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 

Responses on my Graham article

Sagada pond. (cc) Jojo Nicdao
(jonicdao), Flickr.com.

I recently received a substantial letter of response to my article on Billy Graham and atheism, in the Houston Chronicle, from a reader named Robert. He wrote:

“It's disingenuous to write that you couldn't agree more with Billy Graham's indictment of atheism, when you know that your answers to the questions "Why am I here?" and "What happens when I die?" will be the same as an atheist's.”

Actually, it is by no means guaranteed that the answers of a Humanist will be the same as an atheist. Robert is assuming a broader meaning of ‘atheist’ than is the case, which was a big part of the point of my article. Let me illustrate with an example:

Imagine a person who believes in the supernatural, doesn’t like science or its approach, and believes themselves to be psychic or have a ‘supernatural sense’. However, their beliefs or worldview of what the spiritual realm is like (their supernatural cosmology, if you will) is quite different than a Judeo-Christian one. Let us suppose that this person believes they have astrally projected their soul throughout the planes of existence and have found there to be a great many spirit beings, but no God or gods. This person, because they lack a belief in a deity, lacks theism. Being without theism, they are an atheist. More than that, they are not merely a ‘bad example’ of an atheist. They are every bit as much as atheist as Christopher Hitches, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. Of course, such a person is a very rare kind of atheist, but an atheist nonetheless; fully fitting the complete definition of the word.

The fact that most atheists happen to value reason, evidence, and science is mere happenstance. Surely, it is the very reason they have come to their position lacking theism, but the reason one does not believe in a deity is not a part of the definition. The definition of atheist is not, “One who lacks theism because…” The mere lack of theism is sufficient to be an atheist. To further illustrate the distinction between reason and atheism, consider the opposite: a person who accepts reason and evidence as the basis for their beliefs, but who has concluded that there is empirical evidence for a God. Both of these examples illustrate just how bare-bones and minimally communicative is the term atheist alone.

Now, if an atheist values an empirical approach, then that atheist is also something else; an empiricist, or perhaps a skeptic. Certainly they needn’t consider that their moniker. All of us are many things simultaneously, but choose to go by only certain labels because those are the ones that convey the image of ourselves we wish to convey. People may refer to themselves by whatever term they wish, but that doesn’t change the definition of atheist or of skeptic, and doesn’t exclude their beliefs from corresponding with those definitions.

Robert mentioned the questions of “why am I here?” and “what happens when I die?” but did not mention the other questions of “how should I live?” and “what is right/wrong?” and “what is the meaning of life?” I suspect this may be because the range of answers for an atheist (with nothing else about their beliefs known) is even wider. Here we find that Joseph Stalin is every bit a legitimate example of an atheist as Carl Sagan, neither holding a greater claim to the term. This isn’t an insult to atheism; it is merely the reality of the simplicity of the term. Likewise, you can also have murderous stamp collectors and virtuous stamp collectors. Atheism is one position on one topic (and a topic I personally find of little relevance to the most important things about a person).

Humanism has as a part of its collection of principles a healthy skepticism, an appreciation of the scientific approach to knowledge, and so on. It also has an ethical element which is the compassion and caring for fellow human being I mentioned in my original article. Any person who subscribes to these things, the naturalistic scientific approach to knowledge and the humanistic ethics, is a Humanist (capital H) by the modern understanding of the term. Of course, some of them may not like the term, or prefer another, or may even be unaware of the term despite being a Humanist in substance.

If a person prefers to call themselves an atheist because they like the sting of the term or want to perhaps be a good example in reforming its image, that is certainly their right and I respect that. If they want to use the term because a big part of their emphasis is on the God question, or they feel it is for others and want to make that more clear than anything else about them, that too is fine.  What is not fine is suggesting the term encompasses more than it does, and suggesting when we are told someone is an atheist that we can assume they value reason and/or compassion when we, in fact, do not have that information about them at all. It would almost be as if you asked someone about their values and they responded with “I like chocolate”, relying on some cultural connotation about chocolate lovers to fill in the blanks.

Another matter that has come into being lately is among many Humanist organizations which, perhaps in an effort to broaden their base, have become completely incapable of ever printing the word ‘Humanists’ without following with “and atheists”, almost as though the two terms were synonyms. They are not. Humanism is something more than mere atheism, and the differences are culturally and philosophically significant and of great importance. Humanist organizations, if no one else, should be at the forefront of promoting those important elements. Instead, what we see are many Humanist organizations following policies that make them redundant with the many worthy atheist and secular organizations which focus on church/state separation, nonbeliever rights, and religious criticism. Humanist organizations have an additional and important responsibility, which should be programs built around compassionate causes and initiatives, promoting ethical guides to happy living, and being a source of inspiration to people looking for more than mere non-belief. Understanding the important distinction between Humanism and atheism is essential to that focus.

Robert continued:

“Why would secular humanists, who read much more than the average person, want a humanist minister to tell them what to think and to officiate at naming ceremonies(?), weddings, and funerals?  (Sermons do tell people what to think, don't they?)  A justice of the peace can marry them and a memorial service can substitute for a funeral.  And any Unitarian church can satisfy the longing for ritual.”

One would have to ask the many people who have Humanist ceremonies why they chose them for a good answer to that. Robert has already mentioned the Unitarians as a source of ritual for naturalists, and the same justification and role can be made for Humanist ministers (indeed, many Humanist ministers are involved with their local Unitarian churches, as Humanism and UU share an intimate history). However, Unitarian churches may also include those who may have supernatural beliefs, so a Humanist minister would be very much like a Unitarian, but more specifically naturalist. 

The term Robert uses, “secular humanist”, refers to a specific kind of Humanist which has decidedly opted to consider Humanism a secular philosophic life stance – an alternative to religion – rather than a religion itself. However, there are also ‘religious humanists’, who have just the same rational, empirical, and naturalistic worldview, but think of ‘religion’ in broader terms and practice Humanism in a more ritualistic style. The founders of modern Humanism in 1933 were more like religious humanists, and established the first manifesto as a declaration of intent to usher in a new era for a naturalistic reason-based religion.

I do not consider myself solely in either camp. I do believe there is a viable role for ritual for the naturalist, and I also believe there are many practices, like meditation for example, which can be very helpful and do not require a supernatural element. But I’ve come to find the word ‘religion’ so imprecise that my stance is: it doesn’t matter whether we consider Humanism a religion or not, and that should be up to each individual to decide for themselves. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), not long ago, made a declaration that they would drop all the adjectives and simply be ‘Humanists’ and I concur.

Would a “secular humanist”, as Robert put it, prefer the kinds of services Humanist ministers and other secular celebrants provide? Perhaps or perhaps not. But the meaning of the IHEU proclamation was not that secular humanists would shorten their name and subsume the entirety of the word from all Humanists. It meant that both religious and secular humanists would come together and leave it up to the individual whether they wish to call their fully naturalistic philosophy a religion and practice it in that style or not.

“The word spirituality should never be used by anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of a spirit world separate from the physical one.  Giving different meanings to commonly understood words is a good way to confuse people and hinder communication with them.”

This ignores the history and origins of the term. There is a naturalistic spirituality which has nothing to do with ‘spirits’ as in supernatural entities – but has to do with ‘the spirit of things’ (i.e. the ‘spirit of the law’ or ‘school spirit’). Also defined as “the essence” of a thing (the essential things in life) or, as the original root word spiritus originally referred to; the breath. For more on this, please see the excellent page on spirituality at naturalism.org (HERE) – particularly the excellent article, Spirituality Without Faith, or the Wikipedia article on spirituality, or my own writing about spirituality at HumanistContemplative.org, such as HERE (particularly, Chapter 2 further down on the page).

On the matter of appealing to popular conception, it seems most people today when hearing the word spirituality think of it as one’s personal life practice and set of values, principles, and most special beliefs. Whether something is in the supernatural or natural realm is becoming less relevant – you know the difference between a ‘spiritual person’ and otherwise when you see them. They may or may not be religious, and may have a variety of beliefs, including naturalism and empiricism. Many believers even, are starting to have interpretations more like the ancient Stoics, who viewed all of nature as one integrated material whole. The question then becomes, 'What is in that natural universe and how do we best come to know it?' Humanists have a healthy skepticism and an empirical standard for answering that question, but they often show that a person can be spiritual without belief in the supernatural. This may be against the grain of the connotation of the word to many, but just as many people go by the word 'atheist' to help be an example against the common impression, many use the word 'spiritual' for the same reasons. Of course, some religious people and some Humanists and some atheists aren’t spiritual at all in their demeanor, attitude, or focus.

“Philosophy became anachronistic after the sciences separated from it.  The humanities, which include the arts, are a holdover from a prescientific age and mostly compete with sports as entertainment.  Authors of fiction can make their characters say and do anything they please, which has impeded a genuine understanding of human behavior.”

I could not disagree more with this. Science today, is a subset of philosophy and thus part of philosophy. Philosophy goes much further, however, to include the nature of language and meaning, ethics, and more. It is all philosophy, and always has been. Philosophy being ‘the love of wisdom’, anytime we ask ‘what is’ or ‘what ought to be’ we are conducting some form of philosophy. The scientists are merely that subset of philosophers tasked with the observation of the natural universe. They provide our factual basis, upon which we set the rest of our philosophy so as to ensure our prescriptives operate functionally within accurate descriptions of the world.

In fact, science itself is based on the ‘philosophy of science’ or the scientific methodology, which is a philosophic approach to knowledge. Furthermore, when we hear scientist proclaim that we need to cut carbon gasses or that we should brush our teeth, that scientist has left the realm of science and has moved into other areas of philosophy, because they have moved from description to prescription. Our methods are more sophisticated today, but we are doing the same work that Socrates did – evaluating our natural environment rationally as best as we can, and both inducing an deducing the best courses of action to ensure our goals are met.

Ultimately, for an individual, philosophy comes down to the very basis on which he or she lives – how one answers the question, ‘what is the best way to live?’ Further, what practices allow us to form habits and develop character that can move in that direction more easily? This is the central and crucial role of philosophy as life practice today, and science is one small part of that; assigned one narrow but foundational and essential role within it. Without that, one may as well use science to obliterate all life on the planet as easily as cultivate it.

Many thanks and best wishes to Robert for reading and his comments, and thanks to everyone else out there reading and commenting!

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 

Humanist Bible review series: Concord (5/15)

(c) Walker Publishing Co. Inc.

This is part of a series of reviews on each 'book' within the new book, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, by A.C. Grayling. Click HERE to go to the beginning of this series for more explanation.

“I declare that of all the blessings which either fortune or nature has bestowed upon me, I know none to compare with friendship.”  --Concord 16:9

The book of Concord is primarily about friendship, although the breadth of the matter is covered such that one can easily see romantic as well as platonic relationships included. It appears most of the book has been inspired by, or a paraphrasing of, a treatise on friendship (Laelius de Amicitia) by Cicero. Here Laelius and Fannius carry on a dialogue on the attributes of true friendships and the importance of finding them. Concord is one of the shorter books in Grayling’s bible, but packed tightly with good material. As I read I generally try to take note of ‘quotable quotes’ and Concord has had the most so far.

Many a verse is spent illustrating the benefits and value of a true friend, and on choosing friends carefully. Concord explains how life’s experiences are made all the more meaningful when we have real friends with which to share them.

“To begin with, how can life be worth living, which lacks the repose to be found in the companionship and goodwill of a friend?”  --Concord 3:4

While some may view friends as a means to some material, strategic, or social end, Concord warns against these shallow kinds of friendships. It explains that affection should be the basis of friendships rather than manipulation or utility.

“If you take away emotion, what difference remains, I do not say between a man and a beast, but between a man and a stone or a log of wood?”  --Concord 8:2

On defending such affection Concord notes by asking, “Who would choose a life of the greatest wealth and abundance on condition of neither loving nor being loved by any creature?” (Concord 9:1). Concord even touches on maintaining long term friendships and the occasional need to call a friend to task for a wrongdoing:

“It is a strange paradox that people are not at all vexed at having committed a fault, but very angry at being reproved for it.”  --Concord 15:15

Concord’s emphasis on the value of friendship to a rich life, as well as its appeal for affection, may seem at odds with the Stoicism-inspired teachings in the book of Wisdom. In Chapter 7, versus 13-14 of that book, we are told, “Examine appearances by the rules of reason, first and chiefly by this: whether it concerns things which are in our control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.” Of course, friendship is a two-way street, necessarily involving the choices of other people, which are beyond our control, most certainly considered so by the Stoics that inspired that portion of Wisdom.

However, in defense of Grayling’s collection as a whole, it seems that as we move through the books – from Wisdom to Parables, and now on to Concord – it should be clear we are moving beyond the bare necessities of the good life, and on toward the benefits of a fully perfected life experience that includes the luxuries in a more Epicurean than Stoic sense. It is never claimed that friendship is necessary for the good life. In fact, if there is one repeating mantra throughout Concord, it is that virtue must be sought first and foremost because, ultimately, true friendship can only take place within a framework of the good. As Laelius tells us in the very first chapter:

“But I must at the very beginning lay down this principle: that true friendship can only exist between good people.”  --Concord 1:13

Thus we are advised in Chapter 16 to put virtue first when we are told, “To seek the good is the first demand we should make upon ourselves; but next to the good, and to it alone, the greatest of all things is friendship.” (Concord 16:16-17).

And so it is that Concord has fortified against advocating the kind of ‘gangster ethos’ we see between criminals and wrongdoing cohorts. In these kinds of “friendships”, the virtue of loyalty is placed above that of the good. Yet, if we understand that true friendship can only take place among those who place goodness first, then we will see that such “friends” are nothing of the kind:

“Let this, then, be laid down as the first law of friendship, that we should ask from friends, and do for friends, only what is good.”  --Concord 7:1

As Concord concludes, Grayling attempts to synthesize the worthy approaches of the Stoics and the Epicureans with the following systemic prescription:

“The fair course is first to be good yourself, and then to look out for another of like character. It is between such that the stability of friendship we have been talking about can be secured; when, that is to say, those who are united by affection learn, first of all, to rule those passions which enslave others, and secondly to take delight in fair and equitable conduct, to bear each other’s burdens, never to ask each other for anything inconsistent with virtue and rectitude, and not only to serve and love but also to respect each other.”  --Concord 13:5-9

The next part in this series will look at the next book of Grayling's bible, Lamentations.


Please SUBSCRIBE to follow this series:
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 

Humanist agrees with Billy Graham on atheism

Billy Graham

The well known Christian evangelist Billy Graham recently wrote an article in response to a question about atheism with the following:

“…atheism has no satisfying answer to the basic questions of life — questions like “Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? How do I know what’s right and wrong? What happens when I die?” Atheism says we are here by chance, and life has no meaning or destiny. Taken to its conclusion, atheism ends in despair.”

As a Humanist minister I couldn’t agree more. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. This, alone, isn’t the problem, but atheism if it is meant as a ‘worldview’ on its own is, as Graham says, bereft of any answers about who we are, the meaning of life, or how we should live it. I once saw an article that mentioned ‘atheist values’ yet there is no such thing. When an atheist has values, they have taken on something additional to “the lack of theism”. And, without such a guide, most people will indeed find themselves in despair at some point.

That isn’t to say that all atheists are purely and only atheists – even if that is the primary label by which some choose to identify themselves. Humanism is a life philosophy that, like Buddhism, does not include gods. Humanism also has a naturalistic view of reality, but that is not so important as its other features. These include a caring and compassion for others and the realization that making the world a better place and living ethically is intimately connected with achieving happiness in life. Such naturalistic moral philosophies predate the Christian model by centuries and have provided a meaningful basis for millions of lives throughout.

Today, as more and more people leave the ranks of the religious, many of them giving up their supernatural beliefs, I – like Graham - am concerned that many of them will end up in despair. Having a religious background, many may be largely ignorant of the basics of secular ethics or a sense of meaning within a naturalistic framework. But Graham has a different solution to the despair of nothingness. He goes on to say:

“But our hearts cry out for something more — something better and more lasting. Down inside we sense that we aren’t here by chance, nor were we made for this world alone. The reason we feel this way, the Bible says, is because God has put this conviction within us.”

The problem with this approach is that it ignores something else we cry out for by our nature, which is for things to make logical sense to us. I believe one reason for the sharp rise in atheism and agnosticism has been due to the advent of the internet. As people become more aware of the rational and logical issues facing faith-based beliefs, it is more difficult to maintain an unshakable belief in something for which there is no evidence, even if it is attractive to us. Humanism also has within it a humble approach to knowledge and claims, limiting them to what can be rationally validated and shared with others.

Through this methodology Humanism, unlike mere atheism, does tell us how we got here, by accepting the current consensus of those who have put in the hard work of studying the evidence. And, as I’ve recently reviewed in Grayling’s Humanist Bible (book of Genesis), this scientifically informed narrative can be a very beautiful and moving one. Carl Sagan has also exemplified this, with his eloquent and marvelous descriptions of nature. This natural explanation of our origins also illuminates why it is that we feel so attracted to the prospect of a permanent, unchanging, and eternal existence – as a simple manifestation of a strong instinctive urge to survive.

But as I’ve explained before, there are ways to come to terms with the impermanent and uncertain nature of our existence, rather than having to convince ourselves of something which – although it might be true if we are very lucky – we have no real solid basis to claim. Some of these methods hearken back to Buddhism again, some types of which could be considered an Eastern form of Humanism, aside from the cultural colorings and supernatural elements that may have become layered upon it in various regions. It teaches mindfulness, compassion, and learning to love and appreciate the experience of life for what it is in the moment – as an end unto itself – rather than as a means to some other end. Other methods that inspire naturalists include the rational Western ancient philosophies such as the balanced life of Epicureanism and the virtuous equanimity of Stoicism. And, of course, modern philosophy, sociology, and psychology add to the wealth of wisdom on happiness and leading a good life. In more general terms, Spiritual Naturalism (which includes some varieties of Humanism) can provide many approaches along these lines.

Thus, while mere atheism may include all kinds of lifestyles, a healthy Humanism or other variety of Spiritual Naturalism can provide a meaningful and happy life of flourishing. My hope is that both theists and atheists will more greatly appreciate the difference between Humanism and atheism.

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