Humanism as the Next Step?

Tell me, without digressing into what you don't believe in, why and how I can/should be good and do good.

(This is really all I'm asking of humanism. I don't need humanism to tell me what to think about chiropractors, as I found in Paul Kurtz's The Courage to Become: The Virtues of Humanism.)

There's a reason why I don't join things, and I hate '-isms' - you never like all of what you find, and you will be judged by the worst of it as well as the best. I don't like the fact that humanism is (perhaps hopelessly) confounded with atheism and rabid skepticism. I didn't know until today that the American Humanist Association was behind the creation of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). This does not make me happy...

It's my contention that certain aspects of 'paranormal' human experience represent aspects of the human condition that science does not yet completely understand. They are 'supernatural' only in the sense that our ideas of 'nature' do not yet have an adequate explanation for them; they are not 'supernatural' in the sense that their explanation must appeal to something unknowable and beyond the realm of science.

Yet the idea that we must do away with everything about our experience that science has yet to fully claim or explain is so entrenched in some humanist literature as to make humanism appear to be an untenable proposition for the future. The idea that science has adequately described our full range of experiences is also untenable. If humanism is to be a viable ethical and philosophical guide for the future, it must be prepared to accept scientific findings that may radically alter our understanding of what it means to be human. So far I have seen little that indicates that humanism will be adaptable in light of such findings.

Perhaps the trick to appreciating humanism is to go back to the sources of humanistic ideas - those writers who weren't concerned with establishing the '-ism', but with thinking and writing about human experience and ideals. And yet, in reading books specifically dedicated to establishing the humanist ideology, I find that I am getting closer to knowing what I believe.

This quiz from Humanism As the Next Step (Lloyd and Mary Morain, 1998) was quick and helpful...

How to Decide Whether You are a Humanist

1) Do you believe that we will continue to learn more about the past, present, and future of planet earth and its inhabitants? (YES)

2) Do you believe that humans are a part of nature (YES) and that there is no God or supernatural power especially concerned for their welfare? (NO)

3) Do you believe that religions' sacred scriptures and ethical and moral systems were the creations of mortals and that these have served different purposes at different times and places? (YES)

4) Do you believe that the kind of life we live and the helpful and just relationship that we have with other humans is of primary importance? (YES)

5) Do you feel our environment needs to be taken care of and protected for future generations? (YES)

6) Do you frequently experience joy and comfort and an undefined mystic sense from the realization that you are part of nature and of all that lives? (YES)

7) Do you believe that the meaning of life is that which we give it? (YES)

8) Do you recognize that many philosophical questions such as, "What is the meaning of life?" and "Why am I here?" are irrelevant when our existence and experience are viewed as processes within the totality of nature? (NO - What we choose to embrace as 'meaning' or 'purpose' has a very powerful effect on how we structure our goals and choose our behaviors. Therefore these questions are not irrelevant.)


And now I think I need to spend some time bathing my brain in the writings of Erich Fromm.

The Courage to Become (Pt I)

"Better the illusions that exalt us than 10,000 truths."

So far my exploration of humanism has left me... underwhelmed. The premise of this blog is that we can be better than this. The inevitable question that follow is - Why aren't we? We exalt violence in the name of realism. We encourage immediate gratification and consumption as an anecdote to a plethora of psychological and societal ills. We sacrifice the future for the present in ways too numerous to count. Why aren't we any better than this?

I'm too cynical, you are saying. (Perhaps.)

Or perhaps I'm just wondering how much of our destructive behavior is driven by our beliefs about what we really are. I'm wondering what reasons humanism (and especially the newer, more secular/atheistic humanism) gives us for behaving in accordance with ideals and virtues that often require sacrifice. In short, I'm throwing all my doubts about reality of the human condition at this thing called 'humanism' and seeing what survives.

After reading the Humanist Manifestos, I couldn't help but notice that they all seemed rather reactionary. Especially Humanist Manifesto II, which was written 40 years after the first one, and after we had witnessed "the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable." While HM2 presents itself as "a vision of hope," it very explicitly tears away certain notions that, for better or worse, may enable us to sacrifice for something higher than ourselves. In doing so, it represents a significant deviation from its predecessor.

If I believe that this body is all that I am and ever will be, then its survival becomes paramount. I will see the world in terms of threats to my physical survival. And there is no reason why my survival should not take precedence over yours. HM2 states "we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species." They might just as well have said "we have found no purpose or providence, divine or otherwise, for the human species, save survival." And if "[w]e strive for the good life, here and now," what incentive do we have to divert any of our resources to others, save that such actions may possibly buy us the goodwill of our fellows?

While HM2 extols empathy, compassion, and "the cultivation of feeling and love" as desirable virtues, it fails to provide a reason why these things should be cultivated, especially if their cultivation would threaten one's survival. Are we now saying that I can reasonably be expected to sacrifice some portion of my life for yours, and that this is desirable and will ultimately be rewarded, though presumably only by intangible and perhaps posthumous praises? What reason have you given me for behaving thusly, save that you recognize that these traits are something you want others to express? Why are these held up as ideals, rather than strength and power? (It's possible that I watch too much science fiction.)

Reverence for the capacity for self-sacrifice flies in the face of the presumed goal of this non-theistic, non-transcendental vision of humanity - survival. Yet who among us would want to live in a world without compassion or altruistic behavior?

Perhaps we simply cling to these ideals for psychological comfort, not unlike the comfort we can derive from the belief that there is a loving God who has done all this for our ultimate benefit. And after all, what we believe the rules should be doesn't always predict how we actually behave. (Ex: There are the legal rules for driving, and then there are the rules that you follow if you are actually driving. The discrepancy is huge, yet almost everyone is aware of it and behaves accordingly.)

Do we derive courage by embracing these ideals of human behavior, and the rare instances when we witness them in action? Do we derive enough courage to display these ideals ourselves, in the face of a threat to our survival? Or do we require something more? Something that explicitly tells us that we do not need to fear the death of the body? Are we only truly emboldened to sacrifice ourselves and our resources if we are sustained by a vision of something of ourselves persisting beyond this life?

What gives us the courage to become what we hold up as the ideal human being? In the rush to do away with the abuses perpetuated by religious power structures, are humanists also unnecessarily seeking to rid the world of powerful ideas that enable us to behave in the very ways that would bring about a self-actualizing, peaceful world community?

Becoming Enlightened

"It is better to find new ways of presenting spiritual truths, new words with which to name them."

"The true mystic does not look to other men for enlightenment, does not fix his gaze outward but inward."

- Paul Brunton (the greatest mystic you've never heard of, with many excellent ideas on rational mysticism)

After my last post, it occurred to me to compare self-actualization to enlightenment as an 'ultimate' human state. One is the product of psychology, the other a product of spiritual tradition. One is embraced by humanists, the other... not so much. Which produces a better final state? Which represents a better goal?

Self-actualization

• "to become everything that one is capable of becoming"
• "the only real motive a person has"
• "the final level of psychological development"
• "People that have reached self-actualization are characterized by certain behaviors... They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth. They are spontaneous. They are interested in solving problems. They are accepting of themselves and also others and lack prejudice."

Enlightenment

• "'awakening' to the truth", "full liberation from delusion", "cessation... of suffering"
• "conscious awareness of an ultimate reality"
• perceived to be obtainable by various forms of self-denial and/or routine-disrupting behavior
• an end state recognizable only by others who are 'enlightened'

I've had a few issues with the idea of 'enlightenment'...

1) It seems like a long car trip to an unknown destination, which begets the inevitable questioning - 'Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'

2) So you understand the ultimate nature of reality. What do you do with that knowledge? How does it make you a better person?

3) What good is Enlightenment if you cannot weep at the suffering of others? And if you can weep, do you not suffer as well?

Self-actualization, on the other hand, is a process of becoming. It never stops, because there are always new things to learn and become. It lacks the fixation on an unknown destination, allowing you to get on with things. It doesn't require a specially-qualified teacher to get you there, or specific exercises to be undertaken. It is an outcome that can be achieved by anyone, rather than a quasi-mystical state whose attainment may depend on the state of your soul.

I have never had the benefit of religious/Buddhist tutelage on 'enlightenment', so perhaps I am missing something, or have misrepresented something. But as I see it now, self-actualization has my vote for 'best goal to strive for'.

[Aside to our dear Follower - I'm probably going to lose my internet connection soon, so postings will be infrequent for awhile.]