Animalism or humanism

To be brutish or good.
That is the question.

Found this post on the Pakistan Observer website. (See: Animalism or humanism) It annoys me. Only a religious person could turn Humanism into a false dichotomy between acting civilized and acting like an animal. Being a Humanist does not mean thinking we are the pinnacle of creation as this writer claims. That is a religious idea, not a Humanist one. The Humanist does not deify humans. We simply strive to be the best human we can be.

Humanists know we are animals. We are human animals. And so there is no conflict between us choosing to be human or choosing to be animal. We are both. I realize this guy was just trying to extol people to be good people instead of brutish. The point is that we can be both wonderful and/or brutish. That is our nature as Humans.

I don't think that believing we are the pinnacle of god's creation is going to help us control our brutish impulses. Quite the opposite actually. It is when people believe they can do no wrong because they are the pinnacle of god's creation, that they feel most justified in giving free rein to their most brutish impulses instead of trying to control them.

We do not need to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of creation to choose to be good. We simply need to choose to be good despite the fact our animal tendencies, in addition to encouraging us towards compassion, can also encourage us towards brutishness. Denying those brutish impulses doesn't help us control them.

Grief without God

This seems to be the topic of conversation this week. Anyway - Thinking Atheist did a great show on this yesterday. It is about 1 1/2 hours long, but the first woman really gets it right. Having lost a child myself, I completely understand where she is coming from. She's right, without a belief in god or an afterlife, you have no choice but to accept the reality of what has happened and this acceptance helps you cope more effectively with your loss.

At this point I am absolutely convinced that it is easier to grieve without a belief in god then it is to grieve with a belief in god.  And if you are interested in this subject I have an entire chapter dedicated to grief in my book. Anyway - because it is so moving and so important a topic - here is the youtube version of Thinking Atheist's radio show from yesterday. Now go grab some kleenex.

God is Irrelevant?

To a Humanist anyway, the question of whether there is or isn’t a god is irrelevant to our morality and how we approach life in general. Consider Wendy Kaminer, author and Humanist who said, “I don't spend much time thinking about whether God exists. I don't consider that a relevant question. It's unanswerable and irrelevant to my life, so I put it in the category of things I can't worry about.”

Adam Savage, Humanist and co-host of MythBusters in a recent talk to the Harvard Humanist said “If you want to believe, or find solace in believing, that someone or something set these particular dominoes in motion—a cosmic finger tipping the balance and then leaving everything else to chance—I can't say anything to that. I don't know.” He goes on to say “Though a primary mover is the most complex and thus (given Occam's razor) the least likely of all possible solutions to the particular problem of how we got here, I can't prove it true or false, and there's nothing to really discuss about it.” The rest of his talk is about personal responsibility from a Humanist perspective.

Even Dewey from Malcolm in the Middle thought the existence of God was irrelevant. He concludes, “I guess all we can do is live our lives with as much kindness and decency as possible. And try not to dwell too much about God standing over us with that giant shovel.” Ahhh, Humanism.

Pragmatism?

I have been reading Greg Epstein’s new book. Apparently there are several different flavors of atheism. According to him I am a pragmatic atheist, which means that for me whether god(s) exists or not is irrelevant to living an ethical and successful life. I actually told an ethics class at a college that I thought the existence of god was irrelevant a few years back and almost every jaw in the room dropped. Apparently considering gods irrelevant is more shocking then not believing in gods at all. In my defense I was asked to present non-theistic ethics to them so the question of the existence of god was totally relevant to our discussion.

Regardless – I had no idea I was such a pragmatist. I’ve always considered myself an apathetic agnostic, atheist, ignostic apatheist. But what do I know. What is really important to me is not whether gods exist but rather once you have decided for yourself as an individual what you believe or don’t believe about gods, the next question is what is really important. Given what you believe, are you going to approach life with love or with fear and hate? And how does that affect your personal ethics? Your answer to this question, by the way, impacts me and everyone else on the planet. So yeah, color me pragmatic.

And that is why I am a Humanist. Humanism is a very pragmatic approach to living well and being a good person. That is why I titled my book – The Humanist Approach to Happiness: Practical Wisdom. It isn’t a philosophy book so much as a book about the pragmatic reasons for being an ethical, compassionate and responsible person. If you want to learn more you can buy an advanced copy here: http://www.cafepress.com/sumogirl.409202605 If this link is no longer good it means I found a publisher and you can find the new link on my website at http://www.sumogirl.com/

Logic Matters

Recently O'Reilly had Richard Dawkins on to discuss his new book which is about evolution. Now, I don't normally watch O'Reilly but this clip is amazing in the illogic O'Reilly uses to debate . I am posting the clip here because I think it provides an excellent example of why logic should be taught in the schools. It is important for people to learn how to discern between valid and invalid arguments because otherwise there is no good way to determine truth. And if you can't determine who is telling the truth, then you are a sucker just waiting to be taken advantage of. Anyway - here is the clip.

What is amazing about this clip is that O'Reilly doesn't say a single logical thing. NONE of his arguments follow standard rules of logic. NONE! Mostly, he uses what is called a non-sequitor. (A=C so therefore unrelated X is somehow true) In this instance, Science doesn't have the answers to everything (a=c) so therefore there must be a flying spaghetti monster or god (X= true). He uses the same structure to argue for teaching creationism in the schools.

O'Reilly also uses some informal colloquial fallacies. And really, these are his unique variations on established fallacies. The first is anonymous authority. Some really smart people (unnamed) agree with him, so he must be right. He also uses what can only be called a reverse dogmatic fallacy, which I think should be called "the O'Reilly fallacy" in honor of his repeated use of this form. Basically, a dogmatic fallacy is to arbitrarily exclude evidence in favor of X from the universe of discouse. In the O'Reilly fallacy or reverse dogmatic fallacy the refusal to allow X into the universe of discourse because X isn't logical or factually true is evidence of facism on the part of your debate opponent. I particularly like that one.

But my favorite part of this clip is when he argues by choir - essentially saying that more people believe as he does then don't so he must be correct. This is akin to saying 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong (even though they can). Argument by choir is totally irrelevant to whether any of the statements are true or logical.

So, to sum up O'Reillys illogic. Science can't explain everything, therefore the theory of biological evolution has gaps. Those gaps can only be filled by the flying spaghetti monster. If you don't allow this random and arbitrary conclusion to be taught to school children in a science class simply because it doesn't meet the minimal scientific standards for evidence or logic you are clearly a fascist and by the way 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. Dawkins was right to shake his head and point out that this was a truly remarkable peice of illogic.