Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is PZ Myers the Future of Secular Humanism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD moderator Clive Hayden referred UD readers to an article at SuperScholar.org titled “The Future of Secular Humanism.” The article itself focused on a rift between the secular humanism old guard, represented by Paul Kurtz, and the new guard, represented by Ron Lindsay, who apparently ousted Kurtz from the various humanist organizations he had founded. The rift was over the place of religion in society and whether secular humanism should take a harsh line against it.

Hayden sees this rift as representing a deep-seated internecine conflict, with the implication that such conflict will undercut the effectiveness of secular humanism as a cultural force (though he doesn’t draw that implication explicitly). My own view is that secular humanism is being co-opted by the new atheism and that Kurtz’s humanist vision is on the way out.

Paul KurtzI’ve been party to at least two debates that Kurtz organized and have met him personally. He’s a gentleman and sees civility as a prerequisite to free and open discussion. As a humanist, he values humanity.  The problem is that he views religion as irrational and counterproductive to society, so it’s hard to justify civility vis-a-vis religion (is it possible to have a civil discussion with a holocaust denier?). And without religion, it’s hard to justify a high view of humanity — humans, in that case, become merely evolved animals.

PZ MyersAnd so, Kurtz, who’s in his 80s, passes the baton to his spiritual son … PZ Myers, who’s a generation younger and in a better position to follow out the logic of Kurtz’s vision. Actually, I could have chosen any number of younger humanists/atheists, but Myers is emblematic of what we are seeing and can expect to see. Instead of Kurtz, who established Prometheus Press to get a fully articulated secular humanist vision before the public, Myers has the blog Pharyngula, in which he trades in sound-bites and insults.

In a Facebook/Twitter culture where people’s attention span is down to zero, Myers’ blog represents the new face of secular humanism, or perhaps I should say the new atheism. Indeed, I have to wonder how long the phrase “secular humanism” will be around. If it stays, it will be through inertia, because the new generation of humanists/atheists divides humanity into us and them — the enlightened vs. the idiots — and despises the outsiders. They take pleasure in hatred. Paul Kurtz didn’t.

By the way, here are the YouTube videos referred to on the SuperScholar.org site in which Kurtz is lectured on why he was shown the door. It’s not often that we see the other side’s dirty laundary (or our own side’s, for that matter). It’s 20 minutes and some of it requires wading through, but it has some high points and is quite instructive:

Comments
I have been following this atheist/secular humanist civil war (if one can call it that) and am glad to see it mentioned here. This was a long time coming and perhaps in hindsight somewhat inevitable. The age of dignified and gentlemanly academic atheism at the Secular Humanist/Center for Inquiry in America now appears a thing of the past (one also thinks of the late S Jay Gould, the late Isaac Asimov, the late Carl Sagan, all of Kurtz's generation) with Kurtz's ousting. Yes he is in his eighties, but it's the forced removal from the organisation that he founded and the reasons for it that are revealing. And who stands in the wings, the young (well relatively) turks? Myers! Lindsay! Perhaps it's appropriate, as Dembski points out, for the age of facebook. I sympathise with Kurtz's mistreatment, yet the Council for Secular Humanism which he founded, and the old CSICOP (now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry/CSI) formed under its wing (and its flagship mag The Skeptical Inquirer) has not exactly behaved impeccably and without blatant censorship and crude misrepresentations of who and what they arrogantly deign to consider the enemies of science and reason over the decades. In fact their blatant biases led to the early resignation of its first editor, the late sociologist Marcello Truzzi in 1976 or '77 and he would go on to found the genuinely skeptical and well-balanced Zetetic Scholar. For what it's worth here is Paul Kurtz on ID and Creationism, from 1998 Darwin Re-Crucified It's amusing that his article is ironically entitled "Darwin Re-Crucified: Why are so many afraid of Naturalism?". Knowingly or not, secular atheists and humanists seem incapable of avoiding religious iconography and rhetoric. There is a further irony to Kurtz's article that he doesn't intend: namely one is tempted to ask, why are so many afraid of Intelligent Design? I further add that this article originally appearing in the CSH mag Free Inquiry, was the cover feature. The cover actually had a picture of Darwin with a loincloth literally crucified on a cross. As I'm not a Christian I don't find this offensive, I just think it's laughable for Darwinists to rankle at being called acolytes of the Church of Darwin by the likes of us in light of these give-aways.zephyr
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Always the purges.Charlie
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
I see Robert Marks on this list from superscholar: http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-christian-scholars/Clive Hayden
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
More from the New York Times: The last line in the piece is chilling! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/us/02beliefs.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=paul+kurtz&st=cseSpinozaist
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Pull back the curtain and this is how people who know(or think)they have superior rationality really behave. So how are they going to improve society for everyone else? On the other hand, maybe improving society isn’t really their goal. Maybe it is just to let everyone else know how superior and rational they are and attract other people who share their beliefs. I’m impressed. Or maybe a better word would be amazed. I’m amazed how self serving and egotistical people can really be.john_a_designer
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Interesting site, SuperScholar.org. Here's their list of the 20 most influential scientists: http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-scientists-alive-today/ Recognize anyone who's popular at UncommonDescent?kibitzer
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply