"Man has eaten from the tree of knowledge; he has not died, as the serpent had correctly predicted; he has become as God."
I found it amusingly ironic that Kurtz, in his haste to establish secular humanism as a viable alternative to traditional religion, suggested that humanists should adopt Prometheus as their patron saint. His greatness? "He was a champion of human-kind known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals."
If I'm not mistaken, stealing from God is the opener for 3 major religions. It is the first deed of note that Man performs after being created - stealing from God by eating forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
If you're curious, no, there's no other (apparent) reason why Kurtz nominated Prometheus. Just the simple fact that he had the balls to steal something of value from a God who didn't want him/us to have it. Notably, Prometheus and Adam and Eve were all punished for their actions. Yet the stories of taking what we should not have from something greater than ourselves in order to advance have lived on, through the millennia of our collective history.
Which leads me to wonder if we don't retain the notion of 'God' as a cognitive marker of that which is greater than us. As a way to stoke our collective imaginations with stories of unlimited power and knowledge, and what one does with such abilities. Sure, but you can get that in good science fiction, you say. True, but good science fiction is rare, and perhaps we don't yet have enough of it to compete with the collective imaginings of our vast ancestry, who referred to what they imagined was greater than them simply as 'gods'.
For if we cannot imagine what is greater than us, what inspires us to strive and become something more? What holds back the apathy that accompanies the notion that we are simply a genetic program executing itself?
I was more than a little disappointed (for reasons I'll reveal in a future post) when The God Delusion began by seeking to establish Einstein's views on religion/God. As if Einstein would/could somehow invalidate or validate religion or atheism. A similar pattern followed throughout the book - seeking to establish the legitimacy of atheism by claiming various great scientific figures as atheists, or as sympathetic to atheism. These men did what, exactly? Oh, right, they teased the Universe into giving up Her secrets for the good of mankind. They found Knowledge that Man did not yet have, and they took it. (I doubt that Dawkins had in mind to give us a parallel story of Man's struggle to become something greater, but it's amusingly coincidental nonetheless.)
If you've read You Shall Be As Gods (and I hope you will, especially if you think that The God Delusion is the summit of the argument against traditional religion), then you may have come to see religion as (among other things) the story of Man's struggle to strive, challenge, and become that which is greater than He is. That struggle continues today, but we are in danger of missing the goal for all the fighting we do over the correct 'path' to the goal.
"What matters today is not the difference between believers and nonbelievers, but that between those who care and those who do not care."
Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
You Shall Be As Gods
"For centuries the 'brightest minds' on earth had ignored the ancient sciences, mocking them as ignorant superstitions, arming themselves instead with smug skepticism and dazzling new technologies - tools that led them only further from the truth. Every generation's breakthroughs are proven false by the next generation's technology. And so it had gone through the ages. The more man learned, the more he realized he did not know."
"The stuff of magic and myth was fast becoming reality as the shocking new data poured in, all of it supporting the basic ideology of Noetic Science - the untapped potential of the human mind."
"The Buddha said, 'You are God yourself.' Jesus taught that 'the kingdom of God is within you' and even promised us, 'The works I do, you can do... and greater.' Even the first antipope - Hippolytus of Rome - quoted the same message, first uttered by the gnostic teacher Monoimus: 'Abandon the search for God... instead, take yourself as the starting place."
From The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown (September 15th, 2009).
(quiet chuckle)
"The stuff of magic and myth was fast becoming reality as the shocking new data poured in, all of it supporting the basic ideology of Noetic Science - the untapped potential of the human mind."
"The Buddha said, 'You are God yourself.' Jesus taught that 'the kingdom of God is within you' and even promised us, 'The works I do, you can do... and greater.' Even the first antipope - Hippolytus of Rome - quoted the same message, first uttered by the gnostic teacher Monoimus: 'Abandon the search for God... instead, take yourself as the starting place."
From The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown (September 15th, 2009).
(quiet chuckle)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Humanism for the Individual
They told me to be a light in the darkness. They did not tell me to drag people kicking and screaming out of the darkness.
(I know, I know - you want the Erich Fromm-y goodness. It's cooking, I promise. But I need to clear something up first.)
If there's a foundation stone to my set of beliefs, it's individual responsibility. My feelings on individual responsibility could be a set of essays unto itself, but I bring it up now because it's critical to understanding what I said earlier. What I said earlier was, admittedly, phrased badly, as is wont to happen when one doesn't calm down before one writes something.
My objection to humanism being confounded with atheism and rabid skepticism was not born out of my feelings for those ideas, but rather of the images of the behavior that they conjure up. Those behaviors are things that I've witnessed, and at some level I know that they don't represent the behavior of all people who hold those beliefs. Nonetheless, they left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak, when it comes to the ideas that were behind the behaviors.
At the heart of this is the idea that we need to 'save' people from bad ideas. We are justified in doing whatever it takes to 'save' them because we are right and they are wrong. We are fighting the good fight and they wallow in ignorance and will thank us someday. Even if they don't, we are fighting to make the world a better place for the future and the future will thank us. No one ever says 'Hey, I'm feeling cranky today and I'm gonna blow steam by picking on/mocking some (fill in group name). It's okay because I'm right.' The ideas behind these behaviors change, but the behaviors are always the same.
This way madness lies.
Core to the notion of individual responsibility is not only the idea that I take responsibility for my actions, but also that I don't take responsibility for your actions. I don't try to 'save' you, save that I might devote my life to creating something that can educate others. But I do that because of what I believe in, not because I think that I must assume responsibility for you, or that my voice is worth more than yours. (Here the idea of 'individual responsibility' meets the idea of 'equality'. And while no one will overtly say that they don't believe that all men are equal, they will frequently demonstrate that, by virtue of their education or social standing, they really think that they do know more and are therefore better in some critical way that allows them treat others as inferior.)
What I said was not about the ideas behind atheism or skepticism, although you wouldn't know it from what I actually said. :) It was about behavior, and the idea that we have to 'save' people from bad ideas by using whatever tactics we can.
Curiosity usually wins out in the end with me, and because I would like not to have such a visceral reaction to the words 'atheism' and 'skepticism', I'm going to try to engage those ideas in my own way - starting with finally reading The God Delusion, as I understand that Dawkins is the godfather (so to speak) of modern atheism. Who knows what I'll think after I've read that book. I probably won't talk about it here, because I don't think that the power of humanism is the result of rejecting the idea of a God, but rather of embracing the fact that we are all human, and we are all here now, and if we won't help ourselves, a deity probably shouldn't think enough of us to care either.
(I know, I know - you want the Erich Fromm-y goodness. It's cooking, I promise. But I need to clear something up first.)
If there's a foundation stone to my set of beliefs, it's individual responsibility. My feelings on individual responsibility could be a set of essays unto itself, but I bring it up now because it's critical to understanding what I said earlier. What I said earlier was, admittedly, phrased badly, as is wont to happen when one doesn't calm down before one writes something.
My objection to humanism being confounded with atheism and rabid skepticism was not born out of my feelings for those ideas, but rather of the images of the behavior that they conjure up. Those behaviors are things that I've witnessed, and at some level I know that they don't represent the behavior of all people who hold those beliefs. Nonetheless, they left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak, when it comes to the ideas that were behind the behaviors.
At the heart of this is the idea that we need to 'save' people from bad ideas. We are justified in doing whatever it takes to 'save' them because we are right and they are wrong. We are fighting the good fight and they wallow in ignorance and will thank us someday. Even if they don't, we are fighting to make the world a better place for the future and the future will thank us. No one ever says 'Hey, I'm feeling cranky today and I'm gonna blow steam by picking on/mocking some (fill in group name). It's okay because I'm right.' The ideas behind these behaviors change, but the behaviors are always the same.
This way madness lies.
Core to the notion of individual responsibility is not only the idea that I take responsibility for my actions, but also that I don't take responsibility for your actions. I don't try to 'save' you, save that I might devote my life to creating something that can educate others. But I do that because of what I believe in, not because I think that I must assume responsibility for you, or that my voice is worth more than yours. (Here the idea of 'individual responsibility' meets the idea of 'equality'. And while no one will overtly say that they don't believe that all men are equal, they will frequently demonstrate that, by virtue of their education or social standing, they really think that they do know more and are therefore better in some critical way that allows them treat others as inferior.)
What I said was not about the ideas behind atheism or skepticism, although you wouldn't know it from what I actually said. :) It was about behavior, and the idea that we have to 'save' people from bad ideas by using whatever tactics we can.
Curiosity usually wins out in the end with me, and because I would like not to have such a visceral reaction to the words 'atheism' and 'skepticism', I'm going to try to engage those ideas in my own way - starting with finally reading The God Delusion, as I understand that Dawkins is the godfather (so to speak) of modern atheism. Who knows what I'll think after I've read that book. I probably won't talk about it here, because I don't think that the power of humanism is the result of rejecting the idea of a God, but rather of embracing the fact that we are all human, and we are all here now, and if we won't help ourselves, a deity probably shouldn't think enough of us to care either.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Courage to Become (Pt II)
"Because we cannot tolerate greatness in our midst, we do all we can to destroy it."
"Others see their possibility in the reality of you. Be, therefore, a model to all the world."
Many years ago, during a summer internship, I learned 'The Rules' of Corporate America. Only two of those rules have remained with me through every subsequent job. They are - It's more important to be liked by your co-workers than it is to be good at your job. - and - Being good at your job can keep your from being liked by your co-workers. Presumably the second rule has something to do with the idea that stellar performance only serves to highlight less-adequate performance, and subsequently raises the bar for everyone else. (There's going to be a point in a minute. Hang in there.)
The other day I picked up a book called Tomorrow's God. (I am insatiably curious about alternative views of theology and spirituality.) Due to a well-placed library bar code, I did not realize (until I began reading it) that this book was written by the author of the Conversations with God series. Naturally it quickly became clear that this book was written as a dialogue with God. As far as I can tell so far, the author believes that he was having a conversation with God, or at least it wasn't ever made clear that the author was using dialogue simply as a literary technique. Okay. I occasionally like to indulge in the idea that I'm having a dialogue with the Universe. (The Universe is an amusing conversationalist, with very clever and subtle ways of letting me know that it knows more than I do.) So I'll read this book until I can't take it anymore, or until I reach the end.
I'm about 150 pages into it so far, and now I'm driven to read it because so much of what the author is saying (as 'God') is what any good humanist philosopher would say. (Indeed he has formed something called Humanity's Team, which I haven't investigated yet.) And I'm wondering, with increasing force - Why did the author feel the need to attribute this wisdom to God? Why couldn't he claim it as a legacy of his own thinking and studies? [Disclaimer: Apparently the 'proof' that this wisdom originates from God is in the last chapter, which I haven't read yet.]
I have a theory about this, which goes back to the idea that we don't easily tolerate greatness. If we do tolerate it, we do so by wanting to own it, dissect it, and understand it. And because we also have a tendency to equate greatness with infallibility, we are happy when 'greatness' self-destructs, and we armchair-quarterback the hell out of its mistakes. We also frequently judge our own self-worth by our proximity to greatness, rather than our own accomplishments and sense of satisfaction.
Indeed, Walsch (the author) discusses his perception of others expecting him to be in a place of "high consciousness" all the time. But perhaps this is related to his other fear - "... if I say that I am making this all up, they'll lose their faith in you, in me, and in this whole process." In other words, he fears that our reaction to these ideas is dependent upon our perception of their source. A humble man who claims to talk to God is more easily tolerated than a simple person who dares to say 'I think I might see a better way.' 'God' is more infallible than Man, therefore a more credible source. I don't claim to know what the author was experiencing while writing these books. I can only say that, so far, the ideas in this book frequently reflect the wisdom of our time, culture, and history, with no ideas that I haven't seen before. I don't doubt that the author wishes for a better future for Mankind.
And this brings me to the point. Perhaps one reason we cling to the notion of 'God' is because it provides an excuse for greatness and a defense against the hostility that man visits upon his fellows when he perceives them as a threat to himself. Of course, some have used the idea of being 'touched by God' as an excuse for vile acts as well. Somehow though, overall, we are usually more tolerant of that which makes us look good by comparison, than we are of that which makes us look bad. (Psychological threats - those which impact our beliefs about ourselves and our world - are frequently met with more hostility than purely physical threats.) I would also argue that we frequently suppress our everyday abilities for 'greatness' out of similar fears.
Fans of Erich Fromm may be able to guess where this line of thinking is going next, but for now I'll end with this quote...
"Your friends need what you can be when you are no longer afraid, when you know who you are, and why you are, and what you want. When you are no longer looking for reasons to live, but can simply be."
"Others see their possibility in the reality of you. Be, therefore, a model to all the world."
Many years ago, during a summer internship, I learned 'The Rules' of Corporate America. Only two of those rules have remained with me through every subsequent job. They are - It's more important to be liked by your co-workers than it is to be good at your job. - and - Being good at your job can keep your from being liked by your co-workers. Presumably the second rule has something to do with the idea that stellar performance only serves to highlight less-adequate performance, and subsequently raises the bar for everyone else. (There's going to be a point in a minute. Hang in there.)
The other day I picked up a book called Tomorrow's God. (I am insatiably curious about alternative views of theology and spirituality.) Due to a well-placed library bar code, I did not realize (until I began reading it) that this book was written by the author of the Conversations with God series. Naturally it quickly became clear that this book was written as a dialogue with God. As far as I can tell so far, the author believes that he was having a conversation with God, or at least it wasn't ever made clear that the author was using dialogue simply as a literary technique. Okay. I occasionally like to indulge in the idea that I'm having a dialogue with the Universe. (The Universe is an amusing conversationalist, with very clever and subtle ways of letting me know that it knows more than I do.) So I'll read this book until I can't take it anymore, or until I reach the end.
I'm about 150 pages into it so far, and now I'm driven to read it because so much of what the author is saying (as 'God') is what any good humanist philosopher would say. (Indeed he has formed something called Humanity's Team, which I haven't investigated yet.) And I'm wondering, with increasing force - Why did the author feel the need to attribute this wisdom to God? Why couldn't he claim it as a legacy of his own thinking and studies? [Disclaimer: Apparently the 'proof' that this wisdom originates from God is in the last chapter, which I haven't read yet.]
I have a theory about this, which goes back to the idea that we don't easily tolerate greatness. If we do tolerate it, we do so by wanting to own it, dissect it, and understand it. And because we also have a tendency to equate greatness with infallibility, we are happy when 'greatness' self-destructs, and we armchair-quarterback the hell out of its mistakes. We also frequently judge our own self-worth by our proximity to greatness, rather than our own accomplishments and sense of satisfaction.
Indeed, Walsch (the author) discusses his perception of others expecting him to be in a place of "high consciousness" all the time. But perhaps this is related to his other fear - "... if I say that I am making this all up, they'll lose their faith in you, in me, and in this whole process." In other words, he fears that our reaction to these ideas is dependent upon our perception of their source. A humble man who claims to talk to God is more easily tolerated than a simple person who dares to say 'I think I might see a better way.' 'God' is more infallible than Man, therefore a more credible source. I don't claim to know what the author was experiencing while writing these books. I can only say that, so far, the ideas in this book frequently reflect the wisdom of our time, culture, and history, with no ideas that I haven't seen before. I don't doubt that the author wishes for a better future for Mankind.
And this brings me to the point. Perhaps one reason we cling to the notion of 'God' is because it provides an excuse for greatness and a defense against the hostility that man visits upon his fellows when he perceives them as a threat to himself. Of course, some have used the idea of being 'touched by God' as an excuse for vile acts as well. Somehow though, overall, we are usually more tolerant of that which makes us look good by comparison, than we are of that which makes us look bad. (Psychological threats - those which impact our beliefs about ourselves and our world - are frequently met with more hostility than purely physical threats.) I would also argue that we frequently suppress our everyday abilities for 'greatness' out of similar fears.
Fans of Erich Fromm may be able to guess where this line of thinking is going next, but for now I'll end with this quote...
"Your friends need what you can be when you are no longer afraid, when you know who you are, and why you are, and what you want. When you are no longer looking for reasons to live, but can simply be."
Saturday, August 22, 2009
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.
(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.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
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?
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?
Sunday, August 2, 2009
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
"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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
