Why I Am Not a Humanist

Although I like people just as much as anyone else, I don’t like people just as much as everyone else…with perhaps the exception of secular Humanists. Of course, like everyone else who likes and doesn’t like people, secular Humanists are no exception to hypocrisy and irrationality and so I’m taking this opportunity to examine the views of secular Humanists – or just Humanists with a capital “H” – to point out some flaws in their thinking. First, what is Humanism (as it relates to secularists)?

Hu·man·ism n.

1. A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.

2. Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.

Moreover, “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” – The American Humanist Association (AHA). Er, okay. Perhaps the official statement defining Humanism accepted worldwide by Humanists will be more helpful (or laughable, pick one). Note that my thoughts on each bullet point follow each bullet point in brackets. [ ] 

“The official defining statement of World Humanism is:

• Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction. [Okay, Humanism is ethical. Only, what kind of ethical system are we dealing with here, one that is evolutionary in nature? If so, their ethical system will be inherently flawed since many conscious, biological activities are irrational. (To be fair, it would be inherently flawed no matter what.) Sure, their ethical system is one that affirms worth, dignity, and autonomy, but who decides what worth a person has? Or does everyone have inherent worth and if so, how is that ethical view an intrinsic part of human nature? I mean, visiting violence upon each other is also an intrinsic part of human nature, so how are Humanists squaring the two? While I do agree that everyone should be as free as possible unless such free actions interfere with the freedom of others, Humanists don’t seem to realize that the greatest possible freedom to be had that does not conflict with the freedom of others demands the abolishment of 90% of existing cultural practices.]
• Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends. [So, for laughs, let’s say we’re up against an enemy who is determined to destroy us and cannot be reasoned with. How do we use science creatively to solve this problem, build a rocket to take us out of harm’s way or build an impenetrable wall? Or are Humanists saying we should build clever (that is, non-lethal) weapons to take our enemy out of the fight? If we take the enemy out of the fight, how will justice be balanced between our enemy’s neglect for our freedom and their inherent worth? As for human values tempering science, good luck with that. History is rife with counter-examples.]
• Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government. [Wait. One bullet point ago Humanism said it was rational, but seeing how democracies play out in the real world demands we keep looking for a better system of governance. Just because a democracy is the best system going does not mean it is a good system at all. (Arguably, democracies cause the least harm among its participants, outside of a benevolent monarchy anyway). Moreover, what IS the fullest possible development of every human being? How do we know when it has been achieved? My ‘deepity’ sensor is starting to go through the roof.]
• Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognizes our dependence and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination. [Whoa, whoa, whoa. The first bullet point made a huge deal out of autonomy and now they’re telling me to be socially responsible? Okay, so I’m NOT autonomous, great. Worse, “Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents.” Yet, they feel the need to write down their dogmatic bullet points. What’s next, that they’re going to tell you that you don’t HAVE TO use reason in your life and that you’re allowed to question whether 1 + 1 = 2? Humanists are lying through their teeth there.]
• Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-view on all of humanity. Humanism recognizes that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision. [So the alternative to dogmatic religion is dogmatic science? While science eventually winds up correcting itself at some point, science has been known to be almost as dogmatic as religion. Again, notice the hypocrisy of the Humanists telling you their not trying to impose any world-view.]
• Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognizes the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment. [Art is often irrational, so what is it Humanists; do you want us to be rational, irrational, or both? Can a Humanist even define ‘art’? If they did, how would that not be imposing a world-view?]
• Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our time. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere. [Sure, it CAN be a way of life as long as you don’t ask the kinds of questions I’m posing here. And this shit’s just off the top of my head. I mean, “…an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our time”? Here, again, as I’ve pointed out in two recent blogs, if secular people want rationality to govern our lives, a rationality that is based upon evidence that supports beliefs, the tenets of Humanism has some feeble legs to stand on.]

The Amsterdam Declaration explicitly states that Humanism rejects dogma, and imposes no creed upon its adherents. [Except that you must abandon your faith!] The Amsterdam Declaration was endorsed by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) at the 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress in 2002. According to the IHEU, the declaration is the official statement of World Humanism.
It is officially supported by all member organizations of the IHEU including:

• American Humanist Association
• British Humanist Association
• Humanist Canada
• Council of Australian Humanist Societies
• Council for Secular Humanism
• Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
• Human-Etisk Forbund, the Norwegian Humanist Association
• Humanist Association of Ireland
• Indian Humanist Union
• Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)”

One would have to be exceptionally stupid to take Humanism at face value. After all, if we’re using reason – which they say we should – we should nitpick Humanist principles to death to be sure we’re not fooling ourselves. Unfortunately, Humanism doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory examination, meaning, we’re screwed even if religion were abolished. One bad system would just be replaced by another. Pick one. It’s a no-win situation.  

The Walker Dead

I often imagine I come from a distant planet and that I’m here on Earth as an observer, reporting on the peculiar behavior of humans so as to keep the rest of the Planetary Federation abreast of the truly weird things that go on beyond its boundaries. On Saturday, November 29, 2013, for instance, many humans in The Somewhat United States mourned the loss of a mediocre actor, Paul Walker, who died – by cosmic coincidence – in a car wreck.

Paul Walker was most well-known for his role as Brian O’Conner in the Fast and Furious movie franchise, a franchise in which none of the films will make anyone’s Top 1000 list 25, 50, or 100 years from now. As evidenced by the number of woman mourning Walker versus how many men are mourning, it is apparent the outpouring of emotion for Walker has more to do with Walker’s good looks than his acting skill. That is to say, Heath Ledger was more of a loss to the movie industry than Walker, for at least Ledger had the decency to look good, act well, and pick his roles wisely.

By all accounts, Walker was a nice enough guy in real life who wasn’t even responsible for his own death and losing any such person under the given circumstances constitutes a tragedy. It’s just that the outpouring of emotion over this particular death is magnified beyond the contributions Walker made to his art. Where is the similar outpouring of emotion for Aldo Coppola, the late Milan hairstylist who helped merge hair styling with fashion? Coppola certainly impacted art more than Walker did in their respective genres. Every time you see a fashion show, you should be thanking Coppola. But, no one thanks Walker for starring in the Fast and Furious movies, well, except women dragged to the movies by the boyfriends and husbands. At least Walker’s life made someone feel better for a little while.

With three of Walker’s films set to be released posthumously, you can be sure that fans and critics alike will suddenly marvel at Walker’s incredible range and breadth of skill and how terrible it is that just as Walker was coming into his own, we lost him. While we should perhaps respect the dead because they cannot defend themselves, let’s not bestow sainthood upon those who do not deserve it. We all owe more thanks to Coppola for whom without, the Victoria’s Secret catalog just wouldn’t be the same.

My Beef With Boghossian

Does religion make people behave maliciously? Does religion make people evil? Do we need to rid the world of religion because it makes people malicious and evil? The answer to these questions is a resounding “yes,” or at least that is the answer rather strongly implied by the work of Portland State University’s Dr. Peter Boghossian. Boghossian’s new book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, is a rallying cry to what Boghossian calls “street epistemology;” basically atheist evangelicalism that seeks to divorce theists from their supernatural beliefs by attacking a theist’s theory of knowledge. In being a rational person, Boghossian says that there should not only be evidence to support beliefs but a proper chain of reasoning to come to certain conclusions. I certainly agree with Boghossian that faith is a failure of epistemology and I agree that the more outrageous a belief claim the more extraordinary evidence is required to make certain inferences. The problem is that if there should be evidence to support beliefs, whatever they may be, then Boghossian and his merry band of followers do not appear to be playing by their own rules. 

[Before going any further, I must disclose that I have never met, taken a class with, or otherwise talked to Dr. Boghossian. So, I cannot say how much of his beliefs or the beliefs of the presumably rational atheist community that I will now discredit they have personally examined or what rationalizing – different from rationale – they have used to come to certain conclusions.]

First, we have to understand what motivates the Boghossian and the current nu-atheist movement. (Hint: It’s the same as the old motivation.) What motivates a pseudo-militant atheist* like Boghossian is their belief that the world suffers, and has suffered throughout history, from the theistic beliefs that are rampant in almost every culture on Earth. Boghossian and his followers believe that if only people could be cured of their “faith virus” and turned towards atheism (which by-golly must be, by default, rational) the world would be a much better place. I know this is the premise these presumably rational atheists are working from because I used to think exactly the same thing a few years ago. And then I grew up.

[*A pseudo-militant atheist seeks to engage you in conversation with a measure of compassion but has an ulterior motive. But, hey, theists do the same thing, so why not?]

As a true, bona-fide philosopher who is not a Scotsman – philosophical humor; move along – I had a belief that was open to revision. (All beliefs must be so, according to Boghossian, or you’re not rational; agreed.) I found that the more people I met throughout life, I would come to categorize an individual as a good person by about a 4-to-1 margin regardless of whether they were theistic or atheistic. [Meaning, for every 4 good theists or atheists I met, there was 1 bad theist or atheist. Certainly, we could argue over my criteria for what makes for a good or bad person, but let’s focus on the subject at hand right now.] I found that in dealing with people, religion or lack thereof seemingly had no bearing on whether or not someone was nice to me. Of course, my personal experiences with people are anecdotal evidence that religion plays no part in what makes a human moral, and anecdotal evidence is generally frowned upon in philosophy. (Nevermind that it is often admissible in a court of law, but, whatever.) So, in order to tear down the premise from which presumably rational atheists are working from, perhaps we should examine history.

The presumably rational atheist works from the premise that historically speaking, religion has been the spark for untold amounts of suffering. Problem is, is that if we examine, say, the deaths caused by religion throughout recorded history, what presumably rational atheists say about religion simply isn’t true. For example, noted historian and chronicler of atrocities, Matthew White, concludes in his latest book The Great Big Book of Horrible Things that of the worst 100 atrocities in recorded history, only 13 of them are the direct result of (or assumed to be the direct result of) one religious ideology pitted against another. If we do the math, that leaves 87 atrocities in which religion played a secondary or little to no role in armed conflict. Obviously then, the presumably rational atheist is wrong about religion in terms of the amount of violence theists inflict upon others due to their theistic beliefs, so what do they mean when they say religion is the cause of untold amounts of suffering? (More on that in a moment.) Quickly, a question arises: Why aren’t presumably rational atheists examining the evidence for their own beliefs? A lack of evidence is the point Boghossian is hammering theists on, but why isn’t he applying his methodology to the beliefs of the members of his own community? Isn’t the premise presumably rational atheists are working from “something they are pretending to know,” as Boghossian would put it?

It may be the case that the presumably rational atheist senses there is an amount of harm done by religion that is psychological. Although they rarely cite this as the meaning behind their basic assumption about religion, they still have no evidence that the psychological manipulations perpetrated by theists upon other people (shaming, for example) is caused by the theist’s religious beliefs as opposed to, say, Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Is there perhaps a biological imperative that drives people to try and control others through any means available? Where is the evidence pointing one way or the other? Despite the lack of evidence – which is required to rationally believe something – the presumably rational atheist typically clings to the premise they began with, that religion is bad and that a world full of rational atheists would be better. Even if this were true, look what happens when we take the second part of their premise to its logical conclusion.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the presumably rational atheist is right (because there is supporting evidence) and the world would be better if it were full of rational people, given that rational people are less violent and not quite the psychological terrorist theists are. If it is concluded that rational people are morally superior, might there be sub-categories of rational people who are less violent and less psychologically manipulative than the group as a whole? Woman are often regarded as less violent than men and rightly so because that’s what all available evidence indicates. Moreover, evidence indicates that homosexuals as a group are less violent than women. If we take the presumably rational atheist’s original premise to its logical conclusion, the world would be a whole lot better off not under the direction of rational people, but under the direction of rational, atheistic lesbians. But you’ll never hear the presumably rational atheist come to such a conclusion because they haven’t looked at the evidence. They haven’t played by their own rules. 

Nor do they apparently want to. I cannot relate to you how many times I walked the halls of Portland State University as a student and saw flyers for the latest meeting extoling the virtues of Communism. This, despite the fact that all historical evidence indicates that Communism is a complete failure in practice.

This is not so much an attack on Boghossian as it is an attack on the beliefs of the latest, growing crop of atheists in general. After all, although I noticed the failure of theistic epistemology over two decades ago, Boghossian has pointed out this flaw in theism with more wit and flair than I ever could. And I would fully support his endeavor to de-convert people from their faith if only the evidence indicated that religion corrupts individuals and has been a detriment throughout history. But the evidence isn’t there. And therein lies my beef; don’t require of others evidence for their beliefs if you’re not going to apply the same standards to your own.

I'd like to believe that no one likes a hypocrite. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise.