humanist_voice

are you?

2007-10-12T23:20:25Z

Are you a humanist?
Many ideologues would no doubt disagree, but I still think that the best, most meaningful starting place for answering that question is with the primary, most widely-used and widely-understood definition displayed in Webster's Encyclopedic, which describes a humanist as "a person having a strong interest in and concern for human welfare, values and dignity."
I DO think that the only weakness in that definition is that the phrase "strong interest" is too vague. I think it would be more precise to use "predominate” interest in, or the even more definitive "primary” passion for and/or even an expressed “commitment” to…human welfare, values and dignity. In my mind, a self-identity as a humanist ought to evoke a sense that the welfare and happiness of human beings (including self, family, neighbors, co-workers, casual acquaintances and fellow citizens of one's country and planet) is THE priority focus of our living and working. The implications of that deliberate focus are the heart of human ethical responsibilities.

For that reason, I am an "ethical humanist", in that i think that ethical responsibility is intrinsic to human nature and human society---in that our higher intelligence and warm emotions, and the inherent interdependence of our existence TOGETHER, are the natural, innate foundations of why we should care about each other, and treat each other with compassion and dignity. I am an ethical humanist, as opposed to being a religious humanist, Christian humanist, Catholic humanist, Hindu humanist, Buddhist humanist, Jewish humanist, Muslim humanist, Mormon humanist, New-Age humanist, "higher power" humanist, "spiritual but not religious"-humanist, "i believe in god but mainly in the Golden Rule"-humanist.....OR even "secular" humanist, or "freethought" humanist, or atheist humanist. It's my hope that sometime in this century or the next, more and more people will learn to drop, or at least minimize the importance of, the intrinsically divisive labels that so many billions wear much too ideologically and unnecessarily. In the most important sense, "humanism" is one (possibly the best and only) philosophy which could be a truly effective UNIFYING and conciliatory force and movement among human beings and in human society. A primary commitment to human welfare and happiness. THAT is the humanism that i embraced about nine years ago.
To make it more complicated and more divisive than that seems enigmatic and self-defeating (and, sometimes, undignified).

Are you a humanist?

hedonism and you

2007-10-04T23:29:13Z

"Hedonism and You"
That's the somewhat tongue-in-cheek title of a chapter in my first manuscript-in-progress, addressing the definition and history of the word "hedonism". The chapter looks at the surprisingly benign moral philosophy of the pre-Christian-era Greek Philosopher named Epicurus, who came to be known as "the father of hedonism".
From the beginning the ideas of Epicurus seemed to be misunderstood, particularly by the defenders of belief in the gods in his own day---and then, eventually, by the more passionate defenders of the centuries-later emergent religion of Christianity. It would be Christian preachers, theologians and apologists who were ultimately responsible for linking their own understanding of "hedonism" with the idea of a philosophy of unrestrained, selfish and immoral pursuit of sensual pleasures----ideas which are actually antithetical to the moderate and sensible views and attitudes of Epicurus himself in regards to the enjoyment of things like food, drink and sex.

I won't launch into all the aspects of the discussion of hedonism as addressed in my manuscript, but i will attempt here to give a commonsense humanist view of the pursuit of pleasure.
First, it's not epitomized by my generation's raucous libertarian and sensual battle cry "Sex, Drugs and Rock n' Roll!". Nor is it a "greed is good", "the one with my most toys wins"....and "nobody tells me how to live my life" focus on the wholly materialistic, irresponsible pursuit of wealth and the over-the-top sensual excesses it can buy. The "father of hedonism" actually spoke disparagingly about both of those kinds of lifestyles, and affirmed that the pursuit of pleasure that he advocated was primarily marked by, of all things, "Prudence"! (Sounds a lot more like "moderation in all things" than "sex, drugs and rock n' roll", doesn't it?)
For me, as an ethical humanist, believing in the commonsense pursuit of pleasure (akin to our right to "the pursuit of happiness" as expressed in the Declaration of Independence) means that we can learn to draw happiness on a daily basis from wisely and prudently appreciating and enjoying the simple and sensual pleasures of human existence, without allowing obsessions with any of those pleasures to have debilitating effects on our ability to pursue the kinds of careers, relationships, hobbies and humane and charitable causes through which human beings have historically and nearly universally created the most satisfying meaning to their lives. Yes, a commonsense, humanist pursuit of pleasure can include the unabashed enjoyment of good things to eat and drink; the appreciation of beauty in nature and art; aspects of health and physical exertion/exercise; good music of our own taste; laughter; sex with the adult partner of our choice; the reflections of personality and humor in our relationship with animals; the aromas of a garden or a forest; the serenity of an idyllic and peaceful setting; conversation with a friend;...and a thousand other things, for billions of other people.
The familiar ethical mantra of "moderation in all things" is NOT historically or primarily a religious, guilt-driven mandate to behave yourself morally or to deny yourself "hedonist" pleasures----to prevent a god or gods from being displeased. Rather, since the days of Epicurus and Confucius 500-some-odd-years before the Christian era, it could be said to represent a reasoned and earnest call to physical and psycho-emotional health AND happiness, within a life filled with both pleasure AND meaningful (ethical) purpose. A humanist philosophy of life can be considered to contain exhortations to both exuberantly enjoying the pursuit of simple pleasures, and "prudently" cultivating and protecting our resources of time, health, money, possessions, energy and skills for the ethical and compassionate promotion of the welfare and happiness of those around us, or around the world.

This view of ethical humanism can give transcendent meaning to our simple pleasures, as well as to the rest of our lives and work.
If that makes me a "hedonist"....I'll wear the label proudly!

(But, please....please don't associate me with those "Hedonist" sex-hook-up cruises that are advertised whenever you do an Internet search of the word....!?!)

a satirical digression

2007-09-29T01:36:10Z

You know my name, but let me identify myself.

I am, evidently, weak and negative.

(Excerpted terms from Webster’s for defining those adjectives include fragile, feeble, inadequate, ineffectual, irresolute, impotent, dour, undistinguished, unconstructive, uncooperative and pessimistic.)

In the historical and ongoing debate over the plausibility or dubiousness of claims for the existence of a deity, various educated and lay students of philosophy have at times drawn their epistemological lines in the sand by embracing ever-more precise declarative philosophical terms of self-identity. Among those who have chosen the label “atheist” to describe themselves or their worldview, it ought to be considered pretty much a given that it was a “strong” or “positive” atheist who came up with those particular adjectives in the first place! (Please know that I’m being a little facetious, but…) It’s bad enough that we agnostics are at times made to feel like philosophical (ideological?) cowards or compromisers by the more militantly atheistic crowd, but to be forced to admit that in the technical minutiae of today’s metaphysical vernacular one’s position is most accurately described as being “weak” or “negative” is just not fair…

…Especially now that it turns out, having recently read another article on the subject on an “infidels” website, that I am not merely a weak atheist, or a mere agnostic...but I am evidently currently even a “weak agnostic”! (Does that make me an impotent…coward?!...)

All of that tends toward inspiring one to scramble beneath the welcoming shelter of a more respectable and masculine philosophical self-identity. But, the truth is, as an agnostic I need to insist that the direct implication is that my philosophical stance on the existence of god is not THE defining feature of my self identity anyway. It is, in one very important sense, a peripheral consideration within my ethical humanist philosophy of life and worldview.

I won’t elaborate here.

I’m Drew. I’m an ethical humanist.

Of course, in many religious circles that makes me innately evil (“sinful”), or the anti-Christ, anyway!

I guess you can’t win.

church, human nature

2007-09-24T16:21:55Z

I skipped "church" this weekend...

...as I have every weekend for the past 17 years or so.

The (supposedly) universal Humanist "mission statement" sub-titled "Humanism and its Aspirations" (carrying the unfortunately ominous title "Humanist Manifesto III"), among other profound sentiments, does in one sentence correctly state the obvious: "Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships".

Even during my most devoutly faith-filled, church-going years, any degree of satisfaction or real joy that i got out of sunday morning admittedly and more often had less to do with anything that went on in the ":sanctuary"---as in singing hymns or in en masse recitation of creeds or in listening to sermons-----and more to do with the encounters with those weekly acquaintances and closer friends as we mingled and gathered in the hallways and parking lot before and after the "services". Despite the inevitably dysfunctional nature of many of those relationships---a dysfunction i think caused mainly by the enigmatically illogical and even cruel ideas inherent to much of Christian dogma and practice---it was in the consistency of meeting with fellow human beings, by unspoken "appointment", many whom we might not otherwise have encountered in our lives, that gave the sunday mornings of my youth and early adulthood their redeeming value of "a sense of community"....of fulfilling the very genuine, intrinsic need we all have to gather regularly with like-minded people. It's social value obviously was not primarily cultivated while everyone was sitting in church pews, facing the front of the chapel, and assuming their most respectful and "devout" demeanor during the (wierd) precedings usually going on.

"Fellowship"... a great word almost completely ruined for many people by its connotations with church services....can be a profound expression of what we all innately long for---even those of us who no longer look for those relationships and encounters on sunday mornings at churches.
Unfortunately, i'm not sure that most philosophically-oriented groups and organizations have been particularly effective at (re-) creating that same sense of fellowship or "community" among their members. The dearth of "places to go" on a weekly basis to fulfill our social needs---particularly our desire to spend time with like-minded, philosophical "compadres"---can be considered something of a shortcoming of many (so-called) "secularist" groups. Some people find that kind of feeling of comraderie in the often equally dysfunctional, alcohol-driven community of "drinkers" at their local bars. Some secularists settle for the otherwise less-than-ideal, more "church"-like settings and "services" of a Unitarian Universalist community. Some try to create the kind of social fellowship they inherently need among their immediate neighbors, or among their relatives,....though it somehow seems to be a rarity when either of those venues actually involve the meeting of philosophically like-minded people. The same can be said to be true of the practice of "hanging out with fellow workers". Finding a true experience of meaningful "fellowship" in those settings can be a hit-and-miss proposition.

"Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships"
I think humanists, among all philosophical groups, ought to, by definition, be better at creating meetings and venues for cultivating that sense of community among their members than many of them currently are. I'm convinced that at least part of the answer involves the creating of perhaps smaller, bur definitely much more LOCALIZED groups. In my Mind, the churches have the supreme advantage of being located on multiple street corners, in every neighborhood of every town and suburb. To me, that's how you create the desire for weekly meetings, by facilitating the genuine sense of freindships and comraderie.

A humanist voice

2007-09-21T23:17:01Z

I'm Drew, a humanist voice.

As a long-time-former-fundamentalist Christian whose intellectual odyssey has (finally) led to a simple and happy place in thought and life, these pages are dedicated to the communication of, and dialogue about, a humanist philosophy of life. In my relatively recently embraced self-identity as a humanist, it has been extremely liberating and satisfying to consider myself back "home", as a member of the entire human race. As Thomas Paine famously and poignantly said: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."

While I enthusiastically embrace many of the familiar positive affirmations of classic humanistic philosophy, and have been determined that my writing should inspire others to increased enlightenment about human ideals and the advancement of human welfare and happiness...my unique background and life's focus gives me an opportunity "to do good", as a first priority, by challenging ideas that I believe do harm to "my brethren" (and sisters!) in the human experience. Having said that, I should affirm here that it is not my intention that this website be or become a militantly atheistic attack on “religion” in general. Rather, especially in these early stages and mirroring the focus of the manuscripts I'm working on---and though having the starting point of offering a very pointed critique of harmful fundamentalist Christian dogma and attitudes---my writing is infused with the primary motivation and goal of clearly voicing the reasonable, optimistic and compassionate ideas and sentiments which are intrinsic to a humanist philosophy of life.

The simple idea which is implied in Paine's statement that "we're all in this together" , that there is still such a thing as "The Human Family" as a universal community, has always been and remains a valid foundation for compassionate, humanitarian appeals to personal, local and world-wide concerns of human empathy, justice and peace (among other ethical ideals). But what has often been referred to as “the brotherhood of man” (I prefer the use of the clumsier but more culturally p-c “fraternity of human-kind”) is also an idea which while sometimes given not-so-convincing lip-service is ultimately, intrinsically antithetical to the exclusivist and intolerant worldview and dogmas of Christian fundamentalism. This is particularly true where that dogma addresses the very nature of human beings ourselves, as well as in offering its (enigmatic) speculations about our future.

Unlike most religions and philosophies, including more liberal theologies and more nobly humanistic-minded practical tenets of the moderate branches of Christendom, there is hardly a system of thought which stands in more direct opposition to the idea that "we're all in this together" in The Human Family than the often cruelly intolerant ideas that drive fundamentalist Christianity's most cherished dogmas. The harshly divisive nature of the typical fundamentalist Christian language regarding their fellow human beings is undeniable. "Unbelievers" are routinely and alternately referred to as sinners by nature, heretics, heathen, unregenerate, evil, "monsters of iniquity", "enemies" of Christ or of the gospel....and are, ultimately, those who are destined for and deserving of an eternity of suffering. Common sense would conclude that such a view just might have a profound effect on how one's fellow human beings are related to and treated!

Add to that the widespread view among fundamentalist Christians (and their sometimes unreserved glee with the idea!) that they won't have to face the infamously-prophesied 7-year apocalyptic nightmare some call the "Tribulation"---or the supposedly final "Battle of Armageddon"---with "the rest of us" (many of them believe they will actually be taken up into the sky before things get too bad around here!). The inevitable and proactive disdain for any we're-all-in-this-together-mentality is plain enough. (Lest one thinks these dramatic us-against-them futuristic ideas are obscure and only held by a few "fanatics", the mythological future nightmare for non-Christians has been depicted graphically in the multi-million-selling Christian fiction "Left Behind" series…whose books, movies, seminars and paraphernalia are a multi-billion dollar industry.) A passion for eschatology (familiarly known as "End Times" theology) has often manifested itself in a barely-concealed excitement among fundamentalist Christianity's more public spokespeople whenever natural disasters, national crime statistics and national, world or (particularly) Middle Eastern political tensions, violence and deaths escalate in ways that they interpret as fulfillments of "biblical prophecy". Within that worldview there is obviously little motivation for long-term planning toward the future advancement of the ideals of contemporary human civilization, or toward national and world peace. The abhorrent ideas basically promote and involve NOT in working for mutual human satisfaction and peace, but in essentially hoping that things will get bad enough for the rest of us that Jesus might come for “them” soon!

In recent years here in the U.S., this intrinsically divisive nature of fundamentalist Christian dogma has never been so forcefully exhibited as in its influence on the intolerance and activism of certain ministry leaders, pundits and politicians of the Christian Conservative wing of the Republican Party. The in-your-face, brazenly religious-motivated "Us-against-Them"-mentality has raised the malicious passion of political partisanship to new levels in America---to the detriment of reasoned and compassionate domestic and foreign policy-making discourse in these early years of a new millennium.

Among the admittedly numerous obstacles to the simple-but-crucial idea that we're all in this together---whether those obstacles are politically ideological, religiously sectarian, megalomaniac authoritarian, racially biased, nationalistic/patriotic, economically greedy...or even "family-focused" or self-interestedly materialistic---the ideas just addressed which are inherent to fundamentalist Christian dogma and ideals, related to human nature and the future of humankind, represent an exclusivist and intolerant focus that seems to be among the most non-reform-able...and therefore, the most destructive to human cooperation, welfare and happiness.

Against all of that stands humanism, and our best hope for defining and experiencing a reasonable, optimistic, ethical and warmly compassionate unifying philosophy of life, in our own relationships, our neighborhoods, our nations and on the planet. It cannot be denied that a widespread embracing of the attitude of Thomas Paine that "all [human]-kind are my [family]", and "to do good is my religion", would result in an accelerated advancement of human welfare and happiness among us and around the globe. Not "us" as opposed to "them", meaning those who don't share our race or nationality or ideology or doctrines or whatever---but "US" in reference to The Human Family. This is humanism at its heart, and the most valid and viable expression of hope for unity, well-being, happiness and general peace.

The truth is, whether our lives, personal philosophies or world views seem to recognize or reflect it or not, "We're All In This Together" has been the essence of our survival and intellectual, civilized advancement as the human race for countless millennia... We really do actually and profoundly affect each other's well-being and fate, day-by-day and around the world. In that sense, the idea of our inter-dependence is innately known as being a living reality as much as it is a philosophical ideal. The only question left is: will we help each other re-learn, acknowledge and actively return to the roots of our existential survival and satisfaction as a "family". Humanist thought and ideals offer inspiring and practical hope in that direction.

I'm Drew, a humanist voice.