An Open Letter to my Secular Humanist Colleagues

I recently sent in a letter to the editor of a publication ran by the SH society to which I belong. I thought it might be an interesting topic for debate.
.................................................................I would describe myself as a non-conformist. I have always been skeptical of orthodoxy and always question my deeply held views as well as those of others. Over the past couple of years I have found myself growing increasingly disenchanted with the Secular Humanist movement. It appears it has morphed into a sect of ideologues who have created a very dogmatic and authoritarian structure that I have always held in contempt. I have a great disdain for any institution or system that attempts to dictate to the individual which positions or beliefs are acceptable to hold. Unfortunately, I see the secular humanist movement slowly evolving into the very thing I despise - a dogmatic, orthodox institution who’s primary task is to maintain the status quo and suppress any form of dissent - whether real or apparent.I find it disturbing to see the tone of the rhetoric now employed by many prominent Secular Humanist scholars. The most troubling trend seems to be the growing implication that the worth of a human being is reduced to his or her ability to employ reason. It also is obvious that many of these same scholars have become increasingly condescending and crass in their approach to the opposition. Within the society itself the public debates and forums seem to be filled mostly with individuals who enjoy driving their Bentley through the Ghetto smirking at the lives of the genetically inferior mutants deluded by religious belief and other intellectual maladies. I also sense that many in the movement have become too awestruck with the intellectual and academic achievements of the leaders. In awe of the elite one hesitates to form any opinion that goes against the grain as one fears this would be perceived as a sign of weakness by the status quo. Witin the community I currently see little original or creative dialogue when it comes to discussing the issues of importance to the Secular Humanist. I also have noticed that in the public forums there has been an increasingly dogmatic and rigid demand for adherence to semantics. Employing words such as faith, teleology, purpose, and belief are strictly taboo and politically incorrect. Their very mention, regardless of the context, is enough to bring about a serious lounge lashing.On the public front many prominent secular humanists have taken center stage as the High Priests of reason and are apparently speaking for us all. They are the new Prophets of doom crying out from the wilderness warning mankind of the apocalypse to come. We are told if we do not change our ways and repent of our intellectual sins we are doomed. The command comes forth to go among the nations to spread the good news. The world must be purged of the intellectual blasphemers and the mind of man must be cleansed of the seditious tales of belief. Even agnostics such as myself are guilty of intellectual treason and have a corrupting influence on the common good. In short, any individual who does not march in unison is deluded, inferior, and intellectually deficient.We are further warned that the deranged genetic mutants have run amok and at this very moment have their finger on the button waiting to vaporize mankind. What is never mentioned, however, is that it is our ability to reason and inquire into the workings of nature that have made it possible to bring about such a nightmare of epic proportions. Our rational inquiry into the nature of physical reality has given Man the ability to annihilate the human race with one press of a button.Of course nobody would seriously suggest since Science and reason in the hands of Man has produced such a tool that they should be purged from the collective consciousness. Instead, we need to ask whether or not a species such as Man is emotionally mature enough to temper the products of his intellect. It is very easy to envision billions of years of evolution coming to an end in a whirlwind of destruction when an emotionally retarded but technologically powerful species has a temper tantrum.This is where I believe both the Secular Humanist and the Theist miss the mark wildly. The Secular Humanist would have us believe our current predicament is the result of irrational thinking and the childish reliance on the supernatural. Religious leaders blame the situation on our lack of morality and knowledge of God. It is my contention, however, that our emphasis on reason and belief has blinded us to the instinctual driving forces that can dominate and ultimately shape our destiny. As Carl Sagan pointed out - our long term survival may ultimately depend not on reason but on our ability to reign in the ”reptilian instincts’ that lie deep in our psyche.The ability of man to let his emotions dominate his reason is legendary. Whether scientist, theologian, philosopher, or king we all succumb to our instincts. To deny this would be to deny our humanity. Our instincts and emotions cannot simply be reasoned out of existence anymore than we can pray them away. Neither reason nor religion can squash the impulse to lash out that arises suddenly in response to a perceived threat. Although we cannot ignore our primal instincts we can learn to control them through a conscious effort. In the nuclear age the only enemy we need to conquer if we are to survive is our own arrogance. The advice I would give to my Secular Humanist colleagues is before we set off to chastise the intellectual heathens for their indiscretions we might first find it prudent to take note of the mote that exists in the collective eye of humanity.Through his creative imagination and intellect man has created such wonderful institutions as science, art, music, and philosophy. They stand as a testament to the ability of our species to employ reason and put them to good use for the common good. We have learned to harness the forces of nature and have come to an understanding of the inner workings of matter on such a fine scale as to be unimaginable only a century ago. Unfortunately man has never learned how to adequately deal with his internal constitution or foment the seeds of content among human beings. Our scourge is that we have always found increasingly sophisticated methods to destory our fellow man yet we have never been able to find a means to bring us all together.As General George Patton noted in his memoirs - “If History teaches us anything at all it is that the natural state of Man is war. Peace has just been a period of preparation for that endeavor.” Throughout history Man has found many pretexts to satiate his aggressive instincts that drive him to conquest - religion, territory, oil, power, greed. Removing any one of these as a pretext for waging war will do nothing to achieve the goal of coming to terms with our innately aggressive nature. The naively simplistic view among many in the movement that religion is the main reason for our condition is ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is the notion that removing religious belief and irrationality from the public square will suffice to overcome or negate our instincts for aggression.I see many within the Secular Humanist movement accomplishing nothing more than creating another pretext for conflict and discord. By demonizing the opposition one makes any civil dialogue or understanding impossible. The militant call from some luminaries within the movement to rise up and get angry with the establishment is self defeating. Anger leads to hate and hate leads rational people to do very irrational things. To make matters worse any individual who does not propose such a stance is often taken to task for for aiding and abetting a perceived enemy. This only furthers my point that even rational beings will often let their emotions and instincts get the better of them. We should be wise enough by now to realize an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind. I had hoped that we would all maintain our composure and not resort to the same type of polemic that is common of many in certain intellectual circles. We all need to recognize that the ultimate problem lies deep within us all in a world that exists between faith and reason.It is becoming increasingly apparent that Man has learned nothing from history and is destined to repeat it. Unfortunately I look with great angst on what the future holds for our species. We have learned much and have fulfilled some of our wildest dreams but we have never learned to live with ourselves. We are filled with triumphant jubilance over our intellectual and technological achievements and have become confident in the ability of reason to resolve all our problems. It is as if we are a conquering hero riding atop our chariot failing to heed the warning - "Remember thou art mortal"..............................................................Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

So if we're allowed neither reason nor emotion, what is left, exactly? Suicide? I read your entire polemic, where you criticize atheist luminaries for taking the same tone you just did, and I see neither where you explain exactly how those figures are wrong, nor how we're supposed to fix whatever problem you think we have.And I find it hilarious that, while you fault others for a misplaced emphasis on reason, it's clear that you believe you've used reason to arrive at your own position. How does that work, exactly?

Wait, I'm sorry... what?Is this warning coming from Bolivar Trask, by any chance?

So if we're allowed neither reason nor emotion, what is left, exactly? Suicide? I read your entire polemic, where you criticize atheist luminaries for taking the same tone you just did, and I see neither where you explain exactly how those figures are wrong, nor how we're supposed to fix whatever problem you think we have.

​

And I find it hilarious that, while you fault others for a misplaced emphasis on reason, it's clear that you believe you've used reason to arrive at your own position. How does that work, exactly? Hi,Emotion and instinct will always be part of our nature just as reason will. I am not downplaying our ability to reason at all. What I am saying is we do not have to let emotion overpower our ability to reason. Instincts and emotions cannot be eliminated but they can be controlled through a conscious effort by delibarately refusing to act out in innaproproate situations. Just because I become angry with someone for being struck does not mean I have to act on this feeling. I have the conscious ability to refuse to respond in like manner.Is this just an unrelasitic pipe dream? Is it possible to really put this in practice? I don't know. I am not claiming to know. I am simply saying up to this point in history we have not been sucessfull in coming to grips with our aggressive and destructive nature. It appears Mankind has always desperately been in need of a lesson in anger management.Yes our reason has propelled us to vast heights but our volatile instincts combined with our technolgical sophistication definately is a prime candidate for the Darwin Award. In the nuclear age all species get the award - we not only take out ourselves but will take everything else along for the ride.It is ironic that the aggressive instincts that once helped us compete and survive might also be the reason for our demise. It is also ironic that should this come to fruition then had we not developed the ability to reason we would probably still be around in a million years-maybe the lack of higher reason is healthy for the long term surivival of a species where competition for survivial is paramount. Once a species reaches a certain technological sophistication it self destructs - the Fermi Paradox? Time will tell.Regarding your second point - Yes I have used reason to arrive at my conclusion and yes I was driven partly by emotion and yes one could construe parts of my monolauge as polemic. However, my intent was not to insult but simply point out my honest opinion that I believe certain groups are starting to stray quite a bit from their original intent.You do not have to aggree with me and obviously you don't - fair enough. I am presenting my opinion. I would like to hear the opinions of others as well. Has the Secular Humanist movement become increasingly dogmatic and authoritarian? Have the internal debates stagnated and morphed into an obsession with opposing views rather than inquires regarding the issues that were once important to secular humanists? Are some of the positions becoming too militant for some people's tastes?By radical I mean the calls to put on the brass knuckles and start cracking heads or the connotation that the worth af a human is judged by which camp they fall in - if they accept athiesm or theism for instance. To display a hatred for someone simply because of their position on an issue is irrational and emotionally immature - whether it comes from a theist or an athiest.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

But that's exactly what you're faulting people like Dawkins and Harris for saying. These are people who are saying that religion is irrational because its based on emotions rather than on evidence and facts - and you're saying those guys are being authoritarian.I don't get it. You're criticizing them for what they're saying, and then you're turning around and saying the exact same thing.Yes unbridled emotion is bad. Yes the results of doing things based on emotions rather than reason is usually bad. Harris's point is that having faith in God is just one more thing people do because of emotion rather than reason. Nobody who believes in God does so except because they have a feeling that they should.Isn't that what you're saying is negative? Why are you saying Harris and others are out in left field when they're saying the same thing you are?Do you understand my puzzlement? Is it just that you have no idea what Harris and Dawkins are trying to tell people, perhaps?

Hi Grizz and a hearty welcome to EvC. From what I've read here I am hoping you will find this board a place where you will want to hang out. It appears that you need us and we need you. You have stated that you are an agnostic. I am a Biblical Christian fundamentalist. That makes us quite different idiologically but you and I are so much in agreement regarding the excellent OP of this thread that as soon as I finish this message I'm going to nominate your message in Post Of The Month (POM) for June.Though I'm a Biblical fundie, certainly agreeing with you regarding your comments about secular humanism, I agree also with you on other counts including religion, yes, even so far as including major Biblical fundamentalist churches, universities and other groups where divinity degreed doctorated devines dominating educational domains determine doctrine deemed credible.Likely it is needless to warn you that nonconformity is not conducive to winning friends but hopefully will influence people to be less restrictive in what information is acceptable regarding education, science, debate, discussion, media, et alThe greatest challenge for the non-conformist is to present enough evidence to refute ingrained conformist ideology to such a degree so as to overcome the prevalent majority viewpoint. In some cases, regardless of how much evidence is produced, one might better go at breaking into a boulder with a tack hammer.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Hi Grizz,I can not speak to the Secular Humanist movement. But I have the same feeling about the Christian movement.Let me change this quote to fit my situation.I would describe myself as a non-conformist. I have always been skeptical of orthodoxy and always question my deeply held views as well as those of others. Over the past 40 years I have found myself growing increasingly disenchanted with the Christian movement.It seems church has become big business, and is operated as such.They have left off teaching of The Love of God, and love thy neighbor as thyself, and instead have started teaching the commandments of men.Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

But that's exactly what you're faulting people like Dawkins and Harris for saying. These are people who are saying that religion is irrational because its based on emotions rather than on evidence and facts - and you're saying those guys are being authoritarian.

​

I don't get it. You're criticizing them for what they're saying, and then you're turning around and saying the exact same thing.

​

Yes unbridled emotion is bad. Yes the results of doing things based on emotions rather than reason is usually bad. Harris's point is that having faith in God is just one more thing people do because of emotion rather than reason. Nobody who believes in God does so except because they have a feeling that they should.

​

Isn't that what you're saying is negative? Why are you saying Harris and others are out in left field when they're saying the same thing you are?

​

Do you understand my puzzlement? Is it just that you have no idea what Harris and Dawkins are trying to tell people, perhaps? I would not argue with you that instincts for survivial and our emotions such as fear play a large part in the religious experience and the desire of an indiivudal to accept belief in a deity. If man lived forever and was happy all the time he probably would not need to envision such things. I was referring to anger, hatred, aggression ect..What I find impossible to accept is the assumption by Dawkins and Harris that removing religion from the public spectrum will somehow fix the problems we now see. What is ignored are the social and politcial contexts that allow those in charge to recruit the religious fundamentalists to be used as a means to an end - usually the retention and/or expansion of power by those in control. Does religion play a part in this? Of course - but to believe the ultimate source of the problem is religion istelf I feel is a gross simplifciation of the problem.I greatly admire Dawkins for the work he has done in his field; however, as with Harris I simply find his positions on social and religious issues a bit shallow. He brings up many points that I aggree with but the tone of his rhetric IMO does more harm than good when it comes to the acceptance of the SH within mainstream society.
It appears he is looking for a fight and he comes accross as condescending and arrogant. It just rubs me the wrong way. Also, it was interesting to note as an agnostic I am part of the problem - I guess I am not allowed in the club Also, I could debate the polticial aspect of the subject on philosophical grounds - I am not a Marxist(no disrespect intended to those who do hold this philosophy). For philosophical reasons(i can esposue if you like) I believe that every indivdaul has the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe in religious freedom and do not believe governmental regulation of belief systems is tenable in the long term.Pragmatically I also believe it is impossible to remove religious belief from the public sector. Man has shown a fierce resistance to any opposition in this regards. Trust me - if a man is willing to be burned to death for their beliefs he certainly will not readily drop those beliefs under coercion or mandate by any insitution.Instead of running after superspooks we should be addressing issues that are more manageable - for one the deplorable state of Science and Math education in this country. It is terrible - it is dry and uninspiring as well as poorly taught. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Frog this is exactly what Grizz is talking about. You seem to be able to read everybody's mind and then make assertions that what you believe to be true is actual fact.Would you care to back up this assertion with some facts or evidence.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Interesting.(1) You say that these "Secular Humanists" are "dogmatic". What is their dogma?(2) You say that their "task" is to "maintain the status quo". What, in your view, is the status quo?(3) You say that they "suppress any form of dissent". How do they do this? Have any people been killed?(4) You say that they "dictate to the individual which positions or beliefs are acceptable to hold". How do they do that? Do you not live in a free country, and can you not think what you like?---Er ... I was going to comment on the rest of this, but frankly it got stranger than I want to go. It's like a right-winger had written Howl ... badly.

Grizz, Where do they "apparently" speak for us all?MarkEdited by mark24, : spelling

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

They can make their own arguments, I suppose, but since I'm familiar with both their arguments allow me to try to summarize.Both Dawkins and Harris make it abundantly clear that not only is religion fundamentally founded on believing in lies for all kinds of bad reasons, but religion in society functions to give legitimate cover to bad reasoning. If a doctor were to say that the clitoris of young women should be cut off, sans anesthesia, because, personally, he didn't like the idea of a woman having sexual pleasure, he would be roundly condemned. If a politician were to make a law that that procedure should be done because, personally, he didn't like the idea of a woman having sexual pleasure, he would be impeached.But an imam is allowed to say that, because he's involved in religion and his command is a part of that religion. Indeed, he's praised for doing so.Religion gives cover to ridiculous beliefs. Most of them are founded on emotions; typically, emotions powerful people have about what the less powerful might do or feel.Neither Harris nor Dawkins have said that the elimination of religion would solve the world's problems, so on that point you're arguing with a strawman. It's undeniable, though, that religion makes it a lot harder to solve the problems you're talking about. People have understood the negative cost of religion for centuries. Dawkins and Harris are not the first by any stretch of the imagination.But temperate rhetoric designed to step around the sensibilities of the believers has gotten us to where we are today - a world completely dominated by religious belief and sectarian violence. It's demonstratively true that being polite about this issue, as you would have us do, is what has done more harm than good. We're precisely in the position we are because of people like you who won't dare to oppose religion in no uncertain terms. We can't force people to be irreligious, but I think we can convince a lot of people with reasoned arguments, particularly if we don't act afraid of the conclusion.And quite frankly we're perfectly happy to do it without people like you holding us back - people who ridiculously characterize any plain-spoken, non-deferential statement about the bankruptcy of religion as "arrogant" and "condescending." Well, we tried it your way for about 400 years, and look where it got us. Is it ok with you is maybe some of us stop waiting for the religious to figure it out all on their own?

If they believed based on reason, they wouldn't have to call it "faith," now would they?Ultimately every single believer will tell you one of the same two stories - either they believe now as they always have, and the thought of unbelief is something they can't countenance; or they were intellectually unimpressed by the arguments of faith until, one day, they just had a feeling it was true.Neither one of those is a good reasonable reason to believe the claims of religions. There are no intellectually sound justifications for belief in the existence of God. There aren't even any that convince philosophers, and those are people you can convince of nearly anything with a half-assed argument.

Not every single believer.I will tell you I read the Bible 1 and 2/3 times (I was in the book of Romans the second time) when I came to some conclusions. I was not raised in church. My dad was not a believer, my mom was nowhere to be found.I came to those conclusions because of what I read, not what I was told, not because I had a feeling.I believed the Genesis account of creation 57 years ago and still do today. If you want to prove what I believe is wrong about what Genesis says, feel free to do so. I believe the Universe declares God.
I believe the fulfilled prophesies. declares God.
I believe some facts declare God.
....Science discovered that life was in the blood some 360 year ago. That was after the KJV bible. But the Greek Septuagint had Leviticus 17:10-14 years before the time of Christ. These verses tell us that life is in the blood.God tells me where the universe came from, where I came from and why I am here.
Science tells me "We don't know where the singularity came from, or why".
Science tells me "We don't know where life came from or why".We just know these things happened we are here.Therefore I choose to believe God's version rather than science.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."