Paul Kurtz - "I refuse to be defined... as an Atheist"

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by AcesLucky on October 20, 2009 at 4:17pm

Interesting. I am in agreement with mostly everyone here, as well as with Paul. But most everyone here (so far) is focused on something entirely different than what Paul is focused on. Paul founded the Center for Inquiry for the purpose of advancing Secular Humanism and its goals, not atheism. (Atheism doesn't have any goals, it's just a statement of non belief in a god.)

Most here are only looking at the atheism. Paul cannot be bound by the term for the simple fact that one can be a Secular Humanist and embrace its goals and still maintain a belief in a god! And he does not want a person to be relegated to being tagged an atheist by virtue of being a secular humanist.

Such a tag narrows the scope of secular humanism to the term "Atheist." And that's not even relevant to what secular humanism is! Paul is concerned with the good that secular humanism brings to the human condition. Atheism is not a statement of that condition; Human Secularism is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gila Guerilla on October 21, 2009 at 7:34am

How does the term non-theist say or imply any more or less than the term atheist? In my opinion it does not. In fact I am against the term non-theist, because, (for me), it makes for confusion. It leads to the question: "How are non-theists and atheists different?" The answer is : They aren't.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AcesLucky on October 21, 2009 at 8:15am

How does the term non-theist say or imply any more or less than the term atheist? In my opinion it does not.

Not much difference in my opinion, either. But that's not the subject matter, which is what Paul is trying to point out. You, for example, being an atheist does not make you a secular humanist. And a secular humanist does not make a person an atheist.

Do you see? You are talking about being an atheist. Paul is talking about being a secular humanist. They are not the same.

Once you start from that understanding, Paul's position becomes clear. His aim is to change the world from the tool of secular humanism, which is broader and more inclusive than simply being an Atheist! Being an atheist changes nothing. It's what you do!

And the philosophy that guides the good in us (the "what you do") is simply humanism, it's how we treat each other. The fact that it requires no supernatural power for that end makes it secular.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gila Guerilla on October 22, 2009 at 7:49am

I agree on all counts. I do nothing much, so I'm simply atheist.

My remarks addressed: Hehe, I like how he says "non-theist" as if the "non" is any less negative than the "a" in "atheist", posted by TheNerd.

I don't agree that atheism is negative. To me it is an absence of something. A mere absence isn't negative. Maybe to some it's negative but not to me. Words with the prefix "a" aren't negative. Asexual reproduction isn't negative reproduction.

I respect people who call themselves Secular Humanists - that is positive, (if they act according to what that terminology implies). However, I am a member of atheistnexus, not secularhumanistnexus. I'd say that if this forum was secularhumanistnexus, I wouldn't have joined. There are secular humanist sites elsewhere.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on October 21, 2009 at 7:56am

Well... Humanism is a life stance that assumes that a god (or other supernatural power) is not part of ethics. Humanism is a way to frame ethical choices and make a better world without any god or gods.

Now, I suppose you can be a Humanist and believe in god, but it must be a distant and non-active god. It must be a type of deism or similar. I guess I am okay with that if it makes someone feel better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AcesLucky on October 21, 2009 at 8:58am

Humanism is a way to frame ethical choices and make a better world without any god or gods.

Humanism is a way to frame ethical choices and make a better world with or without any god or gods. Humanism puts the responsibility for ethical choices on the human. The "god" element is not only not necessary, it is not relevant. And thus Humanism is Non-theist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on October 21, 2009 at 9:39am

Yeah - okay... I'll buy it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chrys Stevenson on October 22, 2009 at 6:42am

DJ Grothe has written a thoughtful article on this subject. I have extracted this bit from the middle.

" Paul Kurtz is very worried that the "new atheists" will set the movement back. While I disagree with Kurtz here, he does genuinely feel that the New Atheists are not much different than the old atheists, such as the abrasive Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and that the way to really advance the secular agenda is to soft-peddle it somewhat, by working to try to avoid offending believers, unlike O'Hair did. Kurtz emphasizes secular ethics much more than religious skepticism these days. To hear him make these arguments himself, check out his appearances on Point of Inquiry: "A Kinder, Gentler Secularism," and "The New Atheism and Secular Humanism."

In my view, some of his appall at the New Atheism may be stemming from an understandable sense of hurt pride that after laboring in the vineyards after many years, he never had a best-seller like the "New Atheists" have had. (I feel like I noticed this same kind of envious or resentful posture in others, especially some secularist Biblical scholars who have been associated with CFI, who would often privately decry Dawkins' and Hitchens' and Harris' supposed lack of expertise in theology and Biblical criticism.) To be clear, I believe Paul Kurtz has done more than any other person in the last 50 years to create the secular and humanist movement as it has been until recently. I just think that it must be hard for him to see others come along and be so successful at reaching out to new people with a very similar message.

My views on some additional misunderstandings some folks may have:

1. CFI is in no sense moving away from its historical focus on fair-minded criticism of reigning mythologies (both religious, and paranormal), and on advancing science, humanism and reason. While only Ron Lindsay was quoted as much in the piece, in fact, the direction CFI has taken in recent months is only a re-emphasis of its core mission on science and reason. The new mission, adopted earlier this year under Lindsay's direction, is "to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values." The old mission, less focused in my view, was "to promote and defend science, reason, and freedom of inquiry in every area of human endeavor." Notice the stronger focus on secularism and humanism in CFI's new mission statement.

2. There is no "bitter rift" or "national debate" about Blasphemy Day or the future focus of CFI. There was near unanimity at CFI in support of Blasphemy Day. A small number of dissenters include Paul Kurtz, a couple staffers, and a volunteer or two. But again, no "bitter rift" nor "national debate."

3. There is room for multiple strategies to advance a shared skeptical, secular and humanist mission. CFI is the leading organization of its kind, and, as such, has adopted many different strategies to reach out to different publics: publishing, secularist and pro-science community centers, campus outreach, international programs, lobbying on Capitol Hill, digital media and outreach, educational programs and courses, etc., etc. There are many ways to skin a cat."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 22, 2009 at 8:16am

Unbelievers seem to have split into two distinctive camps since Sam Harris came out with the End Of Faith. Harris and the new atheists, want a brash, belligerent, in-your-face atheist movement that celebrates Blasphemy Day, scorns religious liberals and moderates, and generally think that religion and supernatural belief can be eradicated somehow.

The kind of atheist movement that Paul Kurtz has been fighting for, is one that wants to focus on the positive - establishing secular humanist values, and using scientific discoveries to base our beliefs on, and builds bridges with religious liberals who have adapted a lot of their doctrine to the new scientific understanding.

Harris is less negative than you seem to indicate, Ralph. He does believe that conversational tolerance, the tendency to suspend criticism of absurd ideas in the name of political correctness, is harmful to progress. I get the impression he's more interested in understanding the naturalistic causes of religious belief and spiritual experience, which he correctly notes are two very different things, than he is in eradicating "religion and supernatural belief".

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-abou...

I agree with Kurtz's reaction to what seems to be negative and reactionary atheist tactics. For this reason it's important to continue to highlight the value of the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism as a coherent worldview promoting compassion and understanding, in lieu of retribution and judgment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Blackford on October 22, 2009 at 8:29am

One thing that always surprises me is that secular humanism is said to be broader and more inclusive than atheism. Isn't the opposite the case? Secular humanism is a quite specific philosophy. It excludes anyone who is not committed to the specifics of that philosophy. By contrast, atheism is extremely diverse: it covers anyone who lacks (or at least self-consciously lacks) God belief.

I'm not saying that atheism is therefore "better". Indeed, the effect of this is that many people with whom I have strong disagreements are atheists, while few such people are secular humanists. But I don't see how secular humanism is more "inclusive" or "broader". Perhaps it's "thicker" or "richer", but that's an entirely different concept. Since it includes philosophical naturalism as one component of its philosophy, secular humanism excludes everyone who is excluded by atheism. Yes? But it would appear to exclude a lot of other people as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on October 22, 2009 at 8:55am

Atheists can be hedonists, egoists, objectivists, and many other kinds of ists.

Humanist is just one choice. I choose to be a Humanist as my lifestance. I used to be an objectivist (but I recovered from that!)

I also happen to be an atheist.

So - I think your observation is correct.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clarence Dember on October 23, 2009 at 12:45pm

"There are many things that an atheist can be, aside from believing in God, but claiming to uphold humanist ethics and values does limit the kinds of choices we can make on many issues."

That would depend on whether or not the "we" in that statement was truthful to the professed ethics and values. People often profess to be plenty. Some act and think differently when they think nobody's watching. Are you saying you hold the moral high ground as a fallible human being devoted to a particular purpose?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page