Category: humanism

“My ghast was flabbered”: A. C. Grayling visits the Creation Museum, and speaks about humanism

April 2, 2014 • 8:51 am

This one-hour video, put up yesterday, shows Philosopher Anthony Grayling “speaking on ‘Humanism’ at The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Student Societies 2014 Convention.”

I haven’t yet heard the whole thing, but there’s a bit starting at 19:08 that describes his visit to Kentucky’s Creation Museum. That might be a good place to start, since the earlier parts of the video describe what humanism is, something that most of us know. Grayling describes the Museum, and this has been reported widely (see here, for instance), as a “human rights crime”:

“I kid you not. My gast was flabbered the minute I set my foot across the threshold of that place. They have these sort of electronic vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rex playing with the children of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.”

“The really dismaying thing about it was the troops and troops and troops of small schoolchildren being taken through and presented with all this as fact. That seems to me to be a human rights crime,” he added.

Well, that’s a bit extreme, but I do see it as a reprehensible form of lying to children (but when has that been a crime, except in the public school science classroom)? I still, however, wish there were a way to prevent parents, or authorities like Ken Ham, from inculcating impressionable children with religion. Laws won’t work anywhere, so what can we do?

Grayling goes on to discuss value (which he sees as nil) of debating religious people. He sees it ineffective at changing those people’s minds, but is useful for addressing those on the fence, who might be unaware of the “rich humanist tradition. To quote the well-coiffed philosopher:

“Jonathan Swift said, ‘There is no reasoning a person out of a position they weren’t reasoned into,’ and this is the case with religion, because of course the vast majority of religious people are religious because of their early experience, they were indoctrinated as children.”

“The whole point in debating people with a real investment in a religious outlook is you are not going to change their minds,” he said. “You’re not really talking to them, because you’re not going to make a difference to them, but you might make a difference to people who are uncertain, people who are reflecting, people who are wavering on the brink.”

Well, that’s pretty accurate but not completely. I’ve met many people, and there are many readers here, who have been reasoned out of religion. Dan Barker, John Loftus, and Jerry DeWitt are three. There are indeed some people who, though immersed in faith, have a tiny seed of doubt that can blossom into full nonbelief.

h/t: Barry

British Humanist Association launches YouTube campaign featuring Stephen Fry

March 17, 2014 • 1:03 pm

Reader HaggisForBrains informs me that the British Humanist Association has just launched a YouTube campaign, “that’s humanism,” featuring animated videos narrated by Stephen Fry. HaggisfB adds that there will also be a Facebook and Twi**er campaign.

There are currently four short animated videos, each 2-3 minutes long. And I love Stephen Fry; he’s witty, eloquent, funny as hell, thoroughly atheistic, and has sporadically (and successfully) battled a form of bipolar disorder, about which he’s very open about (as he is about being gay). Plus he loves science and doesn’t put up with woo or crap. What’s not to like?

Here are the four short videos, put up today. It will take you only ten minutes to watch them, and this is a Professor Ceiling Cat recommendation.

“How do we know what is true?” (I like the emphasis on evidence as the only way to know what is true.)

“What should we think about death?” (“Wanting something to be true is not the same is being true”.) I sort of disagree with the notion that life is better when finite than if it were eternal. I’ve always said that yes, I’d like to live forever. And I can’t help but think that most people agree with me; after all, people don’t want to die. If we stuck around forever, we’d get to see what happened—until, that is, the Sun began burning us up in a few billion years.  This video, like much of humanist discussion of death, tries mightily to make a virtue of necessity.

“What makes something right or wrong?” (Here Fry espouses a solid, rationalistic morality.)

“How can I be happy?” (“Meaning is not something out there waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives.”)

I have to say that these videos are just so damn—sensible, especially compared to the made-up stuff promulgated by faiths.  Notice that food, wine, and cake are mentioned as helping give meaning to our lives, something with which I heartily agree.

Credits:
Written & produced by the British Humanist Association in conjunction with SkeptiSketch, and narrated by Stephen Fry.
Contributing artist: Roberto Gomez – EvolutionBiologia.
Thank you to Alom Shaha, Craig Duncan, Andrew Copson, and Sara Passmore
That’s Humanism logo design by Nick Cousins http://www.nickcousins.co.uk

Indian rationalist assassinated

August 20, 2013 • 7:13 am

The International Humanist and Ethical Union, and many other venues, report that a well known Indian humanist and rationalist, Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, was assassinated this morning  in India:

He was reportedly shot four times by two men on a motorbike this morning on Omkarweshwar bridge in Pune, Maharashtra state. He was reportedly taking his daily morning walk when he was assassinated, a route that may have been known to his attackers.

The murder comes days after the state government pledged to re-introduce an anti-superstition bill closely associated with Dabholkar’s work and opposed by many rightwing and Hindu nationalist groups as “anti-Hindu.”

I’d be very surprised if the murder didn’t have anything to do with Dabholkar’s activities:

Dr. Dabholkar, a medical doctor, plunged into anti-superstition work in 1983 and built a concrete movement in his home state of Maharashtra.  He was founder of the Maharashtra Forum for Elimination of Superstition, Maharashtra Andha Shraddha Nirmulan Samiti, editor of Sadhana magazine devoted to propagation of progressive thought, and had served previously as vice president of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA), an Member Organization of IHEU.

Dabholkar’s work over many years confronted and exposed the fraudulent practices of babas and swamis by explaining the science behind so-called miracles, often used to defraud some of the least well-off members of society of their money or possessions. Dabholkar organised teavelling troops of activists travelling all over the state, and campaigned at a political level with great erudition against superstition and so-called ‘black magic’.

narendra-dabholkar
Dr Narendra Dabholkar

An Indian anti-woo activist perhaps more well known to us Sandal Edamarku, whom I met at TAM 2013, weighs in on the assassination at howabi.com:

During the course of his battle against superstition, Dabholkar had received many threats from various groups but had never allowed it to deter him. Edamaruku, the president of an organisation called the Indian Rationalist Association says the threats usually come from those who are perpetrating superstitions and other beliefs.“The rationalist movement has been growing very fast over the last 10 years. I have experienced a lot of threats in my life and so have many others,” he said.

Narendra Dabholkar’s death should be taken as an inspiration by people, who should be encouraged to realise the importance of the struggle against superstition and take inspiration from his struggle, he said.“It is not the victims of superstition who are normally against rationalists but the exploiters who are using superstition and are using the gullibility of people, they are the ones against us,” Edamaruku said.

However, successes are few. Edamaruku pointed out that Dabholkar’s mission ” the anti-superstition bill ”had been significantly watered down and had still not been passed by the Maharashtra legislation.

India is a land steeped in religion and other forms of woo: many people, and, I believe, even the government, plans their schedules using the astrological calendar. Edamarku is on the lam, having fled India under threat of jail for violating blasphemy laws, and has also received death threats.  Apparently the price of rationalism in India can be death.

 

Quote of the Day

June 25, 2013 • 10:52 am

From Anthony Grayling’s The God Argument (pp. 257-258):

“In the past, people were eager to clutch at legends and superstitions in order to attain a quick, simple closure regarding what they did not know or understand, to make it seem to themselves that they did know and understand. Humanism recognizes this historical use of mythologies, and sympathises with the needs that drive people to treat them as truths.  It points out that what feeds their hearts and minds—love, beauty, music, sunshine on the sea, the sound of rain on leaves, the company of friends, the satisfaction that comes from successful effort—is more than the imaginary can ever give them, and that they should learn to redescribe these things—the real things of this world—as what gives life the poetry of its significance.”

My comments:

1. Not much scientism on view here!
2. Note suggestion by a New Atheist on how to replace human needs supposedly fulfilled by religion.

Grayling’s new book: a short but laudatory review

June 24, 2013 • 9:09 am

I want to give two thumbs up to Anthony Grayling’s new book, The God Argument: the Case Against Religion and for Humanism, which was released this March but is already available in paperback and Kindle. (Note: I haven’t yet read his previous effort, The Good Book, which is apparently a humanist version of the Bible drawing from secular tradition.)

The Gode Argument comprises two parts: an initial attack on the idea of God and the validity of religious thought, and then a disquisition on humanism and how it can replace religion.

Many of us will be familiar with some of Grayling’s arguments in Part I. He spends time, for example, dispelling the telelological, cosmological, and ontologial arguments for God, as well as Pascal’s Wager. But there’s a lot of other good stuff, including his indictment of the harms of faith.  As a philosopher, his perspective here is refreshing and more erudite than that of many New Atheists, and I  learned a lot.  Grayling’s writing is lively, fluid, and clear, and I doubt that anyone could find it “strident” since it’s quite restrained and civil. Nevertheless, it’s forceful, and impossible to read without agreeing that the elimination of religion, and the public morality it seeks to enforce, is essential.

Part II is a trenchant answer to those who criticize New Atheists for tearing down religion but not offering a substitute. Here he gives the clearest definition of humanism I’ve seen, and shows that, based as it is on nonreligious human thoughts and feelings that most of us share, it could easy replace religion.

He first demolishes the ideas that purpose and morality could come from God, and then outlines the humanist response to questions of “whence our life’s purpose?”, “where do we find morality?”, “how do we deal with love and sex?”, and, the eternal philosophical question—one that’s been largely replaced by academic philosophy—”what is the good life?”.  Even if you’ve read the Stoics, Marcus Aurelius, and other classical philosophers on the last issue, you’ll benefit from Grayling’s clear and compelling exposition. His enumeration of the half-dozen constituents of the life well-lived is inspiring. As Jack Nicholson said in “As Good as It Gets” (albeit while trying to seduce a woman), it “makes me want to be a better man.”

The chapter on death, which strongly promotes euthanasia, is a bit depressing but also thoughtful. It didn’t make me face my fear of mortality with any less trepidation, but did lay out an airtight case for assisted suicide, showing that the only opposition to it comes from misguided religious tenets. Eric MacDonald would approve.

The second part of Grayling’s book is the answer to those who, like Alain de Botton or Rabbi Sacks, insist that New Atheism is a dismal failure because atheists don’t suggest replacements for the essential human needs that drive religion. Grayling, our most eloquent exponent of humanism, has done the work, and although he doesn’t float the untenable idea of atheist churches or sermons, he shows that humanism can easily plug the gaps that remain when we give up God.

Do read it.

godargumnetcover

A.C. Grayling on the Colbert Report

April 4, 2013 • 11:57 am

by Greg Mayer

English philosopher and humanist A.C. Grayling was interviewed last night on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central.  The interview highlighted Grayling’s new book, The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and for Humanism, which Jerry has noted here at WEIT.

Grayling started with a nice definition of humanism that was appreciated by the audience. Colbert then tried Pascal’s wager on him, as Grayling had mentioned the multiplicity of gods, but it’s sometimes hard to produce a concise but thoughtful response in in these very short and comedic interviews.

The full interview is available here on Colbert’s website and via hulu.

Colbert is rebroadcast the next day (i.e. today, Thursday) at 6 PM Central time; check your local listing.

[JAC note: I just watched the short Hulu clip and was quite pleased. Grayling seemingly wasn’t attuned to Colbert’s schtick, but he answered very well, made as many good points as I think are possible in such a short time, and, most important, it looked as if the audience was on his side (note the applause when Grayling claims that religion does more harm than good).]

Enough, already!

March 13, 2013 • 4:42 am

Another accommodationist attack in the Guardian on Grayling and his new book. The subtitle says it all:

Screen shot 2013-03-12 at 6.20.33 PM

It’s by Jonathan Rée, and is completely predictable:

Militant atheism makes the strangest bedfellows. Grayling sees himself as a champion of the Enlightenment, but in the old battle over the interpretation of religious texts he is on the side of conservative literalist fundamentalists rather than progressive critical liberals. He believes that the scriptures must be taken at their word, rather than being allowed to flourish as many-layered parables, teeming with quarrels, follies, jokes, reversals and paradoxes. Resistance is, of course, futile. If you suggest that his vaunted “clarifications” annihilate the poetry of religious experience or the nuance of theological reflection*, he will mark you down for obstructive irrationalism. He is, after all, a professional philosopher, and his training tells him that what cannot be translated into plain words is nothing but sophistry and illusion**.

Yadda yadda yadda. . .

There’s nothing new I can say about this stuff. It’s tedious, it’s repetitive, it’s unoriginal, and it’s wrong. But it never stops.

Oh, I’ll say one thing: once you take the Bible as metaphor, any interpretation is possible. In that sense, fundamentalists are more intellectually honest than the “moderate” faithful.

UPDATE: For a palliative, read Grayling’s lovely Guardian essay from 2006, “Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?” A snippet:

It is time to put to rest the mistakes and assumptions that lie behind a phrase used by some religious people when talking of those who are plain-spoken about their disbelief in any religious claims: the phrase “fundamentalist atheist”. What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? Would he be someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the universe – perhaps that there is only part of a god (a divine foot, say, or buttock)? Or that gods exist only some of the time – say, Wednesdays and Saturdays? (That would not be so strange: for many unthinking quasi-theists, a god exists only on Sundays.) Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves – and still do?

________

My footnotes:

*”The nuance of theological reflection” = obscurantism
**What Rée means here is this: obscurantism = profundity