• Archives

  • Meta

  • The Demise of the Neans of Lipar

    Posted By David Niose on November 3, 2008

    niose.jpgThe esteemed professor, an expert on interstellar civilizations, is giving a public lecture about the area of her specialization. For years she has been studying the distant planet of Lipar, where intelligent life once existed but has been long extinct. Tonight she discusses some of her findings:

    Good evening. Almost half a billion years ago (435 million years ago to be more precise) the civilization of the Neans, a highly advanced species on the planet of Lipar, which orbits a star in an outer region of the Azima galaxy, came to a sudden, climactic conclusion. Interstellar historians are fascinated by the records of this civilization, for they reveal a life form with remarkable intelligence.

    Indeed, though Lipar is desolate now, highly sophisticated time capsules left by the Neans provide us with detailed information concerning all aspects of their planet, their history, and their civilization. What one finds is a world that was very much like our own, with large and diverse populations, extensive knowledge of the natural world, and complex social and political structures.

    Of course, we long ago answered the question of whether life exists on planets other than our own, and we now know that the evolution of life is a phenomenon that occurs with some predictability when conditions are within certain parameters, but the findings from Lipar are nevertheless especially significant. Not only were the Neans of Lipar intelligent animals, but they are the first animal that we have found whose brain capacity actually exceeded our own.

    In fact the data provided by the Neans, through detailed biological information preserved in their time capsules, indicate that the average Nean brain capacity exceeded ours by four percent. That impressive brain capacity is apparent in the scientific advances that they made. Their architecture, their modes of transportation, their medical technology, and their communications technology – all are recorded in detail, and all are quite impressive by any standard.

    Hence, the intrigue of Nean civilization is obvious. They were smarter than us, but why not smart enough to preserve themselves? After all, it wasn’t an uncontrollable natural phenomenon – a plague or a giant meteor – that wiped out Nean civilization. No, the Neans, as intelligent as they were, were responsible for their own demise, by voluntarily unleashing large-scale nuclear weaponry.

    Interestingly, although the Nean time capsules are filled with information concerning their knowledge of science and the history of their civilization, only bits and pieces of information are preserved regarding how their demise came. It appears that it happened rather quickly, through sudden political and military convulsions that rapidly escalated out of control. Nevertheless, enough information is available so that we can piece together at least a basic understanding of what happened. Let me start from the beginning.

    First, it’s noteworthy that the Neans’ evolutionary history was very much like our own. That is, the Neans of course evolved from lower life forms, via the general evolutionary process of natural selection, genetic mutation, gradual change, etc., commonly seen whenever life has been discovered in the universe.

    Just as our species would do on our planet hundreds of millions of years later, the Neans evolved from ancestors who lived in what we would consider a very primitive manner, struggling for survival, often perishing due to starvation and disease, and often finding itself being hunted by other animals. The early Neans, like our own ancestors, developed intense emotions that proved to have survival value – fear, anxiety, and fight-or-flight tendencies, to name a few. Tense and worried as a natural state, with violence and suffering commonplace, competing with other animals and other clans for survival and dominance, these ancestral Neans were much like our own ancestors.

    And like our own ancestors they survived and eventually thrived, slowly spreading around their planet until eventually they populated almost the entire sphere. As they did so they slowly developed technology, finding better ways to hunt and gather food, better ways to construct shelter. Clans grew into tribes, and as tribes got larger they merged into larger political units.

    Although I’ve been referring to the Neans as an impressive animal that was even more intelligent than us, it’s important to realize that for most of its history the Nean was just a struggling animal, primitive and without any characteristics of advanced civilization. But again, we should realize that the same could be said about our own civilization – if an interstellar observer were to piece together our history, he or she would quickly find that the vast majority of our time has been spent as primitive hunter-gatherers, and only the most recent sliver of history would reflect so-called “civilization.”

    The Nean emergence, from a struggling animal to a highly advanced and civilized being that dominated the natural world in which it lived, is what is perhaps most instructive, for the Nean made that emergence just as we did, by utilizing a tool that frequently accompanies a highly developed brain – the tool of language. As would be expected, Nean languages were at first primitive and they varied around the planet, but over time they became more and more impressive in their ability to convey precise meaning to specific ideas and concepts.

    And just as on our own planet, a major milestone was reached when the Neans acquired the ability to put their language into a new, more permanent form – writing. With written language, the Neans no longer had to rely on word of mouth to pass down information from generation to generation. Complex ideas could be permanently recorded, and then intelligent minds could read them, ponder them, debate them, and improve them. Written language set the stage for major advances in science and technology. Within a relatively few generations after the invention of written language on Lipar, Nean civilization began racing ahead in leaps and bounds.

    In fact when we study the advancement of writing and communication on Lipar we find the parallels between our civilization and theirs to be uncanny. Just like us, the Neans appear to have devoted most of their early writings to perceived religious and theological matters. The Neans, like ourselves, evolved from pre-theological ancestors, animals that lacked the brain capacity to generate deep, religious ideas.

    In our studies of interstellar life forms, we have found very few examples of what we would consider highly advanced life forms, and certainly none that have approached the level of advancement of the Neans, but in all those examples we have found a recurring pattern. It seems that when an animal first becomes capable of pondering deep universal questions, it inevitably leaves the pre-theological stage and enters the theological stage – the stage where it necessarily invents theology to answer those seemingly unanswerable questions that it has begun asking. Once an animal becomes capable of wondering where his or her world comes from, that animal, not knowing the slightest bit of truth about astronomy or other natural sciences, naturally invents theological answers. Gods inevitably become the default answer to baffling questions, those questions that only a remarkably intelligent animal is capable of asking.

    Thus the Nean, with its impressive brain, not surprisingly became a theological animal, and not surprisingly it incorporated its theology into its social infrastructure, making religion an integral part of it cultures and giving religious significance to many aspects of life. And when written language was invented, again not surprisingly, religion became the subject that was central in much of that writing.

    But written language also allowed the Nean animal to race ahead in the acquisition of knowledge, and this of course enabled Neans to discover scientific answers to many of the questions that had previously been unanswerable. Neans learned that previously inexplicable phenomena, such as weather and natural disasters, could be explained in ways that made earlier theological explanations seem absurd. They learned that Lipar was a spherical planet that traveled around a star, and that the star itself was just one of billions of stars within a galaxy, and that there were billions and billions of galaxies in the universe. The Neans learned that life evolved naturally, through means that required no divine guidance; they discovered microscopic organisms, and of course learned about mutation, and evolution.

    Indeed, as scientific knowledge grew, the authority of well-entrenched religious institutions on Lipar seemed to whither, and the historical injustices and ignorance of those institutions became more and more apparent. Again, the parallels to our experience are uncanny.

    As you can see, the Nean experience gives much support for the theory that the stages of progression found in both our world and theirs – from the pre-theological stage, with its inability to ponder religious notions; to the theological stage, with the intelligent animal pondering the universe from an uninformed vantage point; to the post-theological stage, where the animal has acquired knowledge and therefore left theological explanations behind – are natural and even predictable stages of development among certain extremely intelligent life forms.

    But importantly, here is where the Nean experience and ours take different paths. Unlike ours, the Nean civilization never completely transitioned into the post-theological stage. Although Neans acquired the scientific and technological knowledge that should have allowed the transition to post-theological society to occur, many Neans simply failed to make that transition. Instead, stubbornly insisting that the theological explanations of their ancestors deserved their continued allegiance, huge percentages of Neans refused to set aside ancient religion.

    This may seem puzzling to us, for in our world we experienced a similar phenomenon when our ancestors first began making huge strides in the acquisition of scientific knowledge, but our species eventually made the transition to the post-theological stage without destroying itself. How were we so fortunate, and why were the Neans so unfortunate?

    My theory is that the explanation might be found in our slight difference in brain capacity. As I said earlier, the Nean brain capacity, on average, was slightly greater than our own; therefore, when the Nean animal began making scientific progress the advancements came fairly quickly, at a faster rate than our own historical experience. Thus, sophisticated technology became available so fast that, from a sociological and psychological standpoint, the animal did not have time to shed its deeply entrenched religious beliefs and traditions. In fact, there appears to be one key, critical juncture that might have doomed the poor Neans. Let me explain.

    Though its advancement as a species was much like our own, the Nean experience differed from ours in one very important way. It seems that the Neans, in an achievement that was remarkable (but ultimately unfortunate), managed to discover nuclear physics – and specifically the splitting of the atom – at a stage in their history when they were far too immature, from a social and psychological standpoint, to properly handle such technology.

    In fact, the Neans of Lipar – and let me at this time refer to them using their own terminology, using the language that dominated their planet at the time of their demise.  They didn’t call themselves Neans and they didn’t call their planet Lipar – those are terms we created for them.  They called themselves humans and they called their planet Earth. So, as I was saying, the humans of Earth were a doomed species. They were so similar to us, but fatally flawed, for they discovered nuclear technology at the time when they were still deeply immersed in their theological stage of development. As we can see from their experience, the theological stage and the nuclear stage are a dangerous mix.

    Not only were humans of Earth still theological when they discovered nuclear technology, but the dominant theologies of their species were still dangerously violent, even apocalyptical. Their holy books predicted their planet going up in flames, referring to it as an inevitability, and the masses of people adhered to such beliefs with a surprising level of devotion. Even well into the scientific age, adherence to anti-intellectual religion was still commonplace among the masses of humans, and religious differences continued to fan the flames of ancient tribal animosity and violence. As you can see, with highly advanced nuclear technology available but such ignorance and social neuroses still so prevalent, there was little hope.

    Fortunately for our species, we left such tribalism and emotional attachments to theology behind us long before we discovered how to split an atom. And that’s why we can look back at the Neans of Lipar, or, if you prefer, the humans of Earth, with interest and with pity. Half a billion years ago or so, they were an animal possessing even greater biological brain capacity than our species possesses today. But we, not they, live prosperously in a post-theological world of peace. We can only be thankful that our nuclear age and our theological age did not overlap, as theirs did.

    Atheist to Baptist: We Need To Talk.

    Posted By Marilyn Westfall on October 22, 2008

    aronson1.jpgEditor’s Introduction:  The Eloquent Atheist has decided to publish comments by Ronald Aronson, (who was interviewed by co-editor Marilyn Westfall about a month ago), which were made in response to a critique of “The New Atheists” by Baptist Center for Ethics Executive Director Robert Parham.  In his critique of the New Atheism, Parham labeled atheists in general as “God despisers” and the “faithless” who pluck sympathy from “the liberal media, a significant slice of the hedonistic entertainment culture and angry university professors.” However, Parham also said that ministers and the faithful should engage “the new atheists by first taking back the microphone from the fundamentalists who define faith”; insist on “fair debate” between the two supposed sides; when challenged about the violence committed by religious fundamentalists, point out that atheistic regimes committed violence; acknowledge their own limitations in regards to ultimate answers; and lastly “respond with a vigorous civility and a redundant clarity about the great good religion does to advance social justice, encourage charity, comfort the grieving and provoke a sense of wonder in the mystery of creation.”

    A ‘New Atheist’ Responds to EthicsDaily.com

    Ronald Aronson responds:

    As one of the New Atheists, I was fascinated by Robert Parham’s call to action, “Answering the Attack of the New Atheists.” I deeply appreciate his conclusion that “faith leaders should respond with a vigorous civility,” and it is in that spirit that I respond to Dr. Parham.

    I have only two quarrels with his article, the first with the statistics he uses. The number of nonbelievers ­which I describe more inclusively as consisting of atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, freethinkers, and skeptics, is far more than the minuscule 4 percent he cites. Indeed, if the true number of those who live without God were really that few, there would probably be no need for his article. A more accurate count approaches one in four Americans. Indeed, as I have written in my book, a careful tally of all those with no religion, as well as spiritualists, and nominally religious deists ­those for whom the traditional Jewish, Christian, and Muslim God plays little or no role in their lives­ may be as many as 40 percent of Americans.

    Second, except at the very end of his article, Dr. Parham’s tone does not come up to his own standards of “vigorous civility.” He speaks of us nonbelievers as “God-despisers,” ­which is a manifestly false description of me and the vast majority of my fellow unbelievers ­and then of our support by “the hedonistic entertainment culture and angry university professors.” These are terms of combat that verge on insult, and they certainly contradict the analytical tone of much of the article.

    I understand why anyone defending religion against Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, might feel uncharitable. As I say in my book, Living Without God, they have written “blunt, no-holds barred attacks on religion.” Why are these so harsh? Above all, each sees himself as breaking a taboo: Thou shalt not criticize religion. For over a generation Americans have been, as Daniel Dennett says, under the “spell” of religion and unable to evaluate it with any amount of rigor. As I said in The Nation, the New Atheists’ sense of shattering this spell explains not only the vigor and urgency of their books, their mainstream character and their publishing success, but also the common refrain in reviews that they have “gone too far.” I for one am grateful for the space for discussion these writers, along with Dennett (certainly no angry professor) have opened up, and forgive them for not being calmer and more measured.

    Within that space, my goals are not to do battle with religion. My primary concern is to develop a coherent contemporary secular philosophy, one which answers life’s essential questions for those of us who live without God. I pursue this task with humility and without being able to claim possession of absolute knowledge, but at the same time with considerable confidence in fallible and correctable methods of human understanding, including science and reason. I oppose claims of absolute knowledge, and I also oppose those who would see fit to impose their claims on others. Like Dr. Parham I am not omniscient, I don’t have all the answers. I reject dogmatism.

    In other words, I too am opposed to fundamentalists of all stripes (as a Jew, I would add Jewish fundamentalists to the list, especially because in the West Bank they are a major source of conflict with Palestinians). Dr. Parham and I are potential allies in opposing those who assume that their values, norms and practices apply to everyone.

    But if we are to genuinely be allies, believers and nonbelievers must respectfully learn where we agree and disagree. As the Pew 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey demonstrates, our sources of values may in some ways be different, but in many ways they are also the same. We should be, or become, secure enough to discuss all of this with “vigorous civility.”

    Contrary to the past expectations of nonbelievers, religion is not going away anytime soon. There is no particular reason to do battle with religion as such, but only with fundamentalist religions. And contrary to the suggestions of author Alister McGrath, irreligion is not dying out either. We will live alongside each other for the foreseeable future.

    Is it possible that we can talk about our differences openly, honestly, without insult? Is it possible that we might not be antagonists but allies in key ways, especially in the struggle against fundamentalism? Is it possible that the perspectives we share on many of life’s most important issues are far more important than our differences? Is it possible that the Baptist Center for Ethics can communicate with the Secular Coalition for America?

    As Barack Obama wrote, in the most important paragraph of The Audacity of Hope­, a single sentence­: “No one is exempt from the call to find common ground.” I agree.

    We need to talk.

    Why Might That Be?

    Posted By David Breeden on September 29, 2008

    Why might that be
    That the universe
    Needs
    A local habitation
    And a name?

    Why might that be
    That all that is
    Needs
    A pet name and
    A personality?

    Why might that be
    That mystery
    Needs
    Turned to our ends?
    To our purposes?

    Why might that be
    That our
    Needs
    Demand a personality
    And a name?

    Why might that be
    That we
    Need
    Gods when all
    That is is?

    Fair Game

    Posted By Paul Hostovsky on September 23, 2008

    I remember a moment
    when I was 5
    and peeing under a tree
    and thinking about
    life

    and about bodies–
    my body
    emptying itself
    under the body
    of that tree,
    the huge

    house of it
    as I looked up
    through the muscular
    branches which seemed
    as thick around as grown
    men,

    and I remember
    looking down and seeing
    directly across from me
    another body–
    a tiny black
    foraging
    body–

    I was still peeing
    as I followed it
    with my eyes
    traversing the vast
    mountain range of bark,

    and carrying with it
    a little something
    to eat
    on its back
    or maybe
    in its mouth.

    I couldn’t
    see its mouth but I knew–
    I remember being 5 and knowing–
    that it had a mouth,
    that it had to have a mouth
    because everything has a mouth
    because the body is fair
    game for other bodies
    with mouths,

    and I remember thinking
    this included
    my body,
    and feeling
    all of a sudden
    very empty

    but also very
    wise. More wise
    than hungry. I wasn’t
    hungry at all at that
    particular
    remarkable
    moment.

    Interview with Carol Wintermute

    Posted By Michael W. Jones on September 18, 2008

    carolwintermute.jpgCo-Dean of the Humanist Institute.

    Carol Wintermute’s undergraduate work was at Denison University in Ohio where she received a Bachelor or Fine Arts degree. She did post-graduate work in psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her graduate studies were in family social science at Minnesota where she completed the course work for a MA and Ph.D. degree. She is also a graduate of the Humanist Institute.

    Her passions are philosophy, psychology, art and literature. Over the years, she has been a visual aids librarian at the Freer Gallery of the Smithsonian, teacher of human sexuality courses, research assistant in an experimental drug education program, an intern in a county family services agency, coordinator of an early childhood program for a school system, and instructor in family social science at the University of Minnesota, a branch manager of the Red Cross, Director of Religious Education at the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, Executive Director of the International Association of Humanist Educators, Counselors and Leaders, President of the Humanist Institute, and now the Co-Dean of the Institute.

    —-

    Q. Carol, thank you for this interview. Please tell our readers a little about your personal journey toward Humanism, and how you came to be affiliated with the Humanist Institute.

    My father was a fallen away Methodist while my mother was a devout Catholic. When they married, they compromised. and became Hicksite Quakers, the liberal branch of this faith. When we moved away from that group, my life became one of wandering into various religious halls with my neighborhood friends as guides. I even developed a rating system—Catholics, best costumes; Lutherans, best Bible pictures; Methodists, most ferocious and scary; Jews, most sad and serious. By age eleven I was finished with this odyssey and became an A-theist. In college I heard about Unitarians. When I married and had children, I headed for the nearest Unitarian church, for what I hoped would be a comparative religious education for my children and a like-minded community. I wasn’t disappointed as we found a humanist congregation that was a great fit for our family. I became a Sunday school teacher, and after moving to Minnesota I took on the responsibility for directing the children and adult education programs. I wrote a humanist curriculum that covers early childhood through adult years.

    Khoren Arisian was our minister at the First Unitarian Society in Minneapolis. Through him I heard of the Humanist Institute, and was invited to apply, becoming a student in the first class. After graduating, I joined the board of directors, eventually became president, and I am currently Co-Dean of the Institute with Kendyl Gibbons, the current minister of the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis.

    Q. What is the history of the Institute? For example, how did it begin, and how has it sustained itself through the years?

    Khoren Arisian was active in the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). It was at these meetings in Europe that Khoren met with other leaders from North America to talk about creating an organization to more effectively promote the humanist movement. The driving personality behind this endeavor was the late Paul Beattie, a humanist UU minister. Three other leaders involved in the conversations were the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine from Humanistic Judaism, Howard Radest from Ethical Culture, and Paul Kurtz from The Council for Secular Humanism.

    In 1982 these five leaders, along with 40 others of us, met at the University of Chicago to form the North American Committee for Humanism (NACH), with Sherwin Wine as President. The group immediately defined the mission for the new organization as leadership education. The Humanist Institute (THI) was the result. Howard Radest became the Dean and the New York Society for Ethical Culture offered its meeting house as the home of the Humanist Institute. In March 1984 the first class of the Institute was launched. Students were from the American Ethical Union, the American Humanist Association, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society for Humanistic Judaism, and the Council for Secular Humanism. It was the first graduate program for the education of humanist leaders who serve organizations across the humanist spectrum.

    To launch this enterprise in less the two years was a surprising feat. Some organizations provided scholarships; other provided classroom space and members of all groups had to be solicited for financial support.

    Howard Radest retired as Dean in 1992 and was succeeded by Robert Tapp who served until 2004. During Bob’s deanship more faculty members were selected for mentoring in the classroom and others were selected to join as contributors to a “think tank.” These faculty colloquia were organized around issues pertinent to humanists. As a result we have published 16 volumes of Humanism Today.

    In 1990 it was decided that NACH’s ambition to be the coalition organization for all humanist groups was not being fulfilled. What was being done well was the leadership training. Therefore NACH/THI became one entity. In 2004 Kendyl Gibbons and I became the co-deans.

    Q. What has been your experience as a dean of the Institute? Tell our readers something about the typical experience of a student who enrolls in the Institute. What kind of interaction will they have with fellow humanists and what kinds of transformative effects have you seen occurring with those who complete the course work?

    Kendyl Gibbons immediately volunteered to be the mentor for class 14 and I agreed to take on the major dean duties while she guided this class for the next three years. Kendyl and I designed a new curriculum using the best of our previous program and updating it to serve the current needs of our future leaders. This graduate-level program is completed in a three-year period, involving intensive reading and reflection. Students come to New York City or Washington D.C. for long-weekend seminars in December and April, and for 5-day seminars in August. An individually designed independent project and a program of supervised field work are required outside of the three yearly class gatherings. In between sessions, students are expected to read further on topics discussed in class and continue the discussion on-line. There may be other assignments as well, such as short papers, book or article reports and oral presentations.

    The curriculum begins with the philosophy, history and institutional structures of humanism, and moves on to examining what it means be an ethical human, and then we examine the variety of humanist ideas in world religions. The second year starts with a look at what constitutes humanist leadership, and moves to the humanist tools, critical thinking, and the methods and uses of science. The final year deals with issues in contemporary culture, aesthetics, and humanist celebrations.

    Interactions among students, mentors, and faculty constitute an indispensible element of the learning experience. The bonding that occurs among the students in a class is remarkable and one of the richest elements of the program. The interpersonal factor in the learning environment is an invaluable feature of the program. It is the coming together of representatives of all our groups that enables us to understand each others’ views and to work together for the future. I know that some of the people I met during my class experience are still good friends after 22 years. For me, the Humanist Institute was the most stimulating graduate experience I ever had, including my graduate work on moral development and family social science. Our graduations, honoring of Institute retirees, and our recent 25th anniversary celebration, are moving testimonials to the experience of being part of one big humanist family.

    Q. Currently, the Humanist Institute web site describes the organization as a means “to equip humanists to become effective leaders.” How many humanists have graduated from the Institute? Are they now in leadership roles?

    There are 106 graduates of the Institute. We have graduated 13 classes over 25 years. Currently, classes 14 and 15 are in session with class 16 slated to begin in December. We purposely limit the number of students in a class to 6-10 people. This allows maximum participation in discussions and makes it possible for a lively exchange of views.

    Our graduates are leaders, board members and staff of all our constituent organizations such as the American Ethical Union, the American Humanist Association, Atheist Alliance International, Center For Free Inquiry/Council for Secular Humanism, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Humanist Association of Canada, the Society for Secular Judaism, the Joseph Campbell Foundation, the Secular Coalition for America, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

    Some of our graduates serve as Ethical Culture Leaders, UU Ministers, and AHA Chapter heads. Others are advocates, spokespersons, and activists for humanism in their communities. Some are innovative thinkers who keep our movement alive with their provocative insights and writings. It is apparent that our graduates are making a difference in advancing the causes of the humanist movement.

    Q. I recall that you distributed a survey, on-line, about the course work that the Institute should enhance or develop. Can you tell us something about the results?

    Our survey showed that to be effective leaders and spokespersons in our movement that our students need knowledge of humanist history, ideas and philosophy, and training in leadership skills, public speaking, effective writing and organizational acumen. It was deemed very important for leaders and activists to also know about moral development, ethics, values, and theories of human behavior. Critical thinking and science is essential, and an understanding of world religions, contemporary culture and social, economic and political issues is necessary. In other words, the survey confirms that our current curriculum is on target and is viable and valuable.

    The survey also indicates that our cooperative venture with the Institute for Humanist Studies, which creates on-line courses, is very important to the overall humanist educational endeavor. Respondents indicated that short courses structured to be given at national and regional conferences are highly desired. At the moment we are working on developing a course on humanism for Elderhostel. A model program for seniors was developed by the Humanist Society of Phoenix and can be used at community colleges and universities. Many respondents indicated that CEU credits or university credits for our programs would be highly desirable. We are continuing to explore this possibility.

    Q. Humanists have typically been dedicated to Unitarian Universalism. Do you see that relationship between the two organizations continuing, in a healthy and equal correspondence?

    Humanists have been involved in UU congregations for over 80 years, ever since John Dietrich, Curtis Reese, and Francis Potter coined the term religious humanism. At present the relationship between humanists and the current UUA administration is somewhat strained. I say “somewhat” in that there are some humanist ministers and congregants who work very well with the UUA while others feel marginalized within UU circles. The UUHumanists are still active and have some 800 members. The UU Infidels, a few years ago, did represent agnostics, atheists, and secularists within the UU tradition. They were disturbed with the direction the denomination was taking, in moving toward theism and traditional religious trappings. I think this concern is healthy in that all nontheists should stick up for their place in a denomination that is home to them as well as to those on the theistic and liberal Christian end of the spectrum. What a sad day it would be for UU humanists to find it necessary to leave the organization that made it possible for them to develop their humanistic life stance. Let us hope that wise leadership in the near future pays better attention to those of us who live on the left end of the continuum.

    Q. What role can humanism play in the transformation of American society? It seems we are in a desperate situation economically and politically. How can humanists help to renew our culture?

    For humanists the main issue is always a matter of ethics. At the Institute we spend considerable time in grounding our students in ethics, which is the science of morals and human conduct. With that understanding and background, we then take a look at contemporary social, economic and political issues. We are aware that we may not be the holders of the “right” answers, but are continually searching for the ones that work best to affirm the dignity, respect and rights of others. As a nontheist every humanist must answer life’s questions for him or herself, always with an eye for the consequences of one’s position. It is not enough to develop a “good” argument for one’s point of view. Humanists are responsible for taking their moral imperatives into the public arena, advocating, promoting and pressing their causes. If the outcome is negative, we need to re-examine our cause and present better solutions.

    In today’s political climate it is imperative that humanists speak out about the abominable distortion of “facts.” The net is filled with false accusations, unsubstantiated rumors and other forms of character assassination. Those who want to “believe”, take it all as gospel. Humanists have a duty to expose these non facts and demand that the public take responsibility for finding proper evidence for their conclusions.

    The humanist role in transforming American society is to always question, think critically, examine the evidence, listen attentively, be open to new ways of thinking and come to conclusions that are based on reason, science and humaneness. The final step is to make those convictions known widely and work to actualize them.

    Q. What can humanists do to help the Institute?

    Send money, send students and come yourself. The Humanist Institute operates with volunteer deans, board members and faculty. We are dependent on contributions from like minded people to keep us afloat. It would be wonderful if we had the money to pay our professionals, to build a permanent home for our school and to take advantage of the many opportunities we see to educate and train effective leaders for the advancement of our movement. Not enough people know about our program. Advertising is expensive. When people do find out about us there is always great interest. Do think about attending yourself or contacting those who might benefit from this experience.

    We are dedicated to fostering leadership that is:

    * Ethically grounded
    * Wise and well informed
    * Fluent in institutional dynamics
    * Committed to meeting the real needs of people

    We strive to prepare humanist leaders to be:

    * Advocates who are persuasive articulators of the humanist world view in the public sphere,

    * Innovative thinkers who keep our movement alive with their provocative insights and writings,

    * Experts who have the skills to help organizations function and help people achieve their goals.

    The Institute is an independent graduate level program that works in cooperation with existing humanist organizations. It provides a unique opportunity to bring together a diverse faculty and student body of those who take a non-theistic, naturalistic, approach to humanism whether interpreted in secular or religious terms.

    If you are interested in being a humanist:

    * Community leader,

    * UU Minister,

    * Chapter leader,

    * Ethical Culture leader,

    * National non profit leader,

    * Educator, counselor, leader in a serving profession.

    Contact The Humanist Institute, c/o Kristin Wintermute, PMB #220, 8014 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427-4712.

    Also check our web site: www.humanistinstitute.org to see our brochure and to learn more about our curriculum and the studies of past classes.

    An Interview with Ronald Aronson

    Posted By Marilyn Westfall on September 11, 2008

    aronson.jpgRonald Aronson is the author of Living Without God New Directions for Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and the Undecided.

    Ronald Aronson is Distinguished Professor of the History of Ideas at Wayne State University and the author or editor of nine books, including Camus & Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It, After Marxism, and “Stay out of Politics!” A Philosopher Views South Africa. He has published articles in The Nation, Bookforum, The Yale Review, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Washington Post, The International Herald-Tribune, The Toronto Star, The (London) Times Higher Education Supplement, and The (London) Times Literary Supplement.

    Aronson has produced televised political debates on democratic values and affirmative action (participants have included Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, Abigail Thernstrom, David Frum, and Dinesh D’Souza). He is co-producer of the feature-length documentary film Professional Revolutionary about legendary Detroit social and political activist Saul Wellman and, most recently, 1st Amendment on Trial: The Case of the Detroit Six, focused on the Federal government’s trial of Michigan Communist Party leaders in the ’50s.

    One of Aronson’s lifelong concerns has been to study and write about the nature of hope, especially as related to political commitment. Since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, he has been active in the Huntington Woods (MI) Peace, Citizenship, and Education Project.

    A few months ago, I discovered Ron Aronson’s articles “The New Atheists” at The Nation and “Thank Who Very Much?” at the Philosopher’s Magazine Online. I was attracted to the positive atheism expressed in both essays, and hoped to interview Aronson for readers of The Eloquent Atheist, but at the time, he was attempting to complete his latest book, Living Without God, and deeply involved in the editing process. Fortunately, his book is now in print, and Aronson and I exchanged emails, leading to an interview by telephone on September 5, 2008.

    Aronson is easy to listen to, with his teacher’s voice—friendly, vibrant, and precise—as we introduce ourselves, say hello. I ask what motivated him to write Living Without God.

    “Well,” he replies, “in the past years there have been many books about atheism written, like Dan Dennett’s Breaking the Spell. All these writers have come out with strong atheist arguments against the magic of religion.” He mentions the term “New Atheists,” a sobriquet he likely coined in a 2005 Bookforum review of several authors whom he described as “refreshingly free from the hidden theology of history-as-progress that inspired past atheist writers,” among them Michel Onfray and Sam Harris.

    “In many ways,” he continues, more passionate now, “these writers have broken the spell, but this hasn’t strengthened our world view. I grew up believing in a future in which religion was going to wither away and the world would be better for it, but that hasn’t happened.”

    For readers unfamiliar with Aronson’s life and career, he was born in Detroit, Michigan, educated at local Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, and also at UCLA and Brandeis where he earned his Ph.D. in The History of Ideas. Politically active, he served as a community organizer in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and was editor of the New-Left journal Studies on the Left. He has taught at Wayne State University since1968, becoming one of the foremost international scholars of Jean Paul Sartre. A self-described “cheerful atheist,” he also teaches non-traditional students, the vast majority African-American adults—many of whom are theists—about religion and secularism, giving due respect to both lifestances. Sadly, the university has just abolished his open-admission program, pretending to be making cost savings from the move.

    “Not only has religion not faded away,” Aronson elaborates, “but despite the New Atheists there has been a loss of confidence among secularists.” He mentions Alister McGrath’s Twilight of Atheism, a negative history of nontheism, which concludes that atheism has been sullied (however unjustly) by being linked to Nazism and Stalinism. McGrath, an Anglican priest and Oxford theology professor, was a fervent atheist and Marxist during his teenage years, but now, in his view, religion has found new energy among a considerable population and Pentecostal religions have gained the power to profess the “immediacy of God’s presence through the Holy Spirit” worldwide.

    “It dawned on me,” Aronson says, giving due consideration to McGrath, “that the most important thing I could do was articulate a positive worldview for secularists. You don’t have to be religious to have a meaning in life, a sense of purpose, and a deep sense of belonging to something larger than yourself. That is the most significant reason I wrote my book.”

    Living Without God is a paean to the values, responsibilities, and hopefulness of the secular worldview. “Gratitude,” “Taking Responsibility for Ourselves,” “Choosing to Know,” and “Dying Without God” are among its chapters. The book’s first review by Doug Ireland in The New Humanist (September/October) praises Aronson’s approach: “But if Living Without God is an enjoyable read, anyone looking for a catechism of neat, formulaic, three-a-penny slogans of the prêt-à-penser variety in this volume will be disappointed. Taking as his starting point Immanuel Kant’s three questions – ‘What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope?’ – Aronson wants above all to make us think. […] The Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci wrote from his prison cell in Mussolini’s Italy that ‘The challenge of modernity is to live a life without illusions, without becoming disillusioned.’ In Living Without God, it seems to me, Aronson has admirably met that challenge.”

    Elaborating on his positive vision, Aronson says that the chapter “Gratitude,” evolved from his article “Thank Who Very Much?” which was reprinted in several journals and became a featured piece in the Toronto Star’s “Ideas” section. “In that article,” he says, “I acknowledged our existential condition, while attempting to sketch out the relationships with forces that define our humanity—nature, history, society. We are not isolated individuals and we don’t have to be religious to find meaning in life.”

    I tell Aronson that I was struck by one particular statement in the article, that “there is an alternative to thanking God on the one hand and seeing the universe as a ‘cosmic lottery’ or as absurd on the other.” “You know,” he replies, “it’s true that there’s much that we still can’t answer, but we need to acknowledge all the vital questions that we can answer because of collective human effort over centuries. There are values, ideas, and knowledge that can stand as powerfully for us, as God does for the religious. I am excited about all that we can answer.”

    For Aronson, inflaming hostilities between secularists and their religious counterparts is a lose/lose proposition. “There’s a sense of superiority on both sides—nonreligious and religious—and yet we need to talk, to find respect that goes both ways.” He finds that, in general, “Americans are hostile to each other’s starting points. We tend to be absolutists rather than admitting we can be wrong.” In the last months of his Interdisciplinary Studies Program at Wayne State University, he teaches both “irreligion” and “religion” to older students, and while the effort is difficult at times, the upside is that students are encouraged to think through the premises of why they believe as they do. Social progress, he insists, can sometimes come from rational discussion and refraining from hostilities.

    As someone drawn toward social action in the 1960s, he elaborates on the chapter “Hope,” which was based on his work in South Africa to end apartheid. “The chapter is fueled by the sense of that struggle,” he remarks, “and if we want to ask ‘Is there hope,’ I would reply that hope is very historical and concrete. Hope is what we have achieved over human history and by all the times the baton has been passed from one social movement to another.”

    I ask Aronson about Barack Obama, as the theme of hope pervades his campaign. However, I also want to discuss the “Unity Event” at the 2008 Democratic Conference. Billed as an interfaith gathering, secularists were excluded, despite an appeal from Ron Millar, Associate Director of the Secular Coalition for America, who wrote the Democratic National Committee in order to have an invitation extended to nontheists. (News coverage about this incident is available on the Secular Coalition web site.

    In its August 18, 2008 edition, The Denver Post published a guest editorial by Aronson, “What About Democrats Who Are Not People of Faith?” He was also interviewed about this matter on Rev. Weldon Gaddy’s show “State of Belief,” broadcast during August 23-24, 2008 by Air America Radio. In both his commentary and interview, Aronson asks: Why, if this was a unity and values event, weren’t nontheists and secularists invited? In the Denver Post he observed: “If the Democrats are trying to strike unifying chords among their entire kaleidoscopic range of liberals, moderates, and progressives, it should be obvious that secularists cannot dare be left out of the ‘big tent’ event, and that it should be about beliefs and values, not solely about religion.”

    Regarding Obama’s relationship with secularists, Aronson comments that in Obama’s 2006 “Call to Renewal” speech, the presidential candidate sought out common ground between believers and the nonreligious. Obama, in fact, argued that “because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they’re something they’re not”. Obama also pointed out, however, that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.” The means to true progress is to “recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.”
    “Since becoming the Democratic nominee,” Aronson says, “Obama has contradicted his points about finding common ground.” Aronson recounts a Labor Day speech in Detroit that Obama gave when Hurricane Gustav was coming ashore. Due to the urgency of the occasion, Obama cut his planned speech to just ten minutes. Aronson couldn’t attend the event, but he followed the coverage, and noticed that Obama invoked God or religion at least six times, and then asked his audience to join him in a moment of silent prayer. “This wasn’t a ‘moment of silence,’ Aronson points out, “but rather a prayerful message, and once again secularists became an invisible minority, with religion being forced on them.”

    Ironically, based on his research of the recent Pew Poll on religious identity (U.S. Religious Landscape Survey), Aronson finds that perhaps two-thirds of the American public gets its values from outside religion. Values are derived from a multitude of factors, including from pragmatic life experiences and science. Among Democrats, Aronson estimates, upwards of 40% are nontheistic or do not believe in a traditional god.

    Regarding Obama’s courting of theists, Aronson concedes that this is probably a campaign strategy. It is likely that, when polled, people under-report that they will not vote for Obama due to his race. Not many people will openly admit to racism. However, if Obama successfully appeals to the traditionally religious, he may get a significant percentage of their vote to offset losses due to racism.

    Aronson proposes a new effort, aimed at future state and national Democratic conventions. “We need to do what the religious do,” he says, “and hold Secular Caucus meetings. If enough people do this, then we can assert ourselves, invoking the values we share, and insisting that they must be included in any ‘big tent’ event. That is pluralism, that is mutual respect.”

    Sin

    Posted By E. Shaun Russell on September 2, 2008

    How clever, he who thought to name a sin
    For many things to which we’re so inclined,
    Since after all, such things must be defined
    As devilish before we can begin
    To shed our natures like a serpent’s skin,
    And give our souls to God; but we’re designed
    To smile and nod and say that we don’t mind,
    While countless agonies recoil within.
    The faithful love to gluttonise their creed,

    While envying the ones who in their pride
    Can cast such slothful credences aside;
    They damn the things they loathe yet feel they need,
    And show their wrath each time they are denied
    Synthetic lust and artificial greed.

    Grace

    Posted By Paul Hostovsky on August 29, 2008

    It bothers the father more than the father can say,
    this sound of the teeth and tongue of the son chewing
    the food in the open mouth, this food that was the work
    of the mother sitting beside the father and beside
    the son, the mother between the father and the son, staring
    down at the food on her white plate, praying
    that the father does the work this time, the hard work
    of keeping his mouth shut about the sound
    of the son eating. She remembers the last time, the sound
    of the father saying more than a father can say
    to a son and keep a son’s love, a sound so like hatred
    in the voice, so like hatred for the life taking the life-giving
    food, that the boy stopped eating and the mother swallowed
    hard. And it frightened the son and the mother, and even the father
    more than any could say. So then there was no sound
    at the table, only the echo of a sound. And now there is only
    the memory of that echo, to remember, to keep holy.

    Soapbox

    Posted By Brad Hatfield on August 27, 2008

    It is precisely because there is no God,
    At least not one that hovers overhead
    And looks and sounds like
    A giant, semi-transparent Charlton Heston,
    That we must not sin.

    Sin wouldn’t matter so much
    If there was a nicely muscled
    Sky-bound Michelangelo figurine,
    Even some indignant angels,
    A demarcated heaven and hell,
    A legible book of days
    A risen scapegoat, any old chance
    At transcendent punishment,
    Forgiveness, or redemption.

    But there isn’t.

    And that is precisely why
    You had best take responsibility
    And live the categorical imperative
    And be a lady or a gentleman,
    And sin only when you really must
    (And then, mostly sins of the flesh)
    So that when you die
    When your consciousness
    Discharges like lightning into the clearing
    Your regrets won’t linger like ozone
    And foul the irreverent air.

    Two Poems by Veronica Romm

    Posted By Veronica Romm on July 28, 2008

    peace.jpegMy Peace

    The elusive quest quiet at times, riotous
    others, seems ceaseless.
    I search for it, I think about it trying to
    understand its true meaning.
    I shudder when I think I might not get there,
    reach it, know it or like it.
    It is a word used often, usually in the same breath
    as, war, politics and death.
    I write and it gets closer, we are intimate, I feel
    clear and it familiar.
    It taunts but seems to relent as I embrace it,
    recognizing it with admiration.
    It is fleeting, and so the trance subsides,
    leaving warmth and hope.
    One step closer to attaining my peace,
    allowing it to attain me.
    a reunion.
    For once at birth,
    we were acquainted, now like old friends,
    we share a moment and it’s gone.

    For Now

    Today I sit with thoughts of pain, and I embrace them for now.
    Today I smile as I see the rain, it echoes through me for now.
    Today I cry somber tears as I remember all I’ve lost for now.
    Today I know that I will make it through, for now.