from the world's big
Why secular humanism can do what atheism can't
Atheism doesn't offer much beyond non-belief, can secular humanism fill the gaps?
- Atheism is increasingly popular, but the lack of an organized community around it can be problematic.
- The decline in social capital once offered by religion can cause severe problems.
- Secular humanism can offer both community and meaning, but it has also attracted controversy.
People aren't as religious as they used to be.
The decline of these traditional belief systems is a tragedy for some and a cause for celebration for others. There is an element of it that causes a problem for everybody, though. As the old religious ties that bind decline, the communities associated with them start to go too. This isn't to say that a neighborhood without a church will immediately start to decay into poverty, violence, and misery but that the social element of these organizations was essential to people and without it, we've got problems.
Twenty years ago, Robert Putnam argued that Americans were starting to suffer from too much alone time and too little community connection in his book Bowling Alone. He wouldn't be shocked by what we see today.
Twenty-two percent of millennials say they have no friends, and the elderly are cripplingly lonely too. People aren't as involved in community organizations as they used to be. These things are terrible for both our health and communities. While the reasons for this aren't well known, the decline in social capital Putnam described probably has something to do with it.
While the decline of religious belief and attendance at mainstream churches in general isn't the only reason for this decline, the traditional place of religion in American life means that lower church attendance can be a destabilizing factor. Say what you will about churches, they were great generators of social capital.But nothing in that theory of social capital demands that we go back to the previous model of generating said capital. New systems that create community can do the trick too. As old ideas and ways of connecting with others fall apart, new ones rise to replace them; among them is the famous and infamous philosophy of secular humanism.
What is secular humanism?
The people over at the Center for Inquiry define secular humanism as "A comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance." They further explain this by saying:
"Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life."
The American Humanist Association has a similar definition, calling the life stance:
"A progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
How is this different from atheism?
Atheism means one thing and one thing only, the non-belief in any deity. It doesn't mean anything further than that. This is how you can get people as different as Joseph Stalin, Ayn Rand, and Carl Sagan to all fit into the Atheist category.
While people of all persuasions try to argue that this non-belief necessarily leads a non-believer to support other positions, these arguments fall short. If atheism did inevitably lead to other specific believes and values, the diversity of ideologies seen in the above three examples should be impossible.
There isn't even just one kind of atheism; there are several based on precisely what a person doesn't believe in and how they came to that stance.
Secular humanism, on the other hand, makes several claims. It advances a consequentialist ethics system; it affirms the values of self-realization, cosmopolitanism, individualism, and critical thinking; it places a value on social justice; and it praises a dedication to the use of reason and the search for truth.
These stances are ones that many atheists will support, but not ones that they must support. Many will reject them outright. In this way, while secular humanists are typically atheistic, non-theistic, or agnostic, not all atheists, agnostics, or non-theists are going to be secular humanists.
So, is Secular humanism a religion or what?
No, but this is a matter of some controversy in the United States.
The Center for Inquiry's editor Tom Flynn explains why secular humanism isn't a religion in an essay defining the life stance. He first defines religion as a "life stance that includes at minimum a belief in the existence and fundamental importance of a realm transcending that of ordinary experience."
He then points out that, "because it lacks any reliance on (or acceptance of) the transcendent, secular humanism is not — and cannot be — a religion."
While this might not be the end-all definition of "religion" for some people, it is a convincing one. If applied properly, it would rule secular humanism out on any list of religions. This hasn't stopped people from saying it is a religion though. Many people and organizations have argued and still argue that it is a religion out to convert all the youth in America and destroy western civilization as we know it.
Several court cases have considered the question of whether it counts as a "religion" for legal purposes. One judge in Alabama even ruled that secular humanism was a religion and subject to the same restrictions as other religions before ordering that schoolbooks promoting "secular humanist values" were to be removed from classrooms.
A higher court quickly reversed this decision. They didn't address the issue of whether secular humanism was a religion or not, but did point out how that was irrelevant to the case anyway. Other cases before that one had generally agreed that while some humanist organizations do things which are analogous to religious groups, like Sunday meetings, and might be entitled to similar treatment, secular humanism itself is not a "religion."
Does anybody famous like this idea?
Lots of them do, but there is a sticking point regarding the words used.
While some people like Isaac Asimov were self-declared secular humanists who were involved with organizations dedicated to the concept, others, like Bertrand Russell, really didn't want to be called "humanists" and either remained unaffiliated or were heavily involved in humanist organizations without claiming the title.
Kurt Vonnegut took up the role of Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, formerly held by fellow sci-fi legend Isaac Asimov. Charles Shultz, the creator of the Peanuts comic, declared himself to be a secular humanist towards the end of his life. Philosopher Peter Singer is both an atheist and a humanist and would fit the definitions we listed above, though he seems not to use the term "secular humanist" himself.
The American Humanist Association lists several others on their website, including Gloria Steinem, Jonas Salk, and Katharine Hepburn.
How do secular humanists, well, do things? Is there a community?
As it turns out, even people who don't think a god is telling them there is one way to do things like marriage, burial rites, coming of age parties, how to spend their Sunday mornings, or the like still think there is merit to doing something for these occasions. Organizations designed to do that are easier to start when you move beyond simple atheism and get people to agree on a few more stances.
Secular humanist organizations allow similarly minded people to have community, to celebrate life events, to discuss ethics and morality, and to enjoy many of the things that the religious do without having to compromise their beliefs.
You might also recall that I interviewed a humanist celebrant some time back. She explained a lot about what she does and why. There are tons of humanist centers similar to the one she works at around the country. This tool lets you see which one is closest to you. A quick check of their websites will show you what is going on in your area.
In a time when traditional belief systems and communities continue to degrade, and people search for new answers and places to belong, secular humanism offers itself as a modern philosophy that combines a comprehensive worldview with secularism and community. While its merits will be debated for some time to come, it will continue to offer the benefits once provided by the religious community to non-believers, secularists, and humanists for the foreseeable future.
- Humanism in Mesopotamia - Big Think ›
- Why do secular groups often act like religious ones? - Big Think ›
- Can an Atheist Be a Unitarian Universalist? (Part 1) - Big Think ›
Emotional intelligence is a skill sought by many employers. Here's how to raise yours.
- Daniel Goleman's 1995 book Emotional Intelligence catapulted the term into widespread use in the business world.
- One study found that EQ (emotional intelligence) is the top predictor of performance and accounts for 58% of success across all job types.
- EQ has been found to increase annual pay by around $29,000 and be present in 90% of top performers.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
What's dead may never die, it seems<p>The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called Brain<em>Ex</em>. Brain<em>Ex </em>is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.</p><p>Brain<em>Ex</em> pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.</p><p>The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if Brain<em>Ex</em> can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.</p><p>As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.</p><p>The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.</p><p>"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told <em><a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>.</em></p>
An ethical gray matter<p>Before anyone gets an <em>Island of Dr. Moreau</em> vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.</p><p>The Brain<em>Ex</em> solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness. </p><p>Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death. </p><p>Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?</p><p>"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/science/brain-dead-pigs.html" target="_blank">the <em>New York Times</em></a>. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."</p><p>One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.</p><p>The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4#ref-CR2" target="_blank">told <em>Nature</em></a> that if Brain<em>Ex</em> were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.</p><p>"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.</p><p>It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.</p><p>Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? <a href="https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/after-death-youre-aware-that-youve-died-scientists-claim" target="_blank">The distress of a partially alive brain</a>? </p><p>The dilemma is unprecedented.</p>
Setting new boundaries<p>Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, <em>Frankenstein</em>. As Farahany told <em>National Geographic</em>: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have <em>Frankenstein</em>, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."</p><p>She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.</p>
Starting and running a business takes more than a good idea and the desire to not have a boss.
- Anyone can start a business and be an entrepreneur, but the reality is that most businesses will fail. Building something successful from the ground up takes hard work, passion, intelligence, and a network of people who are equally as smart and passionate as you are. It also requires the ability to accept and learn from your failures.
- In this video, entrepreneurs in various industries including 3D printing, fashion, hygiene, capital investments, aerospace, and biotechnology share what they've learned over the years about relationships, setting and attaining goals, growth, and what happens when things don't go according to plan.
- "People who start businesses for the exit, most of them will fail because there's just no true passion behind it," says Miki Agrawal, co-founder of THINX and TUSHY. A key point of Agrawal's advice is that if you can't see yourself in something for 10 years, you shouldn't do it.
After a decade of failed attempts, scientists successfully bounced photons off of a reflector aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, some 240,000 miles from Earth.
- Laser experiments can reveal precisely how far away an object is from Earth.
- For years scientists have been bouncing light off of reflectors on the lunar surface that were installed during the Apollo era, but these reflectors have become less efficient over time.
- The recent success could reveal the cause of the degradation, and also lead to new discoveries about the Moon's evolution.
A close-up photograph of the laser reflecting panel deployed by Apollo 14 astronauts on the Moon in 1971.
NASA<p>The technology isn't quite new. During the Apollo era, astronauts installed on the lunar surface five reflecting panels, each containing at least 100 mirrors that reflect back to whichever direction it's coming from. By bouncing light off these panels, scientists have been able to learn, for example, that the Moon is drifting away from Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Now that we've been collecting data for 50 years, we can see trends that we wouldn't have been able to see otherwise," Erwan Mazarico, a planetary scientist from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/laser-beams-reflected-between-earth-and-moon-boost-science" target="_blank" rel="dofollow">said</a>. "Laser-ranging science is a long game."</p>
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
NASA<p>But the long game poses a problem: Over time, the panels on the Moon have become less efficient at bouncing light back to Earth. Some scientists suspect it's because dust, kicked up by micrometeorites, has settled on the surface of the panels, causing them to overheat. And if that's the case, scientists need to know for sure.</p><p>That's where the recent LRO laser experiment comes in. If scientists find discrepancies between the data sent back by the LRO reflector and those on the lunar surface, it could reveal what's causing the lunar reflectors to become less efficient. They could then account for these discrepancies in their models.</p>