The Human Prospect is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal focused on the development and refinement of humanist values and ethics, as well as ways the humanist movement can foster them throughout society. It also covers new scientific evidence, theories, and conclusions, as well as their impact upon and relationship to society, values, and ethics.
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 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 was fortunate enough to have had a last conversation with him concerning the future work of the Institute the day before he died. One of his last directions was he wished to be a signatory on Leo Igwe’s A Manifest for A Skeptical Africa. We were also formulating plans to continue his much beloved summer school here at the University of Buffalo.
How will I remember Paul? As a lion of a man and a true friend. I will remember him with love. And I promise to continue his work carrying out his mission.
Rand is a bit disappointed. She wants to testify on the communist undertones of “The Best Years of Our Lives” – a popular, Oscar-winning piece of cinema – but HUAC only allows her to testify about “Song of Russia,” a propaganda piece released to assuage Americans’ suspicions about temporarily allying with the Soviet Union in the latter days of World War II. Rand is a firecracker, an acolyte of untainted capitalism, and a scathing critic of “Song of Russia.” She posits that the film, a false portrayal of a happy Soviet Russia, dupes the American public.
The moral group is expanding. We can chart this expansion quite clearly over the past few hundred years. It has been non-linear, irregular and punctuated by some retrograde and lamentable aberrations. Nevertheless, the direction of travel is clear; while at one point the interests of a select few were elevated above all others, the moral group is now far more inclusive. Through a series of struggles, widespread acceptance of previously excluded individuals and groups has been achieved. Historically excluded groups are now firmly included in our collective moral considerations. Most recently, the moral group has expanded in such a way that non-human animals are at its margins and in some cases within its borders.
What is Mindfulness Rational Living? Glad you asked! Mindfulness Rational Living is the combination of two very powerful approaches that have been proven to help people live more productive, peaceful, and happy lives. The first, Rational Emotive Behavioral / Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a Western influence and the second Mindfulness / Zen is an Eastern influence. The research that now supports these two approaches is impressive. Ignoring this is tantamount to making a public announcement that you simply do not want to live a good life.
Paul Kurtz was to me a teacher, mentor, colleague, and friend. His impact on me was monumental, even life defining. I got to know him in 1997 after which followed a long period of long-distance (and for short periods, face-to-face) tutoring and mentoring in the history and philosophy of secular humanism.
Whatever else they may be, truth and reality are stories we tell ourselves. Our senses diminish the universe but it is still overwhelming. Luckily, we have built-in cognitive biases that shape reality into coherent narratives that provide meaning. Unluckily, they also impede objectivity. Confirmation bias, for example, filters our senses by saving bits of information that support a trusted proposition and ignoring bits that don’t. Evidence supporting our beliefs piles up in our minds and opposing points of view come to seem malicious or moronic or, if we’re feeling generous, mistaken.
It may seem hypocritical to claim that women continue to be oppressed in the United States and globally as I write this article in a studio apartment from which I am free to come and go at will, and which I am able to afford on my own due to a successful career. Yet, when a 25-year-old Polish woman is denied medical treatment because it might risk her pregnancy and never told why, thus denying her the choice to seek other treatment, I am reminded that government and society are too willing to sacrifice my life simply because I am a woman.
Religion has always involved a tension between knowledge and faith. Jesus taught, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” At the same time, however, Paul cautioned believers that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Jesus made clear to the apostle Thomas that, of the two, faith is the greater goal: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
Christopher Hitchens: iconoclast, critic, essayist, columnist, editor, author, and outspoken and unapologetic atheist, died from pneumonia as a complication of esophageal cancer at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas on December 15. He was 62.
I had the good fortune to meet Hitchens a few times. When I was an editor with Free Inquiry magazine Hitchens was a columnist. He had come to Amherst, New York, where Free Inquiry is published, to speak at the Center for Inquiry. We had taken him to dinner where he had, not unexpectedly, imbibed quite a bit of alcohol. He seemed to have not been affected much by it because he shortly thereafter delivered an excellent speech, focusing largely on threats of Islam throughout the world.
A radical change in understanding nature occurred when humans recognized that supernatural explanations could not account for natural phenomena. The earliest pre-Socratic philosophers in ancient Greece sought to explain events by reference to natural causes. They appealed to reason and observation to interpret nature, not faith or revelation, miracles or theology, uncorroborated by objective evidence. Modern science did not develop until the Renaissance. The ancients used reason and common sense (for example, Aristotle observed a lunar eclipse and reasoned that Earth must be a sphere because it cast a round shadow).
Humanists need to realize the damage being done to the movement by their support for the myth theory of Jesus. As a theory, it relies on poor and invalid methods of arguing, is unwittingly anti-Semitic, is irrelevant to much modern Christian thinking about Jesus, is unable to produce insights that can stimulate further research and lacks the courage of its convictions. Given this, it poses a major impediment to humanist scholarship being taken seriously.
There have been advances in several fields which have relevance to political communication. New information in the areas of psychology and neuroscience suggest possible explanations for divergent political views. In addition, social media and the internet in general have provided new means of communicating political messages, as well as a wealth of information about political beliefs down to the individual level. The fusion of this new information poses opportunities as well as risks. These are explored through a discussion of the gun control debate and how that debate illuminates our understanding of conservative versus liberal politics and political messaging. The implications relevant to recent political and technical developments, and the real and potential roles of artificial intelligence as both a threat and a possible solution, are presented.
Jane Goodall’s work has been groundbreaking in many ways. Her approach to the study of chimpanzees could almost be described as anthropological, treating those who happen to have no grammar-based language as equals. The moral consequences of being able to successfully engage in such an endeavor are vast, calling_ into question much of what we take for granted about the nature of morality and humanist beliefs. While instinctual behavior is increasingly used for understanding human morality, Goodall’s focus has always been on the human treatment of the nonhuman world. I argue that drawing moral inferences from nonhuman to human behavior can be problematic, because humans are capable of communicating using grammar-based languages. It is a specifically human responsibility to counteract the destructiveness that our language capacity has enabled. Goodall’s approach towards taking this responsibility could be characterized as augmenting our language-based moralities with the perspectives of nonhuman and human, future and current life. While Goodall has received much credit for her observations of chimpanzees, modern culture has yet to follow her lead by adapting our beliefs about justice to make them consistent with our scientific understanding.
Racism is a problem in the organized humanist movement, just as it is in the wider society. Humanists will never successfully combat racism in humanist organizations unless they first combat it in the greater society. Regardless of any success made in fighting racism in organized humanism, non-White humanists have the right to organize among themselves. Such a show of unity is more often than not centered on common interests and common objectives, rather than antipathy toward Whites.
Despite prominent news media and fact-check outlets demonstrating that Trump lied much more frequently than Clinton, pre-election polls showed that most voters perceived Clinton as less honest than Trump. This perception came from the Trump campaign’s successful manipulations through the illusory truth effect. This thinking error happens when false statements are repeated many times, and as a result we begin to see these lies as true. Trump used the illusory truth effect throughout his campaign. Examples of his frequently-repeated false claims, which most of his base eventually grew to believe, include him always opposing the war in Iraq and depicting NAFTA as the “worst trade deal ever.” The “Vote Leave” campaign in Brexit used similar tactics. Prominent advocates such as Nigel Farage and Priti Patel stated time and time again that Britain sends the EU £350 million a week, a lie denounced by the UK Statistics Authority and other venues, but still believed by the public. The illusory truth effect has been used in other contexts and settings to lead to false impressions of reality.
