Why Humanists Need To Make The Shift To Post-Atheism

[rug]

George Dvorsky
Posted: May 15, 2012

I’m getting increasingly annoyed by all the anti-religious propaganda that litters my Facebook newsfeed. Look, as a fellow humanist and atheist, I get it. Organized religion is a problem on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin. I’d be the first person to say that something needs to be done about it and I’m delighted to see atheism become normalized in our society and culture. But seriously, folks, what are you hoping to achieve by posting such facile and inflammatory material?

Who are you speaking to? Are you doing it to make yourself feel better? Or do you really feel that through this kind of mindless slacktivism that you’re making a difference and actually impacting on real lives?

It’s time to put these toys away and consider the bigger picture. Humanists need to start helping people make the transition away from religion, while at the same time working to create a relevant and vital humanist movement for the 21st century.

The intellectual battle against religion has already been won — and a strong case can be made that the victory came at the time of the Enlightenment. The struggle now is to find out why religion continues to persist in our society and what we can do about it. I have a strong suspicion that posting pictures of silly church signs isn’t helping.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20120515

[progressoid]

1. George is confused.

Humanism and atheism aren't interchangeable. I know atheists that are not humanists - and vice versa.

[rug]

2. I think he's addressing humanists who are atheists.

[GliderGuider]

3. Why humanists may be more in need of rescue than religious believers

Atheism I have no problem with, being one myself.

But I've become less and less enamoured with humanism since I became fully aware of the accelerating global ecological predicament. The more I dug into its root causes, the more I realized that down at its core it's a problem of anthropocentrism. Us vs. Them. Humans in all our clay-footed glory, treating every other living thing on the planet as either a resource or a nuisance.

The idea that Humans Are What Matter has a stranglehold on us, regardless of whether we justify it with belief in a supreme being or not. In our heart of hearts, we know that We are the Supreme Beings. Out of this attitude flows all the pollution, degradation, consumptive devastation, abuse and extinction we heap on the planet and its other inhabitants.

Humanism actively promotes the idea that we are IT - the big Kahunas, who answer to Nobody and Nothing. As such I see humanism, whether secular or religious, as being responsible for more planetary damage than any God-belief could hope to inflict. As someone who thinks all life has intrinsic value, the tenets of humanism cause me enormous distress.

I personally favour the Buddhist concept of "interbeing", the Taoist notion that "All is One" or the entirely secular position of Deep Ecology - all these promote the preservation of the web of life on this planet, a web without which humanists, atheists and religionists alike would perish.

Humanism is emblematic of a pernicious, devastating arrogance. Rescue a humanist from a life of sin today...

[trotsky]

5. You seem to have a strange, caricaturesque idea of what humanism is.

That's unfortunate.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

...

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

[GliderGuider]

7. That's sweet and all but...

The American Humanist Manifesto isn't the sole arbiter of humanism.

Humanism

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, world view, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Religious and secular humanism arose from a trajectory extending from the deism and anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment, the various secular movements of the 19th century (such as positivism), and the overarching expansion of the scientific project.
...
Humanism (when without "secular" as a qualifying adjective, written with a capital 'H')[58] is a comprehensive life stance or world view which embraces human reason unaided by divine revelation, metaphysical naturalism, altruistic morality and distributive justice, and consciously rejects supernatural claims, theistic faith and religiosity, pseudoscience, and perceived superstition.[59][60][61] Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.
...
Humanism increasingly designates an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet and lives. While retaining the definition of the IHEU with regard to the life stance of the individual, inclusive Humanism enlarges its constituency within homo sapiens to consider humans' broadening powers and obligations.

The addition of a planetary sensibility of "inclusive humanism" (which has a very broad definition if you go a-Googling, not all of it related to ecological consciousness) is a very recent addition to humanism, one that IME has not yet penetrated very deeply.

Let me ask you, does the life of a cat or a dik-dik have the same intrinsic value as the life of a human?

[trotsky]

14. No, it isn't. But neither are you. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. The author is perfectly aware of the topics you bring up

From the bottom of the piece:

George Dvorsky serves as Chair of the IEET Board of Directors and also heads our Rights of Non-Human Persons program.

[GliderGuider]

36. One robin doesn't make a spring.

I'll ask you the question previously avoided: does the life of a cat or a dik-dik have the same intrinsic value as the life of a human?
Would most humanists answer "Yes"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I think most humanists wouldn't say value isn't 'intrinsic'

Value is something that is determined by the interactions of a society. That may include non-humans. I would expect most humanists place different values on different animals, plants and so on. My guess is that most humanists are non-vegetarian, just like most humans.

[GliderGuider]

38. And that's kind of my point.

Most humanists place utilitarian values on non-human life - values that are usually, primarily contingent on their utility to humans. That's the aspect that I object to, and insofar as it is a general feature of "humanism" I object to that label as well. Individuals who call themselves humanists may have non-contingent value systems in this regard, but I frankly have not met many. Most of the Deep Ecologist types I've met wouldn't call themselves "humanists" - it's an inherently speciesist term.

BTW, simply being an omnivore does not prevent one from ascribing non-contingent value to other life. Indigenous societies have adopted this position since the beginning. In such societies animals and plants may have utilitarian value, but this is only one aspect of their value, not the primary one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. You asked if they would think they have the same value

And I said nothing about the values ascribed being utility-based. I maintain that humanists would not put an identical value on every animal in the world. There are considerations of sentience, replaceability, and so on (we would miss one rat far less than we'd miss the final member of a species).

Being an omnivore indicates you're willing to kill some animals for food. I don't think anyone would kill for food an animal they thought had the same intrinsic value as a human.

I also believe everyone is 'speciesist' - fleas don't get the respect that humans, or blue whales, do (even from extremes like Jainism, I think, in practice).

But this is a red herring for the subject - which is the comparison of humanists, atheists, and religious believers. I'm sure you know in reality that 'humanism' was so named to contrast the importance of humans with the Christian god, not with other species, and that's the way it is still used today. Your original claim that "humanists may be more in need of rescue than religious believers" seems baseless, anyway.

[GliderGuider]

40. I agree that my use of the word "same" was confusing.

It would have been clearer to ask whether a the life of a cat has intrinsic value, as a human life does. Perhaps that phrasing will help you understand my position.

When we finally dethroned God, we fell victim to our innate tendency to create hierarchies. Since there was no force "above" us any more from which life was thought to flow, we became the top of the heap. Dethroning God automatically enthroned humans. In the process, all externalized moral restraint on our activities vanished. A lot of feedlot evil has come from that shift in perspective. Western industrial religion didn't help that situation much, of course, since under it we have been taught to see ourselves as god-proxies. However, there is a very strong current of stewardship even in Western religions. And most indigenous, pagan and animistic religions have placed humans in a radically different position than Abrahamic religions.

In hindsight, perhaps my original subject line should have read, "Why atheists need to make the shift to post-humanism..."

[tama]

8. Humanism can mean what meaning you give it

But let's not forget that also animists are humans and humanists - gardeners, cultivators, hunters, shephers, shamans, artists, etc. with human powers and responsibilities towards other form of and spirit. Considering animists primitive subhumans (racially, culturally, intellectually etc.) is what the term "anti-humanist humanism" refers to.

And whether we like it or not, in so many ways we are the big Kahunas. And there are no better teachers how to be a good Kahuna than dogs, our oldest and closest friends (of course we can learn same lessons from other species too). To behave in responsible way with dogs, we need to accept and understand our responsibility to be the leaders of the pack when we share our lives and homes with dogs. To be a leader of the pack (or a gardener) is not about ego and bossiness but being a servant of the well being of the whole pack - or any other community. It's also about receiving and accepting the lesson of unconditional devotion, loyalty and love of those you serve by leading, for the greater good.

We can't deny our kahuna powers. We can use our powers for (self)destruction or learning to become good shepherds, gardeners and pack leaders. And if as humans we cant love our humanity, what can we love?

[GliderGuider]

11. Most people I've met who self-identify first as "humanists"

tend to exhibit the "Kahuna complex", without fully internalizing the responsibility toward all of life (and potentially beyond) that position carries.

The problem is primarily one of ego, which is why the Kahuna complex shows up in the religious and atheists alike. That's why I prefer philosophies and practices that have as one goal the deliberate calming of our egoic tendencies. Seva is wonderful for that.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. oh those darn atheists are annoying people again

Given that the mainstream culture does not even discuss the possibility that religion is a load of hogwash, those darn atheists are doing what isn't being done. As usual, the Great Offended are off demanding they shut up. "You're doing it all wrong!"

Well at least they are doing something.

[trotsky]

6. What I don't understand is the simplistic mind that believes we can't do both.

Intellectually counter religion but ALSO make fun of its ridiculous features.

DU does that with Republicanism all the time. Finger-waggers can get bent.

[dmallind]

9. I was going to post my usual long winded response. This says it better than I could ^^ nt

[dimbear]

12. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" wasn't history, it was caricature. And a hatchet job on Simon Legree.

Had no effect on history, I guess. Abraham Lincoln met Stowe and said "who are you?," I guess.

If Stowe had only been polite, things might have happened.

[cbayer]

13. While still taking the position that religion needs to be stopped and that

religious people need to be rescued, I applaud his advice to take a higher road.

What is gained by posting cartoons that mock religious believers?

[trotsky]

15. What is gained by posting cartoons that mock Republicans?

I see plenty of those on this site.

There are also plenty of cartoons mocking political positions that even some on DU hold. (We aren't a monolithic bunch.)

[cbayer]

16. Republicans aren't protected on this site. Believers are.

[trotsky]

17. You ignored half of what I said. n/t

[trotsky]

18. Also...

If believers are protected, why did you call a large portion of them "dumbasses"?

I would appreciate your answers. Thanks.

[skepticscott]

26. Don't hold your breath

avoiding tough questions seems to run in the family.

[cleanhippie]

19. And there it is.... "Believers are protected."

Not only on DU, but IRL.

This begs the question: Why?

[trotsky]

20. Note too the recurring theme...

that a comic or comment about beliefs is the exact same thing as attacking believers. Why do some think that religious beliefs are worthy of special treatment?

[cleanhippie]

21. "Why do some think that religious beliefs are worthy of special treatment?"

That, my friend, is the $64,000 question.


Cbayer, you want to answer that one?

[daaron]

22. I worked as a political cartoonist as a young man.

And took as my inspiration Dr. Seuss, who drew editorial cartoons early in his career and wrote to the effect that his 'toons spoke harsh truths that the paper couldn't speak, were rarely funny, and if he had to do it over, he'd do it just the same.

Surely we aren't going to start flipping out over cartoons, such as has happened in Europe in recent years? It's a grand tradition along the lines of the muckraker - a thoroughly disreputable career that, in the long run, serves the public good.

I do find it a bit amusing that the humanist in the article is complaining about cartoons on Facebook. Guess I'm a little old-school, but that hardly seems worthy of concern.

[cbayer]

23. No one is flipping out here.

The point of the article is that it is counterproductive for humanists to mock, ridicule or otherwise dismiss religious people.

Some of the cartoons that get posted here are loathsome, not funny and very offensive to other members.

There is a time and place for cartoons, and I don't object to them on principle at all. A biting, satirical cartoon is one thing. A juvenile attack on other people because they see things differently than you is quite another.

And, I agree with the author that it does nothing to further the goals of the particular group he ascribes to. It just looks petulantly childish.

[daaron]

25. I wrote, "Surely we're NOT going to start flipping out..."

I didn't accuse anyone of flipping out! As laconicsax points out, I'm new to DU forums (though not the site, which is a useful news aggregator in its own respect), so it seems only fair to give the benefit of the doubt that we AREN'T going to flip out about cartoons.

The rest of my response was a defense of the grand tradition of political cartooning, including the offensive, disparaging sort that has landed many the 'toonist in hot water since the inception of the art form at roughly the dawn of the Enlightenment. Let's just say my dedication to cartooning and the 1st Amendment is much stronger than my gag reflex - no matter how offensive or poorly executed the cartoon. Remember the Danish Mohammed cartoons? Terrible art. Stupid. Wouldn't pick up that rag to line a bird cage, but should cartoonists feel free to draw Mohammed with a bomb-turban, however poorly? Yes. Similarly, we should feel free to share cartoons, and feel free to 'de-friend' people we don't like on Facebook.

Not that I use Facebook. Or take seriously the whining of a Facebook user offended by the people they friended.

[skepticscott]

27. So what makes an attack "juvenile"

and what distinguishes that from biting satire that you bestow your gracious blessing on? Surely it is not that one gives offense and the other doesn't. Does calling a group of creationists "a bunch of dumbasses" qualify as a "petulantly childish" "juvenile attack"?

[Goblinmonger]

28. I think a cartoon saying creationists are all dumbasses

would be hilarious but you apparently wouldn't think so because it mocks and ridicules their religion.

[cbayer]

29. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=7654

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=7668

[laconicsax]

24. "Surely we aren't going to start flipping out over cartoons..."

You really must be new here.

There are some people on DU who lose it when a cartoon says something they don't like.

[cbayer]

30. Lose it? Really? Can you give me an example?

[laconicsax]

31. Ask your dad.

Or the people who have alerted on the cartoons posted here and called them bigoted. (I'd post some an examples, but I don't save jury PMs anymore.)

"Lose it" may be a bit of an exaggeration and it may not be.

[cbayer]

32. I think objecting to a cartoon as offensive or insulting is not losing it.

The TOS for this site prohibit bigotry against members because of their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Alerting on posts which a member feels violates this part of the TOS is not "losing it".

OTOH, posting threads in another group or in H & M crying about having had a post hidden might more readily meet the definition of losing it.

[laconicsax]

33. Is it really a contest?

As long as DUers don't post H&M-style tirades about a cartoon that says something disagreeable, it's a sensible reaction?

[cbayer]

34. Are you asking if it's a sensible reaction to speak up when confronted with something you

find insulting, bigoted or otherwise offensive?

I think in most circumstances it is quite sensible to do so.

I recently had this conversation both here and IRL about how to respond when someone told a racist joke. If at all possible, I would favor saying something. Sometimes that can't be done appropriately.

I suppose the person who told the joke might think I was "losing it" when I spoke up, though, since they just don't see their own bigotry.