a cost in happiness. None of us advocated the notion that happiness is the main goal of life. We seem to place a higher value on truth than happiness, and prefer to face reality. Of course, if we can be intellectually honest and be happy at the same time, that would be ideal.
We debated the view of extreme skepticism, which also doubts science, because it is based in large part on inductive reasoning. We discussed unlikely events, or black swans, that can that disprove theories. Science cannot come up with absolute truth, because new data could invalidate laws that seem accurate but area really special cases of broader phenomena. Even science ultimately traces itself back to fundamentals notions that impossible to prove, like the assumption that the world actually exists, and we’re not brains in a vat experiencing a virtual reality.
Someone else brought up the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, which are also philosophical statements that are compatible with humanism. Introspection can be a source of hypotheses about the mind, but it is certainly not infallible. Someone brought up the field of behavioral economics, and how some economists are challenging the notion that people are rational maximizers of their interests. The book, Predictably Irrational, gets into it.
Someone asked what humanists have to offer people in dire straits. One of religion’s selling points is to alleviate fear of death. Humanists can not offer immortality, but perhaps as science learns more about emotions people will learn how to deal with their fears without indulging in fantasies.
We debated Socrates contention that literally everyone should lead an examined life. Is it better to be dumb and happy or is it worth striving for intellectual or material progress even at a cost in happiness. None of us advocated the notion that happiness is the main goal of life. We seem to place a higher value on truth than happiness, and prefer to face reality. Of course, if we can be intellectually honest and be happy at the same time, that would be ideal.
We debated the view of extreme skepticism, which also doubts science, because it is based in large part on inductive reasoning. We discussed unlikely events, or black swans, that can that disprove theories. Science cannot come up with absolute truth, because new data could invalidate laws that seem accurate but area really special cases of broader phenomena. Even science ultimately traces itself back to fundamentals notions that impossible to prove, like the assumption that the world actually exists, and we’re not brains in a vat experiencing a virtual reality.
Humanist Small Group - 5th Meeting
We met at the Harvard Club in Boston. We started off with a discussion of mental health, and the dualistic fallacy indulged in when people claim that a problem is not mental because it is due to a chemical imbalance.
In fact, all things mental correlate to things going on in the brain. So all mental activity, whether we would judge it healthy or otherwise, is due to something physical. That does not say we would deny reduce the mind entirely to the brain. The mind is not identical to the brain, but it is an outcome of the activity of the brain.
We discussed that it feels good to be together and be able to openly express skepticism about religion, which we naturally repress in “polite company” even here in the secular New England states.
We discussed humanism and its relation to atheism (again). Humanism is beyond the atheist vs. believer debate. It’s about trying to figure out how to live, based on what we know to exist. This could include evoking spiritual feelings, since the existence of spiritual feelings is an observable fact, as opposed to the supernatural world, which is not.
Many religionists assume that atheists must be immoral, because the morality they learned comes from a book that god is said to have dictated. Humanism is a moral or ethics system, but makes to claim to certainty. Since we have no holy book, we often disagree about what is ethical (e.g. libertarian vs. left-of-center views of the free market) but we try to base our ethics on reason, observable facts, and some intuitions which seem self-evident.
We talked quite a bit about Buddhism, as some of us have practiced meditation at the Cambridge Insight Meditation Center. Insight meditation is a somewhat secularized version of Theravadin Buddhism that feels pretty compatible with humanism, though not perfectly so. Even Buddhists who eschew supernaturalism and downplay doctrines like rebirth tend to assume the correctness of Buddhist traditions that are not supernatural (Confucianism too is not supernaturalistic, but its highly traditional, and not evidenced-based in the modern sense).
In humanism, by contrast, everything can be challenged, and must be defended with evidence. We did agree that aspects of Buddhist practice and philosophy that are naturalistic and can be supported by evidence are compatible and welcome in humanism.
We also got into a discussion of categoricalism and consequentialism. While neither is perhaps inherently antithetical to humanism, we all came down on the consequentialist side. Categoricalism holds that certain rules are so important that they should be followed no matter the consequences. But that seemed dogmatic to us, and how can you know if a rule is correct or not unless you analyze the consequences? We agreed that while religion tends to encourage dogmatism, non-religious people can also get dogmatic, especially when they get emotional about a subject
In fact, all things mental correlate to things going on in the brain. So all mental activity, whether we would judge it healthy or otherwise, is due to something physical. That does not say we would deny reduce the mind entirely to the brain. The mind is not identical to the brain, but it is an outcome of the activity of the brain.
We discussed that it feels good to be together and be able to openly express skepticism about religion, which we naturally repress in “polite company” even here in the secular New England states.
We discussed humanism and its relation to atheism (again). Humanism is beyond the atheist vs. believer debate. It’s about trying to figure out how to live, based on what we know to exist. This could include evoking spiritual feelings, since the existence of spiritual feelings is an observable fact, as opposed to the supernatural world, which is not.
Many religionists assume that atheists must be immoral, because the morality they learned comes from a book that god is said to have dictated. Humanism is a moral or ethics system, but makes to claim to certainty. Since we have no holy book, we often disagree about what is ethical (e.g. libertarian vs. left-of-center views of the free market) but we try to base our ethics on reason, observable facts, and some intuitions which seem self-evident.
We talked quite a bit about Buddhism, as some of us have practiced meditation at the Cambridge Insight Meditation Center. Insight meditation is a somewhat secularized version of Theravadin Buddhism that feels pretty compatible with humanism, though not perfectly so. Even Buddhists who eschew supernaturalism and downplay doctrines like rebirth tend to assume the correctness of Buddhist traditions that are not supernatural (Confucianism too is not supernaturalistic, but its highly traditional, and not evidenced-based in the modern sense).
In humanism, by contrast, everything can be challenged, and must be defended with evidence. We did agree that aspects of Buddhist practice and philosophy that are naturalistic and can be supported by evidence are compatible and welcome in humanism.
We also got into a discussion of categoricalism and consequentialism. While neither is perhaps inherently antithetical to humanism, we all came down on the consequentialist side. Categoricalism holds that certain rules are so important that they should be followed no matter the consequences. But that seemed dogmatic to us, and how can you know if a rule is correct or not unless you analyze the consequences? We agreed that while religion tends to encourage dogmatism, non-religious people can also get dogmatic, especially when they get emotional about a subject
Humanist Small Group - 4th Meeting
The fourth meeting of the Humanist Small Group drew 9 people to the Harvard Club today. Several were new, so we discussed how we defined Humanism as a non-religious philosophy or life stance.
We talked about the Dawkins/Hitchens view that there is nothing at all good about religion. No one present defended that view. Rather, we pretty much agreed that religion, as a human creation, had produced some worthy ideas along with bad stuff. Rather than try to build Humanism from scratch, it would be a good idea to poach on what is worthwhile.
For instance, religions are very effective at raising children to perpeturate their beliefs, and while we don't want to indoctrinate kids, it's important for Humanism to be able to perpetuate and not die out. A resource for this is the book, Parenting Beyond Belief.
While Humanists do not wish to emulate religious claims to have moral rules that are absolutely and unimpeachablely true, Humanists must have moral values, and these values should be thought out in advance of being in the situation where one needs to rely on them. A purely ad hoc approach will likely lead us to choose the most convenient and indulgent option.
We also discussed Dawkins notion in The God Delusion that morality really comes from human intuition and that modern religious people reject slavery not because of their reading of scripture, but because they are reinterpreting scripture after having been influenced by enlighted ideas. Even monkeys tested in labs seem to have a sense of moral fairness. But human morality has evolved far beyond our instincts, which, for instance, might well sanction polygamy like that practiced by alpha males in non-human species.
Actually, we discussed whether Dawkins as a Humanist, and given his promotion of the term bright for unbelievers, our conclusion is that Humanist is not a label he prefers. with. This page confirms our supposition.
We disagreed a bit on our attitude toward liberal religionists. Some of us were just fine with those who don't believe in the dogmas of the religion they belong to, but attend services anyway because they enjoy the ritual or the community. Others wanted people to live consistently with their (non)belief.
We also discussed the notion that religion was responsible for violence carried out in its name. We agreed that people had a natural trend toward tribalism, and can find other forms of difference, like race, nationality, or even Red Sox vs. Yankees team preference to hate each other. (the Sox and Yankees were playing a rain-delayed game only a few blocks away at Fenway Park). Still, most of us thought that religion was particularly effective at inspiring these kind of hatreds because of its claims to absolute authority.
We also discussed Aristotle, and got some book recommendations:
Aristotle by Jonathan Lear
On Virtue Ethics by Rosalind Hursthouse
After Virtue (with reservations) byAlasdair MacIntyre.
We talked about the Dawkins/Hitchens view that there is nothing at all good about religion. No one present defended that view. Rather, we pretty much agreed that religion, as a human creation, had produced some worthy ideas along with bad stuff. Rather than try to build Humanism from scratch, it would be a good idea to poach on what is worthwhile.
For instance, religions are very effective at raising children to perpeturate their beliefs, and while we don't want to indoctrinate kids, it's important for Humanism to be able to perpetuate and not die out. A resource for this is the book, Parenting Beyond Belief.
While Humanists do not wish to emulate religious claims to have moral rules that are absolutely and unimpeachablely true, Humanists must have moral values, and these values should be thought out in advance of being in the situation where one needs to rely on them. A purely ad hoc approach will likely lead us to choose the most convenient and indulgent option.
We also discussed Dawkins notion in The God Delusion that morality really comes from human intuition and that modern religious people reject slavery not because of their reading of scripture, but because they are reinterpreting scripture after having been influenced by enlighted ideas. Even monkeys tested in labs seem to have a sense of moral fairness. But human morality has evolved far beyond our instincts, which, for instance, might well sanction polygamy like that practiced by alpha males in non-human species.
Actually, we discussed whether Dawkins as a Humanist, and given his promotion of the term bright for unbelievers, our conclusion is that Humanist is not a label he prefers. with. This page confirms our supposition.
We disagreed a bit on our attitude toward liberal religionists. Some of us were just fine with those who don't believe in the dogmas of the religion they belong to, but attend services anyway because they enjoy the ritual or the community. Others wanted people to live consistently with their (non)belief.
We also discussed the notion that religion was responsible for violence carried out in its name. We agreed that people had a natural trend toward tribalism, and can find other forms of difference, like race, nationality, or even Red Sox vs. Yankees team preference to hate each other. (the Sox and Yankees were playing a rain-delayed game only a few blocks away at Fenway Park). Still, most of us thought that religion was particularly effective at inspiring these kind of hatreds because of its claims to absolute authority.
We also discussed Aristotle, and got some book recommendations:
Aristotle by Jonathan Lear
On Virtue Ethics by Rosalind Hursthouse
After Virtue (with reservations) byAlasdair MacIntyre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
