Exploring Humanism and Paganism with B.T. Newberg

B.T. Newberg

Many forms of Spiritual Naturalism are growing, inspired by the ideas and wisdom from many different philosophies and traditions. Naturalists also exist within paganism, and one website has been making strides in exploring the nexus between Humanism and Paganism.

B.T. Newberg is the editor of Humanistic Paganism, a website devoted to naturalistic spirituality for the 21st Century. I recently interviewed B.T. about his philosophy and his project...


DT Strain
Thanks so much for your time and your thoughts! I'll begin by asking, what is the best way to summarize Humanistic Paganism?

BT Newberg
Mythology and science married.  If you can picture that, you've got Humanistic Paganism.

In a nutshell, Humanistic Paganism is a naturalistic way of life rooted equally in science and myth.  Modern empirical science has revealed a startling universe that is a wonder to behold, and we have every reason to stand in awe.  At the same time, the world's ancient mythic traditions reveal our inner, psychological universe.  Both are valuable in the 21st century.  When it comes to science and religion, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  One way of life that fully embraces both is Humanistic Paganism.

The website by the same name appeals to all those who feel akin to this way of life, including a wide range of folk from Neopagans to Spiritual Humanists to Taoists.


DT
What can you tell us about your background and what brought you to what you're doing with Humanistic Paganism today?

BT
There was a moment in late high school when I was riding along on a John Deere tractor in the tiny, all-Christian town where I grew up, when I had a eureka experience.  It occurred to me: If I'd grown up in China, I would be just as certain about Buddhism being "true" as I was about Christianity.  In a flash the spell of dogma was shattered, and I saw religions as natural cultural phenomena.  Since then I've been agnostic but intensely interested in spirituality.

Fast forward a decade or so.  I'd explored most of the world's religious traditions, looking for some way to still be spiritual and revere nature, but without the woo-woo of superstition or dogma.  Paganism made a deep impression, and it had a long tradition of naturalism as one of its many valid modes of belief.  So I have come to practice Paganism in a form that puts those naturalistic elements at the forefront.  I call it Humanistic Paganism.  Others call it Naturalistic Paganism, and still others prefer a broader label like Spiritual Naturalism.


DT
Beyond the philosophy itself, tell us about what you're doing with the website, and what your future goals are.

BT
The mission of the website is to amplify the voice of naturalism within spirituality.  To do that, we seek out and publish the best writing of spiritual naturalists.  Some of our writers are established authors, but we are particularly interested in everyday folk like you and I.  The most honest and candid pieces often come from those who are just struggling to work out some kind of meaning in their daily lives.

Some of the writings are about the science of spirituality, like Rhys Chisnall's Paganism and the Brain.  Others explore practices, like Thomas Schenk's Bicycle Meditation.  Still others are personal experiences, like Ryan Spellman's How the Universe Speaks to Me.  We've even done interfaith work, like our ebook Encounters in Nature, which brings together a Celtic polytheist, a Vodou priest, and a Humanistic Pagan to talk about experiences in the wild.

In addition to publishing articles, we also provide resources and community links so naturalists can find each other more easily.  Most of all, our site is there to help the struggling seeker realize there are valid ways to be spiritual without all the woo-woo.

In the future, we hope to expand our line of ebooks, and refine our goals and mission.  Our next ebook, tentatively titled Our Ancient Future, aims to refine our roots as well as our vision for the days ahead.  That vision will be directly shaped by debates happening right now on a weekly website feature called Thing on Thursday.


DT
What do you say to Humanists who might think you're including a lot of material they see as extraneous at best, or perhaps even too condoning of superstition?

BT
They are right to be suspicious.  They should investigate us with a critical eye.  That's what good science does, after all.  If they do so, they'll find we subject our experiences and practices to the same examination.  We're working toward theories of spiritual experience which are consilient with biology and the physical sciences, and which make the least extraneous assumptions about God or gods beyond the observable universe.  Superstition is precisely what we leave behind.

Where we might have differences of opinion is on whether mythic language has any value today.  We think it does.  The symbols of myth, including words like "spirit", "Goddess", or "Dionysus", raise the hackles on our necks.  They lead us into certain vital states of mind that cannot be experienced in any other way.  How they do so is a matter for scientific inquiry.  That they do so is simply self-evident from experience.  That it enriches our lives is equally self-evident.  Experiencing the depth of myth is no less natural than experiencing the beauty of the full moon.  And like the latter, it deepens the sense of wonder and mystery in life.


DT
What are some of the criticisms you envision from the Pagan side, and how do you respond to them?

BT
One person reported going to a Pagan gathering and being pitied for not being "properly wired" to receive signals from the gods.  Author Brendan Myers has been accused of being a non-Pagan.  I've been scolded for using the names of the gods of myth if I don't "really" believe in them.  These are the sorts of criticisms we find leveled against us.  You see, lately there's been a swing in Contemporary Paganism toward literal belief, the idea that deities literally exist "out there" somewhere, independent of our minds.  Now, naturalism has been around in Paganism for a long time, all the way back to the Stoics of ancient Greece and farther still.  It used to be strong in modern Paganism too, whether you interpreted deities as Jungian archetypes, metaphors, or what not.  But lately some have started to assume that literal belief is the only genuine belief.  It's not unlike the fundamentalism of certain other religions.  We're responding by developing a stronger presence, amplifying our voices so people know that naturalistic Pagans are "real" Pagans too.

We're also responding by taking the situation as a challenge to refine our own understandings.  As John Halstead argues, when we psychologize gods as archetypes, we risk reducing them to "just" archetypes.  What we need to do is find a way to raise them back to gods, to express the truly godlike nature of archetypes, and to utter the numinous power of all such naturalistic phenomena.


DT
I like what Jung said in Halstead's article, that the gods refer to the "ruling powers" of our universe. That would indicate that, at least in some form, what the gods represent does indeed exist outside of our own minds wouldn't you say?  I'm reminded of Dr. Ellie Arroway in the film version of Contact - when the aliens appeared to her in a human form to which she could relate. Would you say that the gods are one way human beings can relate to those ultimate "ruling powers" of our universe which are difficult, perhaps impossible, to fully communicate in words?


BT
No.  There's a big "on the other hand..." coming up in a sec, but first I gotta say no.  I know a lot of readers will want to read that statement as supporting literalistic god concepts, i.e. intelligent beings with independent wills that respond to prayers and magical invocations, but with a minimally scientific twist.  We have to be very careful not to exploit science to justify our pet theories.  That happens a lot in Paganism, as when quantum physics is invoked to explain magic.  So, no, I wouldn't say it indicates something outside our minds, or alien-like entities unknowable except through myth.

On the other hand, if by "ruling powers" you mean the existential realities that shape our lives, like the sun, sky, death, love, or the profound sense of order in the universe, then my answer is yes.  They are outside our minds, and myths are uniquely capable of helping us fully express them.  Alternatively, if "ruling powers" means the archetypes, or modules in the unconscious mind that drive our deepest behavior patterns, then yes in that case too.  That's what Jung actually meant, as he makes clear elsewhere in the passage.  These are not outside our minds, but they are outside our conscious ego's control, so in that sense they are beyond us.  Since they are also beyond conscious perception, the symbolic images of myths help us glimpse them, just as Perseus glimpsed Medusa reflected in a mirror.  And I can't stress enough that this transcendence of the conscious self makes them godlike, deserving of religious awe.

This gives a sense of the razor's edge we walk when trying to heal the rift between science and religion.  The science has to be truly science, and the religion has to be truly religion.  It's not an easy path to tread.  But if we can do it, we may lead lives in which what we know about the world and what we need to feel fulfilled are in harmony.


DT
Yes, that latter sense of 'ruling powers' is the one I meant. Have you heard much from readers who are enthusiastic about Humanistic Paganism? And, what have you been most surprised and/or inspired by in those responses?

BT
I've been blown away by the response.  The website started out as a one-man show, a platform for my own personal explorations.  Within six months, it became a burgeoning spiritual community.  That was a big surprise.  We are now typically booked six weeks out with submissions from authors.

What inspires me most is the sheer number of folks out there, each trying to figure it out on their own.  Hey, there are others just like me!  At the same time, there aren't enough high-profile places for us to find each other.  So it's hard to connect, and easy to feel like you're on your own.  But others are out there.  We're out there.  And hopefully projects like Humanistic Paganism and the Spiritual Naturalist Society can help make it a little easier to link up. 


DT
Yes, I have high hopes for the Spiritual Naturalist Society. We'll be ready to launch soon and it's my hope that people doing work such as yours will find the Society a useful avenue to share what you're doing and contribute to an even larger community of Spiritual Naturalists that include Pagans as well as naturalists from many other traditions. How do you foresee your relationship with the SNS once it's up and running?

BT
Potentially intimate.  Humanistic Paganism can be seen as a form of Spiritual Naturalism, so it would fit right in as a close partner.  I'm looking forward to seeing what we can do for the SNS, and what it can do for us all.


DT
Is there anything else you'd like to share?

BT
Yes - we accept "challenge" pieces.  If you're reading this and you just don't buy it, write up your critique and submit it as an article!  As long as it's constructive and offered in the spirit of dialogue, i.e. not a rant or flame but a well-reasoned argument, we'd love to publish it. Peer review is an essential element of the scientific method.  Criticism may not be the most pleasant to hear, but it keeps us on our toes.  It's how all good ideas become great ideas. 

Finally, I'd like to finish up with a question:

What kind of spirituality is best suited for our times?

In this postmodern age of alienation and confusion, it is tempting to want to trade observable reality for simplistic supernatural models.  On the other hand, it is equally tempting to want to stamp out all spiritual language for fear of "fuzzy thinking."  We believe we can do better than both of these.

Imagine it: a natural world where the language of myth and the discoveries of science mutually reveal the wonder of life.

That's spirituality for the 21st century.


DT
Well said! Thank you so much for your time. I wish you all the best and look forward to working with you in the future.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Speaking about Humanism

Today I visited Eagle's Trace retirement community, where I was invited to speak about Humanism. They have a group that discusses religion and religious issues. They had discussed Christianity, Judaism, and other beliefs in the past but some of the members were Humanists and requested the topic be addressed. Everyone was very friendly and it was a great experience. After I finished a cursory overview of Humanism, we spent most of the time in question & answer. Some I could tell were very amenable to the ideas in Humanism and some gave me more challenging questions, which are good to hear too. I even ran into a friend I originally met through my local Humanist organizations, who is living there now. We also discussed a number of other philosophies I brought up because I feel they help to 'round out' and fill in a lot of life guidance for naturalists such as Humanists. There was at least one woman in the group who was very excited by ideas of interconnectedness. Another woman I met is a Christian humanist who has a very liberal take on Christianity. I don't know if she was a naturalist per se, but would certainly share a lot of perspectives on compassion and other ethics with me and other Humanists, I'm sure. I'm grateful to Mary Kate Kell, who invited me, and to everyone else for having me.

On a side note, I've recently discovered a wonderful article at the Huffington Post: Beyond the Theism/Atheism Divide: A Plea for Humility.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

It's all philosophy

The School of Athens, Raphael

Yesterday in the New York Times, Notre Dame philosophy professor Gary Gutting wrote an opinion piece, Happiness, Philosophy and Science. In it he makes excellent points about the importance of philosophy alongside science, in the pursuit of happiness.

Having said that, I wonder if part of the conundrum is imagined (by all of us), in that it is based on a false distinction between science and philosophy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Applied, that is the pursuit of eudaimonia, or "the flourishing life" (i.e. the good life), which necessarily involves happiness.

Any time you are (a) asking what is, (b) asking what therefore ought to be on our part, or (c) asking how you know either, you are doing philosophy. This is the process of the earliest philosophers. Both the early Taoists and the Greek philosophers, for example, didn't merely sit around pontificating. They went out into the world making careful observations, talking with others, and then applied those to their best estimates of what our place was in the world and how we ought to live for best results. Heraclitus, for example, made highly detailed observations about his natural world. Socrates went around Athens talking with people. Chuang-Tzu spoke constantly about his observations of nature. They tested these against competing ideas to come up with whole models and made their way quite well. This full spectrum of activity is why, for example, the Stoics considered their philosophy in the three areas of Physics, Logic, and Ethics.

Over time we specialized such that those focusing on "a" eventually developed a rigorous scientific method and became "scientists". Those focusing on "b" became the ethicists and, in the case of religious philosophies, holy leaders. Those focusing on "c" became the logicians, linguists, etc. But all of them are still philosophers and always have been, for the entire endeavor is merely different branches of philosophy. Science is philosophy. It's the part of philosophy that asks 'what is?'. When we take that data and use it to build a road map to happiness, we are moving from description to prescription (from "a" to "b") but we are still doing philosophy throughout.

I wonder if Gutting may be looking at the matter too much through the lens of academia, which has sliced up the disciplines for the sake of orderliness and for making good corporate worker bees in different industries. As a result, that practical thing that the original philosophers lived - that thing that was their guiding path in life, has been stripped down almost to the mere recitation of old, out of date, philosophy with everything else of utility having been handed over to other departments; forgetting that the first and foremost purpose of philosophy is practical and results-driven - not the detached, esoteric, academic, intellectual game it has become in all to many educational settings. Today, what many people imagine philosophy to be is not much beyond a mix of snobbish name-dropping and the entertaining-yet-useless wild speculations one might expect in a pot-smoking circle at a party. It's no wonder we so often hear people saying preposterous things such as, "philosophy is obsolete". If I had the same mixed-up conception of philosophy some people have today, I would think it was obsolete too, instead of the very crucial basis of human life that it is.

Gutting, at one point says, "philosophical thinking". I don't know what that means. Philosophers think using reason and rationality. While the era before a rigid scientific method, and a resulting over-reliance on analogy at times, might sometimes give another impression, philosophers relied on observation and reason in their work. After putting forth what he believed to be an evident truth about the world, would Socrates have been disinterested if someone had surveyed the matter and found another result? Of course not. In fact, one wouldn't get far telling Socrates they had 'faith' that something were true. Any philosophy worth its salt depends upon the raw facts gleaned from those who do the work to collect them - those philosophers who specialize on that aspect of philosophy (who we call scientists today). To build philosophy off of any other foundation is not philosophy, but mysticism.

Not to lay all of this at Gutting's feet. I suspect he might agree with me on some of these points, and I think the overall thrust of his article as being a call to the importance of working with philosophers on the matter of happiness is an excellent one. My responses here are not so much criticism as addendum. But I think a reminder about the essence of real, practical and applied, philosophy can further illuminate the matter, and illustrate the inherent relevance of all the philosophers - the physicists, cosmologists, biologists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, mathematicians, logicians, ethicists, and others.


Many thanks to Jennifer Hancock, who made me aware of Gutting's article...

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

New book on Naturalistic Buddhism

As longtime readers know, I have been studying, writing, and giving talks on naturalistic takes on Buddhism for a few years now. One book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, I happily discovered after much of my own initial thoughts and writing on the subject, and now another one has been published by a philosopher at Duke University, Owen Flanagan, called, The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism Naturalized. I have not read this book yet but plan to. An article at the Boston Globe's website a few days ago gives some background on Flanagan's thoughts.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

DT Strain talks Buddhism on Open Air Atheist podcast

James Stillwell, Open Air Atheist

James Stillwell has recently invited me to be a guest on his Open Air Atheist podcast. In Episode 6, we discuss Buddhism for the naturalist, compatible with atheist, agnostic, Humanist, freethinker, and skeptic worldviews. The discussion is about an hour and a half, and can be heard for free by going to iTunes and searching "OpenAirAtheistPodCast". There are some sound issues early on, but they get better over the course of the program.

LINK: Open Air Atheist, Episode 6 "Naturalistic Buddhism"

Followup Notes:

Rebirth: At 25:10, we get into the subject of reincarnation and I could have addressed it better. For more information on this, what Buddhists mean by it, and a naturalistic perspective on it, please see my essay, A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma & Rebirth. Another relevant article would be Visit to A Buddhist Temple.

Quantum Physics: At 49:18 James asks about correlations between Buddhism and quantum physics, which I largely dismiss as common distortions by new agers and others. However, I should have added that one area of modern science that does greatly illuminate concepts in Buddhism and Taoism is Complex Systems Theory.

Ritual: At one point I say that I'll get around to ritual in a moment, but never do. The role of ritual for the spiritual naturalist is primarily for the purposes of self conditioning, integrating a sense of meaning, and focusing into a certain mindset for habit-building, awareness, and self development. There are also fellowship aspects to ritual. This, as opposed to ritual for the purposes of appeasing some other entities or causing external alleged phenomena to be effected somehow.

Meditation: At 1:04:52 we begin discussing meditation. For the full explanation of meditation I reference, see Humanist Meditation 101.

For those who listened to the podcast and have thoughts and questions, please feel free to comment here.

Many thanks to James for a stimulating conversation!


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Even naturalists don't stay in the grave

(cc) Mike Baird, Flickr.com.

In 1932, a young Jewish girl (Margaret Schwarzkopf) staying with a florist (Mary Frye) was unable to return to Germany to visit her dying mother because of rising Antisemitism and, after Margaret's mother died, she expressed to Mary regret that she never had a chance to shed a tear by her mother's grave. Mary was moved to write a poem to Margaret about her thoughts on death, which has come to be known as Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep. This is the background of the popular poem, as confirmed by the research of Dear Abby columnist Abigail Van Buren, reported in The London Times, and which I first learned of through Wikipedia. The full verse of the poem is as follows:

Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush.
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

Recently, thanks to a post by Pamela Daw on Facebook, I saw a most remarkable musical rendition of the poem by Conor O'Brien of the Irish band Villagers. While other musical versions exist, I think this is my favorite:




I have no knowledge of Frye's beliefs, but from the perspective of a Spiritual Naturalist, Frye's poem hits home in several ways. The second line reads, "I am not there" which brings up the matter of what we mean when we say "I" or "me". Naturalists recognize that a person is distinct from merely the atoms that compose the body. Once death has come, there is clearly 'something missing'. But since naturalists have no beliefs in a supernatural soul, what is it that's missing?

Like the Buddhist concept of no-self, naturalists recognize that a person is a composite of many different aggregates, traits, qualities, and functions. There is no single, simple, thing one can point to and say, "that is me". The person - that thinking being which experiences, has memories, makes choices, and who we come to know and love - is a complex system of activity that takes place in a functioning brain, and grows over a lifetime of experiences. It is a careful balance of chaos and order of the sort complex systems theorists study (see also, The Big Deal About Complexity). When the balance is disrupted and the pattern is disturbed to the point where normal function is impossible, that system ceases to be and the person we know dissolves. So, they are truly not in the grave, but does that mean they are nowhere?

The following lines 3 through 10 of the poem are spent comparing the person to a number of different things in nature: the wind, reflections, sunlight, rain, the flight of birds, and the stars. These are not merely random comparisons to 'things we like' because they sound pretty. Nor are they the kind of talk about death one would hear from the traditional religious viewpoint of souls and the afterlife. There is a very careful perspective being expressed here - one that is deeply profound and which can be found in some of the most sophisticated philosophies throughout human history. I do not know precisely what that florist with no formal education in 1932 knew of such things, but the Times described her as an avid reader with a remarkable memory. Is it possible she had been influenced by several philosophies? That is certainly possible and it is also possible that Mary Frye was perceptive enough on her own to pick up on some important truths about her world, just as many early thinkers did.

"I am the swift uplifting rush"

On the most basic level, the comparisons of the person with nature work as metaphor because, when we view the beautiful things around us, we are reminded of the beautiful qualities of the person we knew and the times we had with them.

"I am the soft stars that shine at night"

Another angle would be, as Carl Sagan eloquently pointed out, we are made of 'star stuff' and all of our particles were at one time a part of the cosmos, and return to that awe-inspiring mix.

"Of quiet birds in circled flight"

But even more profoundly, there is a recognition that the intricate maelstrom of relationships that make a person possible, are based on the same universal principles that make possible all of the universe. I mentioned complex systems theory before, and it is apropos that one important series of studies in complexity theory has been on the movement of birds in flock behavior. It is a study of how higher orders of complexity and coordinated operations arise spontaneously from simpler interacting components. These are the very principles that underlay not only bird flocks, but hurricanes, galaxy formations, living organisms, societies, and persons themselves. That means, when I breathe in and out, that motion of air is happening for the same ultimate reason the wind moves through the trees, or the waves of the ocean crash upon the shore. So, comparisons of those found in Frye's poem are more than mere analogy or metaphor.

These are the aspects of nature that caught the eye of early Taoist thinkers. They lend themselves to the Stoic notion of the Divine Fire - that tumultuous flux and inherent creative force out of which all things rise. The Stoics knew that to live in accordance with Nature meant, among many things, to understand deeply that those things which bring death are the very same things that make life and all the things from which we benefit possible. This is the Logos - the pervasive underlying rational order on which the universe is based, and which can be found in persons as well. Like complexity theorists today, Heraclitus knew we could not lie twice in the same river because it is in a constant state of replacement, and the Buddhists teach us to lie in that river and, instead of grasping at every attachment that passes our way, experience the bliss of the moment as it flows by us, always letting go and ready for what lies ahead.

And, if persons are patterns, then patterns repeat, and in more ways than merely the meme. Through their actions and interactions in life (what Buddhists call karma) people are like the Chaos Theory thought experiment of the butterfly that can affect the course of a hurricane. Our loved ones create causes and effects which ripple outward in uncountable and unimaginable ways that cannot be contained. Just one of those ways is in their impressions upon us, which recreate similar patterns in our minds through communication and our deep knowledge of them. Thus, if naturalists remain consistent in their definition of the essence and end of personhood within a complex causal world, then it is true our loved ones are not in the grave. We, quite literally, carry a part of them within us, and so on to others. If that is so then, as Mary Frye says, in many important ways they did not die.



Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Visit www.SpiritualNaturalistSociety.org to sign up to be kept informed of this new organization as it develops 

If you liked this, you might also like Adieu to Immortality.

The Devotion of Love

A play on Michel's Stoic symbol.

Today's article is by guest writer and fellow Stoic, Michel Daw:

When I finally was able to obtain a copy of Musonius Rufus’ lectures (which are notoriously difficult to find in translation), I was pleased to read that I was, in fact, a married Stoic who was Stoicly married! And without even knowing it. As a practicing Stoic, I am concerned with ensuring that my emotional responses are appropriate, within reason. But I REALLY love my wife, a lot. My wife and I have been married (to each other) for 25 years now, and we continually get comments and questions about our ‘unusual’ relationship. We are still affectionate with each other, still attentive and more ‘in love’ than ever. How can I claim to be a Stoic, with the evidence apparently stacked up against me? I will let Musonius speak for me:

“…In marriage there must be above all perfect companionship and mutual love of husband and wife, both in health and in sickness and under all conditions, since it was  with desire for this as well as for having children that both entered upon marriage. Where, then, this love for each other is perfect and the two share it completely, each striving to outdo the other in devotion, the marriage is ideal and worthy of envy, for such a union is beautiful.”

The solution to the paradox is in how we have chosen to define ‘love’. Popular romance novels, movies and TV have painted an extremely emotional definition of love. “You have to feel it,” we are told “and when you don’t feel it anymore, move on.” Tying the actions of love within the relationship to an emotional state subjects the relationship to the ephemeral nature of the passions. There is a better way, and we have proven it.

Love, for us at any rate, is not an emotion, it is a devotion. Of course there are emotional times, but these come and go with the years. Regardless of the emotional level, we genuinely admire each other's qualities, seek each other's advice, and support each other's activities. We call it the 'Daw factor.' When you engage one of us, you engage both, because one always acts as the back up to the other. We admit our mistakes, ask each other for forgiveness when we are wrong and forgive readily and easily. Early in our relationship, (we were both 19) we agreed to several guidelines. These have been ‘tweaked’ over the years, but are essentially the same as what they were when we first agreed to them.

1 - If we were to marry, we agreed that there would be no easy way out. Divorce would not be an option (short of some form of abuse).

2 - Arguments are a lose/lose proposition. Rational discussion, firmly held opinions, are welcome. But as soon as one of us got entrenched into a position emotionally, the first one to realize that we were getting emotional would back down, essentially give in. That is we would deliberately 'lose' the argument, but win the relationship. This has worked for us (both) so many times. The reason this works is that the ‘back down’ diffuses the emotion, and we usually pick up the topic later, and come to an agreement when cooler heads prevail.

3 - A relationship is not 50%/50%, nor is it a give and take. It isn't about whose turn it is to the dishes, who took out the garbage last time, or who owes who what. It is a 100% commitment. It is a give and give, that is, giving for its own sake, not with an expectation of some sort of return. We give to each other because we want to, for the sheer joy of the joy we bring to the other.

4 - (I learned this one from my father-in-law) Never go to bed angry. If there is any reason for tension, talk it out. And keep talking. We have talked into the early hours, sometimes all-nighters. We have even used this in raising our children, (all adults now) and they can share stories about late nights sat around on mom & dad's bed talking it out. This led to some bleary eyes in the morning, but usually they realized that the 'fight' was pointless. They still argue from time to time. But they always make up, usually within 10 minutes.

5 - Remember the romance. Say 'I love you' every day, as many times as you can, then do something to show it. Continue dating. We still go out to dinner, a movie, a walk, flowers, breakfast in bed. She tells me that after 25 years together, she still finds me handsome, and she is still beautiful to me. We each occasionally take a day off from work, just to spend the day together.

That is what the devotion of love looks like. It isn't a feeling, and not something we 'fell' into. It is better now than it was when we started, because we are both really good at it now. It is a skill that improves with use and time. That, to me, is rational love. And we are both so happy, so calm and comfortable in our love for each other. (I read this to my wife before sending it out to make sure that I was reflecting both of our positions on this).

Cheers,

Michel

"If one accomplishes some good
though with toil,
the toil passes,
but the good remains;

if one does something dishonorable
with pleasure,
the pleasure passes,
but the dishonor remains."

--Musonius Rufus

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Consumerism and other news items

(c) The Humanist.

I've gone too long without posting on this, but my friend Rick Heller has written an excellent article in the current issue of The Humanist magazine called, "Slowing Down the Consumer Treadmill". Rick is the editor of The New Humanism, a publication of the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University, and a facilitator of the Humanist Contemplative Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In other news, I've decided to take my birthday as an opportunity to refocus on personal goals and begin building better habits. Along those lines, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about how 'spiritual practice' really includes all of our daily habits and a conscious effort toward self development, in all areas of our life. I recommend the practitioner keep a daily journal. Although I am a long time blogger and do a lot of writing on computer, I've found that a small traditional notepad is more accessible for this purpose. The Stoic Marcus Aurelius recommended that at the end of the day we review how the day went, what we did right, and where we need improvement. A journal can be just such a place to log these things and give us something to report to nightly.

And for my last news item, I would like to announce that early plans have begun for the founding of a new non-profit organization I will be founding called The Spiritual Naturalist Society. The mission of the Society will be to spread awareness of Spiritual Naturalism as a philosophy, encourage the further development of Spiritual Naturalist thought and practice, and educate others on the traditional wisdom and practices that inspire Spiritual Naturalism. In addition, the Society will exist to help bring Spiritual Naturalists together for mutual learning, growth, encouragement, and fellowship.

The organization will cut across traditional groups, labels, and pigeonholes. Supporters and members of the Spiritual Naturalist Society will be an eclectic group, coming from the world of science, Humanism, Buddhism, Unitarianism, even some naturalistic segments of pagan and pantheist communities. None of these areas can solely be said to comprise Spiritual Naturalism. Scientists are not always spiritual, Buddhists and Unitarians are not always naturalists, but in each of these cases many are. Humanism and Spiritual Naturalism are certainly compatible, but only a subset of Humanists feel comfortable pursuing a ‘spiritual practice’ – even in a naturalistic sense. Yet, significant numbers of people in each of these areas, and more, exist and are growing. They often have far more in common with one another than they do with others in their traditional pigeonholes – in terms of their attitudes, their value systems, priorities, even their very tone and demeanor. Therefore, a new paradigm is needed, and the SNS is designed to help further it.

Stay tuned for more updates on the development of this organization! Although it is under construction, you can go to www.SpiritualNaturalistSociety.org now to join the mailing list to get updates on our progress.

For those interested, Wikipedia has a decent article on Spiritual Naturalism.


Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Happy Humanist Day!

June 21, 2011 - Today Humanists around the world are celebrating World Humanist Day. It is a time for Humanists to gather socially, re-focus on their commitment to Humanist principles, and help promote the philosophy as a means of positive change in the world.



Wikipedia currently describes World Humanist Day, it's history, and some of the format and activities associated with it.

There is a new site out that explains Humanism called, The Simple Guide to Humanism at www.simpleguidetohumanism.org.uk for those unfamiliar with Humanism. In honor of the day, I'd also like to include a description of Humanism here...


WHAT IS HUMANISM?
Humanists are people who believe in a natural universe as understood through reason, people who wish to live ethical and meaningful lives without faith in the supernatural, and people who care for their fellow human being. Humanists are informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. The International Humanist & Ethical Union (IHEU) says:

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for building a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

The Humanist Manifesto III was signed in 2003 by a long list of people, including notable figures from science, education, literature, entertainment, and other sectors. It was a successor to the first manifesto, published in 1933, and the second published in 1973. In the Humanist Manifesto III, the American Humanist Association outlined the following basic principles of Humanism:

• Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
• Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
• Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
• Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
• Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
• Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

For a reading of these principles explained in more detail, please see the complete Humanist Manifesto III.


Humanist Institutions
Consistent with Humanism's values of Freethought and a healthy skepticism that questions dogma, there is no officially recognized 'authority' for the Humanist life stance. However, Humanist groups exist at many different scales all over the world. Perhaps the broadest organization is the International Humanist & Ethical Union (IHEU). It can best be said to represent the views of over three million Humanists in over 100 national organizations in 30 countries.

Here in the United States, the American Humanist Association (AHA) is the oldest national-level Humanist organization. Another major national organization is the Council for Secular Humanism. Both of these organizations publish magazines and have several types of programs and facilities throughout the U.S. There are many other national organizations growing all the time, such as the Institute for Humanist Studies and the Humanist Institute, for example. Here locally in Houston, the oldest and largest Humanist organization is the Humanists of Houston (HOH).


The History of Humanism
Humanism as an organized, provisional philosophy is relatively new but it is the product of several millennia of human growth and development. Hints of scientific and humanist thought can be found among the earliest nomadic tribes and civilizations. The Ideas of some of the later classical Greek philosophers, as well as the Chinese Confucians, serve to highlight areas where human-centered (as opposed to god-centered) ideas were especially prevalent.

During the Middle Ages of Western Europe, humanist philosophies, such as those of Michael Servetus and others, were violently suppressed by the dogma and political power of the church. Not until the Renaissance of the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries, with the flourishing of art, music, literature, philosophy, and exploration, would consideration of humanism be permitted.

The Enlightenment of the eighteenth century brought the development of science as philosophers finally began to openly criticize the authority of the church and engage in what became known as “free thought.” In the nineteenth century, with the challenges to religion by celebrities such as Mark Twain and Robert G. Ingersoll, the Freethought movement made it possible for the common citizen to reject faith and superstition without risk of persecution.

The twentieth century has seen remarkable influence from science, technology, and Humanist philosophy. Despite attempts of the unscrupulous to twist science to serve their ends, despite continuing local fluctuations in crime or other problems, the overall growth, prosperity, and human well-being remains unparalleled throughout history. This is a direct result of scientific thinking in the solving of human problems.

These historical foundations have led those who reject supernaturalism as a viable philosophical outlook to adopt the term Humanism to describe their non-religious life stance. In 1933 the modern Humanist philosophy was formulated in the Humanist Manifesto and several organizations have been founded around the world since then. It is with such a rich history that we strive to carry Humanism into the future.

Special thanks to Amanda Chesworth, who co-wrote this section on the history of Humanism.


Well Known Humanists
Many notable people have been humanists or humanistic thinkers:

Albert Einstein, scientist
Gene Roddenberry, producer/Star Trek creator
Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President/founding father
Whoopi Goldberg, comedian/entertainer
Carl Sagan, scientist/author
Joss Whedon, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly creator
Leonardo Da Vinci, artist/inventor
Mark Twain, author
Clara Barton, Red Cross founder
Isaac Asimov, author
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder
Confucius, philosopher
Marlon Brando, actor
Jonas Salk, physician/inventor of polio vaccine
Ted Turner, broadcaster
Gloria Steinem, feminist activist
Kurt Vonnegut, author
Philip Adams, author/filmmaker
Margaret Atwood, author/literary freedom activist
Béla Bartók, composer
Luther Burbank, scientist
Brock Chisholm, physician/World Health Org. Director
Francis Crick, scientist
John Dewey, philosopher/educator
Frederick Douglas, liberator
Albert Ellis, psychologist
Epicurus, philosopher
Philip José Farmer, author
Betty Friedan, feminist activist
Erich Fromm, psychologist
R. Buckminster Fuller, futurist/inventor
John K. Galbraith, economist
Emma Goldman, author/revolutionary
Stephen J. Gould, scientist/author
Julian Huxley, philosopher/biologist/UNESCO Director
Robert G. Ingersoll, author
Margaret Kuhn, Grey Panthers founder
Richard Leakey, anthropologist
Abraham Maslow, psychologist
John Boyd Orr, Food & Agriculture Org. first Director
Linus Pauling, scientist
A. Philip Randolf, human rights activist/union leader
Carl Rogers, psychologist
M.N. Roy, political thinker/Radical Humanism founder
Bertrand Russell, mathematician/philosopher
Andrei Sakharov, scientist/human rights activist
Michael Servetus, theologian/physician
Barbara Smoker, author/freethought activist
James Thurber, humorist
Harriet Tubman, educator
James Watson, scientist
Faye Wattleton, Planned Parenthood Director
Walt Whitman, poet
E.O. Wilson, biologist
Frank Lloyd Wright, architect

 

 

Please SUBSCRIBE to DT Strain:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404 

 

Please help these churches

Over at the Friendly Atheist blog, a post was just put up alerting us to the fact that Westside Church and Christian Life Center in Bend, Oregon were vandalized with phrases such as, "praise FSM". For those who don't know, that stands for "Flying Spaghetti Monster", which is a common tongue-in-cheek analogy atheists use to criticize belief in God. 

That blog, many other nontheists, and myself are saying that this kind of intolerance and vandalism are not acceptable. Friendly Atheist has created a means for donating to help fund the cleanup costs for these churches, and I think that's a refreshing gesture. You can donate through that mechanism in the original post by clicking HERE.

Thanks to Roxie Deaton, President of the Humanists of Houston, for making me aware of this.

Please SUBSCRIBE to DT Strain:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404