Save the humans!!

"Save the Planet" -- as a rallying cry for environmentalism -- has got to be one of the most tragic cases of mis-branding I know of.

When there's a choice between things you want or need now vs. "the planet" or "the environment", it's too easy to say "I don't care that much whether this or that species goes extinct," or "the planet can fend for itself."

The thing is, though that "the planet" isn't really in danger. It's going to keep revolving around the Sun regardless of what we do. "Life on Earth" will too. Even in the worst-case scenarios, we humans almost certainly won't manage to wipe out all life.

All human life -- all of the planet's potential to support human life -- well, that's a different story.

One of the most amazing and wonderful things about the human species is our capacity to think about the future, and to make decisions based on their consequences.

But are we good enough at it to save ourselves?

The Humanist Symposium # 52: Super-Humanist Edition!!

Today is a day in which theists (and even some non-theists) around the globe are displaying lilies, decorating eggs, etc. in commemoration of some famous legendary supernatural events. My family spent the whole afternoon at such a party.

But, as Humanists, we don't have to settle for other people's leftover tales of heroes rising from the dead. Not when we have a hero who can leap tall buildings in a single bound!!



Yes, Superman is a Humanist -- as many of us have long suspected. (James Williamson and writerJames tell us about some other famous not-exactly-Christians.)

Some of our super-humanist writers (of this past three weeks) have contemplated going beyond the restrictive boundaries of our single species. EMJ rejects the label Humanist for this reason. Similarly, Craig A. James argues that "We become less than human when we pretend we don't feel these natural instincts, and like Seth, pretend that we're above all of that." And to our readers at MSP: Yes, his Mormon reader "Seth" is exactly the Seth you think he is! ;^)

Speaking of species-self-examination, Jon offers an Evolutionary View of Morality and Sam Harris argues that science can indeed answer moral questions. (She who Chatters addresses the flip side of this topic, arguing against an evolutionary argument against naturalism.)

And what better way to express our human nature than through music and poetry? We have a Haiku every night freight trains from the Existential Poet, and Three West Winds offer some remarks on The Poetry of Reality. Therese Doucet offers a selection of Songs of Humanism and Experience. (Giving equal time to the other side here, The Chaplain shares a collection of pop songs sung as love songs to Jesus.) And Jane Eisenhart describes religious worship as a sensual experience.

“The world is so complex, the universe is so large. There are so many processes at work that make the universe what it is, make this planet what it is, allow me to be alive here to experience my tiny sliver of it. The vastness of the universe, even the vastness of our tiny planet, is incomprehensible. I am so lucky to experience any of it, and every day of my life is precious.”

--NFQ

NFQ poetically describes why the garden doesn't need to have fairies in the bottom if it. On a related note, Humanist Life reviews The Age of Wonder, by Richard Holmes, explaining the history of where people get the idea that supernatural explanations are a requirement for awe and wonder. On the other side of the coin, Mat Wilder explains Why "Everything Happens for a Reason" is a Horrifying Thought.


Then we have a number of ideas on living your day-to-day life. Greta Christina looks at Buddhist Philosophy in a new way, positing a difference between attachment and engagement. The Atheist Ethicist discusses the ethics of everyday decisions. More briefly, Sam Alexander argues that we're all hedonists (the only difference is whether or not you admit it), while Matt contemplates the possibility of Making a difference. And if you're torn between those two poles, Atheist Revolution offers some ideas for activism with almost no effort!

And let's close with some thoughts on humans understanding other humans who are different. (((Billy))) the atheist discusses the consequences of Fearing the ‘Other’. I also discussed how hard (yet important!) it is to understand people who (to you) are 'the other'. Secular Guy tries to understand believers who don't seem very interested in their meetings. Andrew shines a light on invisible sexism. But -- as we see in this inspiring video -- human love can beat hate!

The Humanist Symposium!!!

The latest episode of The Humanist Symposium is up at Spanish Inquisitor including a hilarious astrology theme, lots of great humanist thought (yay Paul's solidarity with nontheists!!!), and my recent polygamy & primatology post. (I promise my next primatology post will be about some primates other than humans.)

In the meantime, remember that the next Humanist Symposium will be held right here at LFAB, so get those humanist juices flowing!!! You have three weeks... :D

(Dangit, now he's gotten me singing Hemant's name to the Mickey Mouse theme....)

Humans vs. Death: La Peste (The Plague) by Camus

Remember back when I joked that a realistic Mormon novel made me glad I'd left the church? Well, that book has nothing on The Plague. The Plague represents a whole different order of magnitude in terms of every page making me hope this never happens to me.

The Plague is not an entertaining book. I know I struggled with whether to call Persepolis entertaining (since it deals with serious subjects), but now I see clearly that Persepolis is quite entertaining (both the book and the film). It's a cartoon after all. Naturally, The Plague leads me to start questioning my assumptions about literature. Does a novel need to be entertaining? My gut-level reaction is that of course it does -- otherwise who the hell is going to read it when they could be reading, say, the Internet? I mean, besides the nonbelieving literati and millions of French children who have to read it for school?

Even if I can't call The Plague entertaining, though, I will call it fascinating. It's a remarkable study in human nature as we see what happens to a population trapped by quarantine in a city ravaged by the bubonic plague. I don't think I could guess how people would react in such circumstances, yet chapter after chapter, I was struck by the author's insight on the subject.

Additionally, I think this may be the best portrait of Humanism I've ever read. The doctor, who is an atheist, works to combat the plague every single day because that's what needs to be done. The idealist/philosopher sees how human society rests thoughtlessly on the suffering and death of unseen individuals. As he organizes volunteers to fight the plague, he wages a futile fight against his own feelings of guilt. The preacher starts by attributing the disaster to God's (well-earned) wrath. Then, when he joins the volunteers in the human struggle against the plague, he sees a child die horribly despite his fervent prayers. He is permanently shaken by this, and -- while it doesn't cause him to lose his faith -- his faith is transformed. Other characters attempt to flee from the plague, profit from it, or simply deal with how it disrupts their lives.

I think The Plague succeeds at delivering its message: We're all in this together. In the struggle against death, death always wins in the end. But we can't (and shouldn't) give up the struggle. Because we're human.

Humanist Symposium #10

Welcome to the 10th edition of the Humanist Symposium!!!

I know I said earlier that this one was going to be "the dirty edition." But the problem was that (aside from that ex-Mormon serial novel which has taken a rather questionable turn lately) nobody sent me anything dirty. They just sent me a bunch of articles related to "Humanism." And some fantastic ones at that!!!

So I'll just be presenting these articles to you, and my original contribution as host is a Humanist side illustration "Helping Hands."

Humanist Theory:

As a Humanist, you have to find or make your own meaning and purpose, but we're up to it. Lynet presents some hauntingly poetic musings on tragedy while Greta Christina covers both life and death. On the spiritual side, David talks about what it means to be fully present. And Miller talks about the value and excitement of being an active participant in the trend towards atheism.

Paul has written a clear, concise explanation of universal moral grammar: how the moral framework we're born with isn't quite the same as absolute universal morality.

Then Dale wishes us a very Merry Christmas! while explaining that whatever Christmas's origins, the combination of public and private meanings attached to it have developed according to no one's conscious plan, and will continue to do so. Then to celebrate our place in the universe, the Ridger has written a song: "We Are Starstuff".

Humanist Practice:

One of the first steps towards helping other humans is education. Vjack states it clearly: "If we are serious about every child deserving the opportunity to succeed in college, then we need to get serious about making sure they are adequately prepared." Black Sun cautions against widespread homeschooling because of the many ways it can limit a child's educational experiences. PZ has persuaded his readers to lend a helping hand on science education (though he'll be scandalized that by including him here I'm hinting he may be a humanist ;^) ). And Holly Ord gives some amusing examples of educating the public through non-theistic billboards.

Joel McDonald has saved a few trees by suggesting electronic alternatives to procedures that required excessive document printing -- the sort of improvement that could be made in so many workplaces if people care enough to think before always hitting "print."

GrrlScientist reviews a book that explains the basics of cloning and how it can benefit humanity (while creating some interesting new questions for us to deal with.)

Theory and Practice:

How do our proverbs fare without God? Lubab No More still follows the golden rule. David discusses the serenity prayer noting that we shouldn't be too hasty about accepting the big problems of the world if we can change things at least a little.

Speaking of how to handle the world's big problems, James suggests that if the various religions can't live in peace, perhaps we should go with none, and Shaun Connel explains that violence should not be used to deal with non-violent people.

And I've posted about how our human values are starting to change in the right direction so that reducing wasteful consumption -- thinking of the future -- is seen as the highest virtue. This essay completes own overview of strategies to cooperate and build a sustainable future for our little species!

I hope you've enjoyed this Humanist Symposium!!! The next one will be held on November 25 at the Greenbelt!!

My passionate secularism

If you've got your finger on the pulse of the atheist community (like I do!) you're probably aware that there's a lot of discussion these days about following the gay community's example of increasing visibility (and consequently positive impressions) by being "out and proud" about one's unbelief. I think this is a great idea, and I'm all in favor of it!

To learn from their example, though, we need to do a bit of analysis of the differences between the atheist community and the gay community. I think the real biggie (in strategic terms) is that homosexuality is not contagious. In fact, that's one of the messages the newly-more-visible gay community has stressed: meeting gay people, befriending them, hanging out with them, touching them, etc., will not make you gay. It won't make your kids gay either. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, but if for some reason you've decided that you don't want to be gay, inviting your gay neighbor to your backyard barbecue is not going to have any effect on your orientation either way.

Not so with atheism: indeed, quite the opposite. It's very common for someone to spend half a lifetime as a sincere and devout believer, then one day become an atheist and stay that way. And preliminary evidence seems to indicate that this is strongly linked with talking to pre-existing atheists.

And so we atheists are faced with a strategic dilemma: Should our "out and proud" campaign focus on demonstrating that we're ordinary, nice people, and (like gay people) we're your friends, neighbors, and family members? Or should we go straight for conversions, and skip this half-assed "we're here!" step? After all, they'll figure out that we're here and we're cool once they've become atheists themselves...

If you've been following this blog, you probably know that I favor the "friendly visibility" model for myself. I've talked about it a little here. In a nutshell, my reasons are the following:

1. It's easier to form alliances on critical political issues if we're willing to work with people who believe differently. Sure it's nice to agree on the ground rules of reasoning and what constitutes evidence, but I don't favor a strategy of saying "We can't discuss politics until after I've talked you out of your irrational faith." Some issues just can't wait that long.

2. As long as people agree on the importance of separation of church and state, it ultimately doesn't matter much what their beliefs are. Many believers are as passionate as we are about the separation of church and state because it protects their own freedom from having other beliefs imposed on them as well as preserving their church hierarchy from the corrupting influence of (secular) power. And it's that much easier to get believers on board with us if we make it clear that having a shared, secular public sphere is not a stealth tactic to destroy religion. (Many atheists disagree with this position -- see the Exterminator's recent article -- so there's definitely room for further discussion and analysis.)

3. A big problem with having a "zero tolerance" policy for taking religious belief seriously is the following: When you only discuss ideas with people who agree with you, there's a danger of starting with a good argument and then sending it through a group-think feedback loop until it turns into "I can't understand how anyone would be so stupid as to disagree with me on this point!!!" Really you're not doing yourself a favor when you work yourself into a state where you have no comprehension of another's viewpoint.

On the other hand, it appears that it's possible to go too far in the other direction. Via Friendly Atheist I saw the following quote by/about Harvard's Humanist chaplain:

"I have a religious personality, without a scintilla of religious belief," he says. "If it's an oxymoron to believe that people who have ceased to believe in God still need caring and community, then I'm proud to be a walking oxymoron."

Friendly Atheist (Hemant Mehta) indicates that the author of the article deliberately plays up the conflict in the atheist community, so I'll give Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein the benefit of the doubt here. But for his sake, I hope his quote was taken out of context and his very next line was: "But of course it's not an oxymoron, because -- as everyone knows -- atheists are just ordinary people who believe in a few fewer supernatural beings than average..." Otherwise his statement looks dangerously like he's granting the horrible stereotype that atheists are some sort of heartless monsters, and he's claiming to be some sort of exception because of his "religious personality." Holy expletive, talk about counterproductive!!! Just because you want a seat at the table, do you have to buy it for yourself by throwing your fellow atheists to the wolves??? Hopefully, though, the quote is not quite so bad in context, and I won't have to turn in my Humanist badge. ;^)

So while I would like to see atheists and believers getting along, you can see that it would be wrong to imagine that I'm the arch enemy of the "new atheists." In reality I'm thrilled about the new visibility of atheists. I'm thrilled to see atheism finally hitting the mainstream of American public discourse and recognized as a serious, legitimate viewpoint, as I discussed in the comments of my infamous nice vs. mean atheist joke post.

What I don't like is when atheists on either side make it look like the only two possibilities are that either you despise religious people and can't talk to them without trying to deconvert them or you're practically a church-goer yourself, and you're telling unapologetic atheists to shut up.

There's a third possibility, which is the following: to be out-and-proud with your atheism -- and be willing and happy to explain the reasons for your unbelief to anyone who asks -- yet also be willing to befriend believers and deal with them as reasonable people on a "let's agree to disagree" basis. In practical terms, I think that most atheists I know fall into this third category.

So, no, I don't think Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens should shut up. I certainly don't think PZ should shut up -- his blog is one of my favorite daily reads. Religion should absolutely be fair game for criticism. (Hey, if we respect our religious friends, we can't imagine they're too fragile to be challenged at all...) Naturally the critique of religion should itself be fair game to be criticized, as should be the critique of the critique of the critique... ;^)

And all of it in the spirit of productive discussion and friendly exchange of ideas.

Do you want to live forever? or the many reasons why I don't like death...

When I was a kid, I kind of looked forward to the famed "Judgment Day." Not because I thought I'd score well or anything. ;-) Rather, I liked the idea that every moment -- every precious moment -- is being recorded.

Probably for some of you, the first thing that jumped into your minds reading the above was "Even when you're in the can? You want that recorded? Eeew!!!" But I was hoping to just fast-forward through those parts. What I liked was the idea that days I'd completely forgotten could be brought back and that I could even watch all of the dreams that were lost before morning.

Giving up belief in the afterlife means accepting the fact that past events that are forgotten are gone completely. You no longer get to look forward to one day learning the right answer to all of those historical questions that are in dispute. Like what was really in that lost Spalding manuscript and did it even exist? If the evidence has been destroyed, then the correct answer can never be known.

What's more, I liked the idea that other people's experiences wouldn't be lost either. Maybe this is weird of me, but when learning about ancient cultures and their customs, a lot of times I think about all of the people who lived, loved, and thought, who are today gone without a trace.

But all of that isn't really why I don't like the idea of death. More than anything else, I just don't like the idea that one day all of my thoughts will stop and I will simply cease to exist.

Part of the problem is that non-existence is inconceivable: I have to exist in order to contemplate anything at all. (We discussed this point in a related post over on The Fire Sermon.)

But it's more than that. The main problem I have with death is that my mind and senses are my only window to observing and contemplating the universe. Sure the universe can get along just fine without me, but if I'm not there to observe it, then to me it's as if it doesn't exist. To me, once I'm dead, it's not just that there will be no me, it's that there will be nothing at all -- everything comes to an end.

I don't know if that makes any sense. Maybe someone will explain why that point makes no sense so I can stop worrying about it. ;-)

I have one other problem with death that probably makes even less sense than that one, but let me see if I can try to explain it:

Nine out of ten atheists agree that when you stop believing in the afterlife, then real life seems that much more precious. When this is all there is, you want to cherish every moment and live life to the fullest. You don't have the infinities for procrastinating your dreams -- anything you fail to do before death, you won't do it ever.

But then here's the problem: Suppose you live exactly the full life you set out to live and accomplish everything you ever wanted to accomplish. Who does that really matter to? It matters to you. But then after you're dead it doesn't matter to you anymore because nothing matters to you anymore -- you're dead. You could try living your life to make a positive impact on other people that will continue after your death. But someday they'll be dead too. Hmmm.

This is why I try not to think about this.

Weirdly, none of this nonsense seems to have any effect on my desire to live a full life and achieve my dreams and make a positive impact on the lives of others. I guess it's because my life matters to me as long as I'm alive, and I'm alive now (at the time of this writing anyway...).

It only bothers me when I think about it. Which is why it would be better if I could stop thinking about it. It seems like it would be nice to be able to contemplate life and death from the outside rather than being intimately and ultimately bound by it. I think that's the draw of a monastic life: you give up "worldly" things in hopes of opting out of the cycle of life by attempting to rise above it, and by trying to deny that you're a part of that cycle and that it's a part of you.

Unfortunately, fear of death seems like an obvious consequence of being human. As with all animals, natural selection has provided humans with a powerful will to survive. Yet the human trait of understanding that you're alive means realizing that one day you will die. And it's not just "if you're not careful, you'll die." It's you will die. period.

Sometimes religion seems like an obsessive-compulsive style strategy for dealing with this internal conflict: since there's nothing real that you can do to ward off death, performing rituals, prayers, and incantations seems better than nothing. This is why skepticism and atheism are scary: they lead you to the realization that ultimately the charms won't work.

I hope to make peace with the idea of death sometime before it happens, but in the end it doesn't really matter either way. Ready or not, it will come...