I first heard about Dr. Paul Kurtz back in the 1990s from my then Ph.D. advisor, Michael Ruse. Michael had just published one of his books with Prometheus Books and stated how impressed he was that such a relatively obscure publishing house from 1969 had grown to produce such high quality works. Michael had also told me that many serious academics were seeking out and were intent on publishing with Prometheus. I can also remember how captivated I was when first learning about this American philosopher, Paul Kurtz, who named a publishing company after a Greek mythological Titan who stole fire from the gods to give to humans. I remember thinking then that this was a philosopher I would very much like to meet.

I first met Paul Kurtz at the University of Toronto in late 2001. I had been asked to present a paper at a conference hosted by the Ontario Skeptics Society for Critical Inquiry and Paul was the keynote speaker. I remember thinking how charmed I was by this man. He was knowledgeable, warm, and embracing. His trademark request of getting everyone to stand up and hug the people next to them was introduced to me at this time. I remember thinking that here was an academic who was still human, compassionate, and caring; not an ivory tower ideologue, but a man who walked the walk and took humanism to the public.

A few years after my first encounter with Paul, I received a letter in the mail from him requesting that I deliver a keynote address at a conference at the University of Toronto called: “Science and Ethics: A New Enlightenment”. I still remember reading the request and being charmed by the invitation. It read: “May we invite you to present the keynote address ...” Seeking permission in this way again spoke to Paul’s charm and attention to detail. At this conference, Paul and I had the chance to get to know one another better. He asked me to personally send him a manuscript of my then working copy of How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass. This book has since been published by Prometheus Books and is currently in its fourth printing. I am very grateful to Paul for suggesting that I work with this wonderful publisher.

I would later develop a personal and academic relationship with Paul. Our correspondence involved discussions about philosophical aspects of humanism, ethics, and science. We would meet again at the CFI Canada’s First Annual Educational Conference: Art and Science: Freethought at the Intersection of Two Worlds. After I had presented the Keynote address, Paul requested that I consider Prometheus Books again for my next publication.

Paul and I would meet for the last time in October of 2010 in Los Angeles at the 30th Anniversary Conference of Free Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. It was such a high-energy and busy conference, that we barely had time to chat. But we were able to keep in contact through email after that.

I admired Paul Kurtz’s brand of skepticism because he understood its proper use and context as an act of inquiry which could eventually lead to a more justifiable and epistemically responsible manner for attaining information about the natural world. Paul knew, as did I, that a good skeptic is always made, never born; and that you have to work hard at being one. Some of our overlapping views can be found in a paper I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer called: “The Roots of Skepticism: Why Ancient Ideas Still Apply Today” (Vol. 33, No.3 May/June 2009 51-55). Paul and I would discuss many different topics related to humanism and skepticism. Knowing that Paul had thorough academic training in the American pragmatic traditions, I would often strike up conversations with him about John Dewey, C.S. Peirce, and William James and linking them to their historical predecessors. He was extremely pleased to know more about my historical philosophical research which drew a continuous line of skeptical influence from Thales through the Ancient Pyrrhonians, to the Renaissance with Michel de Montaigne, and the Age of Enlightenment with David Hume, then to the American pragmatists, and on to the contemporary 20th century with scientific-minded philosophers like Bertrand Russell and W.V.O. Quine. Adopting a humbling epistemic stance of reflective ignorance about the true nature of reality and turning one’s mind toward those objects of inference and discovery on which one can rationally and consistently speak are hallmarks in the rnaking of a good skeptic. And Paul knew and even celebrated this. He recognized the core principles of skepticism: that one must begin with an admission of epistemic ignorance and an admission of humility if one is to gain any kind of insight into the workings of the natural world.

Paul and I had discussed the concept of “eupraxsophy,” which he coined to refer to a way of life which made no reference to supernatural or transcendental elements but focused instead on what it means to live ethically as a secular humanist. I recall the reason behind the development of this outlook and remember talking to Paul about how the word, itself, may stand as a hindrance for those interested. I likened it to one of my invented terms: agtheism, which denotes an atheistic stance toward all world religions but a very slight agnostic stance regarding the possibility of intentionality in terms of universal origins. By placing primacy on reason, empiricism, and scientific methodologies, secular humanism has developed into a robust philosophy which counters religious-based ideologies. And this has contributed considerably to how discussions and dialogues regarding ethics and moral behavior play out.

When Paul formed the Institute for Science and Human Values, I was honored to be chosen as one of the first academics to sign Paul’s Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Principles and Values: Personal, Progressive, and Planetary. Although I do not agree with everything within the Statement, I believe that the majority of its content expresses ideas and tenets that demonstrate a fair and considered approach to social behavior on this planet. But Paul, in his classic philosophical manner, anticipated that others may have reservations about some of its content and included the following statement: “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.” The key to being a good skeptic is to recognize that the conversation rarely, if ever, finishes. Inquiry continues until our last breath; as I’m sure it did for Paul.

I owe a lot to Paul Kurtz. He opened my eyes to the nuances of humanism. And he demonstrated to me that a philosopher can be more than simply an ivory tower academic. Paul has greatly helped to change the way the world understands secular philosophy and he has paved the way for an entire movement.

I will forever be grateful for this man’s grace, commitment, compassion, and understanding. Thank you, Paul.