The New Humanism Magazine

I think you are right in that it is a little too touchy feely for lots of atheists;
particularly, the lifetime atheists.

Some ex-Christians may find it helpful, though. Remember that when we were deeply religious, many of us loved going to church to sing CCM songs, raise our hands to the heaves, and feel release from the pressures of life.

Those of us with that sort of background can use a little meditation and a little talk about feelings.

I’ve heard from a lot of pro and semi-pro religious apologists that atheists are unhappy because they rely on grim, sterile logic and exclude all emotion from their lives because it’s “irrational”.

That Spock character did us some damage.

Someone want to start a website called “Lusty Atheist”?

I never know what “humanism” means, and neither Wikipedia nor the linked website is particularly helpful.

I infer something along the lines of “atheists who still think religion is pretty sweet”?

Joel, how about atheists who believe that people have the capacity and the responsibility to come together to improve the world without relying on supernatural help.

I’m with Valdyr and theadividual. So no, this isn’t for everyone, but I think that a large proportion of humanity get into religion not for the supernatural nonsense, but for other things. And these are things that religion is particularly good at providing, but mainly for historical reasons. I’m thinking of communities made up people of a range of ages; I’m thinking of ceremony (weddings, baby-namings, funerals etc); I’m thinking of marking important points in the year (winter festivals, solstices); I’m thinking of the comfort you can get from meeting a group of people once a week and doing something relatively mindless (singing songs etc.), but harmless, and bonding. I’m sure you can think of other things.

The point is that classes, and choirs, and the like, only provide these things up to a point: classes tend to cost money, and to run for a set number of weeks; choirs tend to involve lots of practising. Religion can provide them all year round, and you’re not expected to be able to sing very well.

So some of us don’t need these things at all; I don’t need them especially (although I quite enjoy a well done ceremony). But there are lots of people who do seem to need, or at least really want, all this sort of stuff. And these people tend to look to religion to provide it. But none of this even has to be religious; none of it has to involve the supernatural. And if these things can be provided in an atheist context, we might be able to win quite a lot of converts to atheism, and save quite a lot of people from the bad things that religion does.

In reply to Joel: I think a reasonable definition of “humanist” is an atheist who thinks that religion has some good ideas worth using. I happen to think a lot of these good ideas were co-opted, rather than invented, by religion. I think of humanism as winning them back. It’s only an accident of history that birthdays aren’t religious, after all.

Garic, I think you have described why ethical culture societies fill such a void for some of us. No need to believe in anything supernatural, but also no need to give up the social network (and occasional singing) that churches provide. (The opportunity to explore ethical issues is nice too).

A sense of community, of being there for each other, of social connection and emotional caring, are all things that people gain from their particular brand of religion. It is often what draws people in. As others have mentioned, we do not need to be ruled by our emotions, I further suggest that it is insane to try and ignore that they exist or to deny ourselves their full range and complex flavor, or worse, to deny them in those around us.

Humans are social creatures. It is a simple fact of existence that we are able to accomplish more in groups than we can individually. Therefore it makes sense for the atheists or skeptics to establish groups. If one wishes these groups to thrive, to grow, to effect change in the world, then they must appeal on an emotional level that satisfies. Failing to do this will result in the failure of a larger impact overall.

I think meditation is a great thing. It doesn’t have to be carried to monk-like extremes. It’s not just relaxation, though: in my experience it’s like bird-watching, but the birds are your thoughts and feelings, and in the same way that you learn about birds by watching them, you learn about yourself by observing how thing squishy thing in your skull ticks. Squooshes. The sitting and being quiet without distractions (or with structured distractions, like repetitive breathing exercises) just helps you pay attention. “Clearing the mind,” isn’t the point; observing it is.

On the reason vs. emotion front, I think that atheists too often invest their egos in being rational (as though any human could “be” rational) as opposed to using reason. I think the first tendency leads us into more of the tedious “more rational than thou” squabbles than are strictly necessary. The latter, however, is a skill that can be cultivated and applied to all aspects of life, including the emotional ones. (How to tell if you’re having a fair argument with your spouse, for instance.)

Plus, one of the things that people who like church like about church is that it allows them to emote. I’m not interested in atheist scream therapy, but I wouldn’t mind an air of celebration now and then.

It’s always great to go into a thread and see someone else has already gone to the trouble of putting your thoughts into writing. Thanks Garic!

Humanism isn’t for everyone and it has no need to be. We should be wary of becoming balkanized though. People for whom Humanism is not attractive shouldn’t dismiss it as nonsense or a quasi-religion out of hand. It should naturally be entirely open to debate and criticism, both as a global concept and in it’s various facets, but the assumption that because you don’t want it other people shouldn’t or that they are “weaker” because they like it is wrong. Likewise Humanists should avoid the (many) pitfalls that await anyone becoming a part of an organized moral philosophy. Dogmatism, a sense of superiority and intolerance to others who choose a different path do not require an accompanying deity.

Personally, I’ve been sort of interested in Humanism for quite some time. I’ll bookmark the magazine for a few weeks, see how it goes.

I’m married. I’m done being touchy-feely with strangers!

🙂

Yeah, this isn’t for me. Particularly the meditation. I’m glad it’s available for people who want it, but meditation makes me very uncomfortable. We were supposed to meditate in one of my college classes, and I just sat there like an idiot while (presumably) everyone around me was able to do it.

I’m also a lifelong atheist, so “mystical” or “spiritual” rituals are just not part of my background. I’m not much of a group person, have never belonged to a church community, and thus have little interest in getting together with other atheists to engage in group discussion, let alone singing, lighting candles, chanting, etc.

But I am glad to see the “kinder, gentler” face of atheism getting some media attention. I’m looking forward to Greg Epstein’s book.

Problems with being too “touchy-feely”?

Worry not and travel to a Latin American contry!

Meet the people, or watch them from afar… and you’ll find folks give and receive more hugs, for starters. Then, there’s the tradition of men and women salute and kiss each other in the cheek (men to men usually not, but men to women yes, BTW) when arriving at the office, even if they’re not close friends nor family. People are used to have less personal space between them.

Afterwards, talking about emotions with others does not seem touchy-feely. At most, it seems just plain feely.

I was gonna say something about meditation, but that topic is already thoroughly covered.

There’s nothing inherently “supernatural” about emotions. Period. It’s clear from observations of social nonhuman animals that they feel emotions, and yet they haven’t come up with any religion to explain them. (Whether or not the emotions are exactly the same as ours is irrelevant; it’s just one of those human characteristics that appears in nonhumans, in one form or another.) Children show emotion before they’re even aware that religion exists, but like language, it seems to be something you have to acquire at the right time from being around other people. If anyone recalls hearing of badly abused children, children who can’t interact with others or show emotion “normally”, that’s a perfect example of how a person without emotion is clearly different from the rest of us.

Frans de Waal argues that morality is based in emotion. He’s written some fantastic stuff on the subject, well worth a read.

It is supremely arrogant to suppose that we are even capable of abandoning our emotions. That, to me, seems just another form of placing ourselves above the rest of “nature”, which is what bugs me about religion in the first place.

Also, I don’t see how taking advantage of the physical/mental benefits of “spiritual” exercises makes a person any less rational. Religious people believe they’re getting in touch with their deity; science might have another answer, but it’s clear that meditation does have observable benefits (the chanting, grounding, focusing, bonding, etc., it can all happen whether or not you believe in Jesus). If you don’t believe in the deity, you can still take the useful parts of the exercise, and you don’t have to pretend you believe OR feel guilty for your lapse of reason. It’s probably neurological (I’m assuming, but I’ve never read up on it); how is it irrational to take advantage of a technique known to be beneficial for explainable reasons? If you don’t believe it’s God making these people feel this stuff, then it has to be something observable, right?