|
The Best of Best: Paul Kurtz's Philosophy of Humanism
Review of Paul
Kurtz, Multisecularism. A New Agenda, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick, USA, 2010, 263 pgs
Humanism is, like religion, a human-made concept; humanists
are aware of this and appreciate this fact. Books on
humanism can be analyzed in three categories: 1) a
descriptive (historical or systematical) outline of what
humanism is (e.g. Richard Normans, On humanism, or Peter
Cave’s Humanism), 2) a critique on humanism (e.g. John
Gray’s Straw Dogs), or 3) a forward looking agenda setting
philosophy of humanism (e.g. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy
of Humanism). Kurtz’ book Multisecularism – actually his
whole voluminous oeuvre – falls in this third category.
Multisecularism is a collection of essays by philosopher
Paul Kurtz (1925), mainly editorials from Free Inquiry and
Skeptical Inquiry from 2000-2008, plus some essays that have
been published in others journals or books. In this book
these editorials and essays form a coherent humanist
philosophy. Kurtz attempts to create a comprehensive
philosophy and practice of humanism, and keeps adapting and
updating humanism. At present, it is no longer communism
that is a rival; religion is back on the cultural, social
and political stage, and there are many new urgent problems
e.g. population growth and environmental degradation. The
power of Kurtz does not primarily lie in focusing on each of
the building blocks of humanism but in combining all these
blocks into ‘a public temple of reason’. Kurtz creates a new
philosophy of humanism, which is more than the sum of its
constituent parts. Kurtz thinks humanism through. He creates
a humanist philosophy and at the same time he humanizes
philosophy. The word ‘new’ is often used by Kurtz, because
that is what he aspires: adapting humanism to the changing
world. Some people find it hard to see that what Kurtz has
created is something new. But that would be the same as
telling an architect that she didn’t do anything new,
because she used building material that was available. It is
like people who look at your finger when you point to the
moon, and complain they don’t see it. Kurtz’s secular
humanism is a comprehensive well-rounded philosophical
stance. Kurtz uses the best of human achievements – science,
human rights, and philosophical concepts of reason, liberty,
individuality, democracy and tolerance – and so he has
created the best of best. Shopping in the ‘alley of Reason’
Kurtz has put together the best of human achievements. Kurtz
project stands in the tradition of the Enlightenment.
Philosophy –like science - is (or should be) dynamic and
striving for improvement. Kurtz has called for a New
Enlightenment (Toward a New Enlightenment (1994) is the
title of one of his books).
Kurtz has coined many new term in his long career,
‘multisecularism’ is the latest. He also issued humanist
manifestos, all of which have been endorsed by a long series
of prominent scientists, philosophers, and writers. In these
Manifestos he sets the agenda for what humanism is and how
it relates to current world affairs. In 2010 Kurtz issued
the Neo-humanist Statement:
Our planetary community is facing serious problems that can
only be solved by cooperative global action. Fresh thinking
is required. Humanity needs to reconstruct human values in
the light of scientific knowledge. We introduce the term
“Neo-Humanism” to present a daring new approach.
There are various forms of religious and non-religious
beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are
traditional religious beliefs; on the other “the new
atheism.” Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an
alternative. This Statement advocates non-religious secular
Neo-Humanism.
Multisecularism includes the essay ‘Neo-Humanism’ in which
Kurtz elucidates this new concept:
Neo-humanism rejects theism and affirms the secular outlook.
It is broad enough to encompass atheism, agnosticism, and
humanist ethical values. It is a large enough mansion to
include both nonreligious humanists and those who consider
humanism to function religiously in so far as it celebrates
human ideals and values. Neo-humanists do not believe in
God, yet they wish to do good. (p. 73).
Secularism, humanism, naturalism, skepticism, pragmatism,
rationalism, atheism can form a coherent package. Reading
Paul Kurtz book Multisecularism one would think that to be
obvious. Kurtz has managed to create a comprehensive life
stance and worldview, a secular alternative to religion, a
secular philosophy, an inspiring philosophy of life.
Unfortunately, humanism isn’t obvious at all: most people,
at all times have given in to the transcendental temptation,
believing in supernatural powers upon insufficient or
nonexistent evidence. Kurtz wrote a monograph called The
Transcendental Temptation. A Critique of Religion and the
Paranormal (1986) about the tendency of humans to belief too
easily upon insufficient evidence. We clearly have an innate
tendency to be deluded – to borrow the term from Richard
Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006). It is hard not to be
deluded. We seem to be hard-wired to be deluded by
supernatural and other delusions. In his In Praise of Folly
(1509) Erasmus wrote already that: ‘Man’s mind is so formed
that it is far more susceptible to falsehood that to truth.’
– this included Erasmus himself who, though critical of the
clergy, remained a roman catholic. Kurtz does a much better
job in creating a coherent and consistent philosophy.
Intellectually the fight over the truth claims of religion
has been won in the Enlightenment. After Kant’s Critique of
Pure Reason (1781) in which he refuted all the arguments for
the existence of god, religion is no longer an intellectual
feasible stance. However, religion and other delusions
continue to have a firm grip on many human earthlings, and
this influence is a frustration in the search for truth, and
an obstacle for morality. Under the cloak of religion many
evils are being performed. Criticizing religion and claims
of the supernatural have been tasks many philosophers since
the Enlightenment have taken upon them. Humanism, as an
umbrella concept for a well-rounded worldview and life
stance, has been around for about 150 years and is
continually adapted. Kurtz is an avowed atheist. But he is
somewhat reluctant to use that as a primary label for his
philosophy. Kurtz wants much more than criticizing nonsense;
he wants to create a better world. Humanism, according to
Kurtz, has two dimensions. On the one hand, the critical,
negative dimension, the free thinking tradition of atheism
and criticizing paranormal, pseudoscientific and other
nonsensical and false claims. This is the Nietzschean side
of humanism, which is now taken up by the so-called New
Atheists, such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Grayling.
But humanism, according to Kurtz is more than critique of
nonsense (though it is a necessary constituent) and thus, on
the other hand, Kurtz wants to create a philosophy of life,
and ethic and political and social framework for a better
and more just world in which individuals can flourish as
individuals and be happy:
‘[…] the main thrust of humanism is not to simply espouse
the negative – what we do not believe in – but what we do.
We should not begin with atheism or anti-supernaturalism but
with humanism. I am a secular humanist because I am not
religious. I draw my inspiration not from religion or
spirituality but from science, ethics, philosophy, and the
arts. I call it eupraxsophy; that is, the practice of wisdom
as an alternative to religion. The convictions of a humanist
involve both the head and the heart, cognition and emotion.
These are our rational-passional core beliefs.’ (p. 234)
What is, according to Paul Kurtz, humanism, and why didn’t
he put humanism in the title of this book? To start with the
last question, firstly, ‘humanism’ has many meanings and,
secondly, humanism might scare of potential friends among
(liberal) believers, who agree with most of the humanist
agenda. Borrowing a term from Paul Cliteur: Kurtz strives
for a ‘moral Esperanto’, he want to communicate humanist
ideas to an audience as wide as possible. It seems Kurtz’s
choice to advertize multisecularism instead of humanism, is
pragmatic. In a world were there are deep clashes of
worldviews and ideologies it is hard to find common ground.
Secularism, adapted to cultural differences, i.e.
multisecularism, might be a more viable strategy to strive
for than outspoken atheistic humanism. In a secular society
people can enjoy their personal delusions, as long as they
don’t harm others. The problem with Kurtz’ term
multisecularism could be that it has a ring of
multiculturalism, and multiculturalism too often turns a
blind eye to in-group intolerance, and thus tolerates
intolerances in name of cultural diversity. This is
different with multisecularism, but how exactly is not
clear. Kurtz could have elaborated on how Chinese secularism
differs from Indian, American or Dutch secularism. A
possible answer might be that like there are many different
forms of democracy – the Netherlands have a different
democratic system than the US for examples, both being
secular democracies – there can also be different models of
secularism, which still have as basic function the
separation of state and religion.
Humanism can be broad or it can be small. Small humanism is
fore mostly criticizing religion and the paranormal and
pleading for political secularism. Broad humanism is about
how we should live the good live, of course without
religion. Kurtz emphasizes the importance of broad humanism.
Humanism is positive, about how we humans can make the best
of it, of our lives, our society, our world, our future. Humanism is about striving for to good live, on an
individual level and on the social level.
Humanism according to Kurtz is firstly a method of critical
inquiry. This method of critical inquiry has to application.
On the one hand, humanism is about criticizing mistakes and
misconceptions; criticizing religion and claims of the
paranormal. On the other hand critical inquiry should be
applied in order to find the best possible knowledge, and to
look for the best moral guidance and theories.
‘The best guarantee of morality is to cultivate within
human beings concern for other human beings.’ (p. 40) Kurtz
elaborates on what kind people moral people are: ‘Such
people are well-intentioned and well-meaning, striving to be
cooperative, beneficent, empathetic, and altruistic.’ (p.
41) Kurtz makes an important remark about the scope of our
moral circle: ‘’[Persons of good will] are thus considerate,
thoughtful, caring; every effort is made to reduce suffering
and pain whenever they can; not only for other human beings
but other sentient beings in the biosphere.’ Here Kurtz
seems to move away from the anthropocentric speciesism of
humanism towards sentientism. For sentientists, like Peter
Singer, the criterion if an entity has moral value, is its
capacity for suffering. Humanists have a tendency to care
for fellows humans in the here and now. A fundamental
question is, can humanism be expanded from anthropocentrism
towards sentientism, or should the concept of humanism not
be stretched that much? One could argue: ‘Humanism, as the
word makes clear, is about humans, so if you want a
worldview and ethics which is broader than that, don’t call
it humanism.’ But as I started out, humanism is a human-made
concept and it can be reinvented all the time, in the light
of reason. Paul Kurtz seems also to take this stance, that
it is possible to expand the moral circle within humanism.
However, Kurtz does not elaborate this point, he only
indicates towards this new direction. This is a direction
that probably will alienate some of those who call
themselves humanists. The problem with organized humanism
and humanism as an intellectual movement is that when you
take it seriously and thus include (new) atheism and sentientism, the people who are sympathetic towards humanism
will decline. If you want to market humanism, it is better
to mind your language. It seems Paul Kurtz is concerned
about the marketing, but at the same time, he is too much a
philosopher as to water down humanism. This tension between
ideas and pragmatic concerns is visible in many of the
essays in Multisecularism. One that is hard to solve. With
the title Kurtz seems to have been chosen for the marketing
strategy, but his fierce critique on religion, unreason and
his widening of the moral circle, show his reluctance to
submit to a marketing strategy.
Kurtz points out the dangers of religious ethics, which are
heteronomous. Answering the question ‘What is good?’
believers ultimately refer to a supernatural entity, god.
Humanists want to have good reasons for what is good and
what is evil. Kurtz looks for inspiration at the western
philosophical tradition. He finds many theories, which he
finds useful: virtue ethics, utilitarianism, Kantianism,
pragmatism, liberalism. Though, at first sight, this moral
eclecticism seems like Kurtz has not made up his mind, he
acknowledges that there might be more than one good theory
and that we should try to make use of them as best as we
can. The moral axiom Kurtz uses to calibrate ethical
theories is: does it help to make the word a better place,
including me?
Multisecularism is a political term, coined by Kurtz. As
Paul Cliteur in The Secular Outlook, and myself in
Philosophy for a Better World, point out, there is a
distinction to be made between political secularism (to
separate state & religion) and moral secularism (liberating
ethics from religion). Kurtz addresses both: separation of
church and state (political secularism), and the
secularization of values (moral secularism). Religion
regretfully still has political and social power in many
parts of the world and hampers individual liberty and,
often, social and penal justice. ‘Secularism needs to be
adapted to diverse cultural conditions if it is to gain
ground. […] Multisecularism seems to be the best way to
pursue: that is, adapting secular ideas and values to the
societies in which they arise.’ (p. 1). Kurtz points out
that there are many ways ‘away from Rome’, away from
religion. Perhaps, but this is speculative, Kurtz utters an
indirect critique on USA attempts to spread one model of
democracy in those countries that have a special relation
with the USA.
In the last section of essays ‘Personal Reflections’ Kurtz
reflects on his life. The book is thus also somewhat an
intellectual autobiography and a memoir. Center for Inquiry
(the transnational secular humanist organization established
by Paul Kurtz) organizes educational cruises. One of these
cruises went to Alaska to see the melting ice (for the
‘disbelieving Thomas’ kind of humanists’). A board ship
Kurtz started to revisit his edifice of humanism, adapting
it to the environmental problems. Though it seems humanism
can and should urgently rephrase itself toward eco-humanism,
being more aware of the fact how fragile we are when we
trespass the biophysical limits of our habitat, planet
Earth. Kurtz ponders: ‘It is difficult to deny the reality
of global warming, though some scientists and politicians,
financed by powerful oil companies, have attempted to do
just that.’ (p. 135). ‘While aboard ship, we read aloud the
following pledge of allegiance, which sets forth our ethical
obligations to our planetary abode:
Planetary Allegiance
We pledge allegiance to the planetary community of which
we’re all part: one planet, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. We recognize that all persons are equal in
dignity and value. We defend human rights and cherish human
freedom. We vow to honor and protect the global ecology and
biodiversity, not only for ourselves but for generations yet
unborn.’
It seems to me that a problem with Kurtz’ humanism as he
defines it, is that it is too anthropocentric. Well, it is
in the name: human-ism. In contrast to any other life
stances, humanism is cosmopolitan, and, as noted in the
‘Planetary Allegiance’ it also takes future generation
humans into account. Philosopher Peter Singer has taken the
lead in trying to expand the circle of morality by moving
away from anthropocentrism towards sentientism, taking as
criterion for moral standing (not being a living member of
the homo sapiens), the capacity for suffering. This goes
back to the famous adagio by Jeremy Bentham: ‘Can they
suffer?’ It seems that despite its name, humanism can be
adapted and expanded away from anthropocentrism towards
sentientism or even biocentrism.
Humanism is not just an intellectual position;
humanism is humane. It is about being friendly, living the
good life. This is what Kurtz ponders when in the hospital
with serious heart problems:
‘I say that I am a humanist, meaning by that, that we should
strive as best we can to do good, to try to help where we
can, to compliment other persons wherever possible. By this
I mean that we should express an affirmative attitude all
the time, to try to improve the situation, if we can, to
look at the bright side.’ (p. 254)
Floris van den Berg is a philosopher and co-executive
director of Center for Inquiry Low Countries. In 2011 his
book ‘Philosophy for a Better World’ will be published at
Prometheus Books.
HIROSHIMA
I consider the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
possibly the worst moral crime in US history. 200.000
people killed and countless thousands maimed for life--
the innocent civilian populations of those cities
decimated..
I was on the Western front in the American army of
liberation of Europe when the news broke of the
bombings, having witnessed the infamous death camps of
the Nazi's and their many crimes first hand. I literally
broke down when I heard about these actions of
Truman--while all of my comrades were cheering, I asked
what could possibly be the moral justification for these
dastard deeds. That it would shorten the war we were
told and thus save American lives--hardly a sufficient
reason. They could have detonated the bombs first on
uninhabited atols in the Pacific, notifying the Japanese
of our new weapon and enabling them to surrender before
the bombs were used on entire civilians populations.
These acts were among the most heinous in human history,
by a democracy no less, which believed in human rights.
Humanists should mark that event in protest and remorse
....Paul Kurtz
|
Hiroshima
The Faith
of an
Empathetic
Humanist
|
