Humanism News

[Doug]

May we invite you to read this statement issued March 2nd, 2010.
by Paul Kurtz
[Kurtz is founder and chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry Transnational in Amherst, New York; and similarly he is the chair emeritus of the Committee for Scientific Inquiry (which he founded in 1976 as Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and he is chair Emeritus of the Council for Secular Humanism (which he founded in 1980 as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism). He is is the editor-in-chief of the magazine Free Inquiry. He was co-President of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and is a Humanist Laureate and President of the International Academy of Humanism. He is former editor of The Humanist Magazine.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEO-HUMANIST STATEMENT OF SECULAR PRINCIPLES AND VALUES: PERSONAL, PROGRESSIVE, AND PLANETARY

ABSTRACT:
Preamble:
Our planetary community is facing serious problems that can only be solved by cooperative global action. Fresh thinking is required. Humanity needs to reconstruct human values in the light of scientific knowledge. We introduce the term "Neo-Humanism" to present a daring new approach.

The Next Step Forward:
There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum is traditional religious beliefs; on the other "the new atheism." Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative. This Statement advocates non-religious secular Neo-Humanism.

It presents 16 recommendations:

1. Neo-Humanists aspire to be more inclusive by appealing to both non-religious and religious humanists and to religionists who share common goals.
2. Neo-Humanists are critical of theism.
3. They are best defined by what they are for, not by what they are against.
4. They wish to use critical thinking, evidence and reasons to evaluate claims to knowledge.
5. Similar considerations apply to ethics and value.
6. New-Humanists are committed to a key set of values: happiness, creative actualization, reason in harmony with emotion, quality and excellence.
7. They emphasize moral growth (for children), empathy, and responsibility;
8. The right to privacy;
9. The democratic way of life, tolerance and fairness;
10.The importance of personal morality, good will and a positive attitude toward life.
11.They accept responsibility for the well-being of society: guaranteeing various rights: of women, minorities, sexual orientation, education, health care, gainful employment, etc.
12.They support a green economy;
13.Population restraint, environmental protection, the extinction of other species;
14.The need for Neo-Humanists to engage actively in politics.
15.They take progressive positions on the economy.
16.Neo-Humanists believe that we need to move beyond ego-centric individualism and chauvinistic nationalism and to develop transnational planetary institutions to cope with global problems. These would include a strengthened World Court, an eventual World Parliament, and a Planetary Environmental Monitoring Agency that would set standards for controlling global warming and ecology

Those who endorse this Statement accept its main principles and values, but may not agree with all of its provisions. We invite others to join us in these endeavors.

See the full text here at Paul Kurt's Website

[Dardedar]

I don't agree with number 13: "the extinction of other species."

That's just rude. Why do the new humanists want to kill of other species? I like the old humanists better.

I checked Kurtz's website at your link and it said:

"Population restraint, environmental protection and the protection of other species;"

I wonder if someone punked him or his site got hacked temporarily. Maybe just a typo.

Now that they have softened their position on other species I will be glad to join their endeavor.

[Doug]

DOUG
You're the second person to catch that. So you must be exterminated...

No, I think it was a dropped word or something, so they've modified the original.

[tmiller51]

How about certain disease causing worms? I'm all for exterminating those. And ticks, I don't think the ecosystem would collapse if we got rid of them.

Tim

[Doug]

How about certain disease causing worms? I'm all for exterminating those. And ticks, I don't think the ecosystem would collapse if we got rid of them.

DOUG
Good question. Certain disease causing worms are toast. It's the ones with doubts that we should preserve...

[kwlyon]

How about certain disease causing worms? I'm all for exterminating those.

Now now, let us not be to hasty. I think, at the very least, we should allow Ann Coulter to live.

[Doug]

See here.

The Center for Inquiry has a new billboard campaign. What do you think?

It's not anti-religion, but I'm sure many people will be offended anyway.

From CFI:

Another bus/billboard campaign by a secular organization? Is there really a need for it?

CFI thinks so. Although campaigns by other secular groups have received some well-deserved attention, advertising by secular groups is still swamped by the promotional efforts of religious organizations.

Moreover, our message has very little overlap with previous secular campaigns. Those campaigns emphasized that nonbelievers are morally good people and questioned the truth of religious claims. Our campaign does not focus on morality per se or evidence for God.

Our message is about the lives of the nonreligious, or, put another way, we’re addressing God’s relevance, not God’s existence.

CFI maintains we can have fulfilling lives without religion. The proof is right in front of us—in the lives of millions of people who have rich, rewarding lives—lives with hope, care, and love—without resort to religion.

[Dardedar]

It's not anti-religion, but I'm sure many people will be offended anyway.

DAR
If it's not not for religion, it's against it. You know how that goes.