The good life: a humanist perspective

The Positive Reach of Humanism: an Agenda for the 21st century

THOMAS FLYNN, a senior editor of Free Inquiry, said that since predictions were usually wrong, looking ahead to the next century was extremely difficult. Among the goals of freethinkers in the former century were the abolition of monarchy, universal education, and dissemination of the theory of evolution. Monarchy has now fallen in many places, education has expanded worldwide (but there are questions about whether quality has been sustained) and evolution is broadly accepted. There has been a collapse of the socialist dream, but no replacement with a capitalist heaven. The expected collapse of religion has not taken place; Europe is encouragingly secular, but in North America religion is resurgent. New issues are likely to dominate the next century, such as nuclear power and nuclear weapons, the environment, medical ethics. The agenda for the next century would include dealing with religious · fundamentalism, building an ethical framework, development of the rights of women and children, and establishing a role for supranational powers such as the UN.

PETER SMITH, President of the Humanist Association of Canada, said that contrary to earlier expectations, religion does not fade away when its weaknesses are identified. There remains an emotional attachment. Religious believers still have the old dogmatic response to medical ethics, education, abortion, euthanasia, though some priests come close to the humanist perspective.

In a time of rapid social change organised religion felt pressure to change, while humanists have no dogma to weigh them down. Humanists have a responsibility to confront change, for instance in Ontario there has been an attempt to change the law and give rights to same-sex couples. Humanists must now face new issues such as euthanasia and population planning. Practising humanists will create a direct responsive morality.

PAUL KURTZ, editor of Free Inquiry and Go-President of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, said that in the 21st century we must expect the unexpected. We could see two scenarios:

1. Doomsday, with the rise of fundamentalism and cults of unreason, with global warming and uncontrollable population growth.

2. Science and technology will spawn new ventures. There might be a breakthrough in energy developments, an increase in standard of living and longevity throughout the world.

It will be necessary to define humanism clearly and set a humanist agenda.

It will be vital to establish courses of critical thinking in schools. People find it difficult to decide what is true among the explosion of information from the media. Schools no longer train youngsters to 'worship at the altar of knowledge', they are trained to be cogs in the economy.

There is a need for dynamic growth of science and technology and relating it to our values. Humanism is a method of inquiry --and inquiry is a key activity. Humanists must defend the open mind and free inquiry. Humanism is a method not a programme. There is need for cognitive analysis, logical skills, reason.

MICHAEL ROCKLER, President of the Bertrand Russell Society, talked about the way Russell had developed as a thinker and freethinker. He wondered how Russell would deal with post-modernism, for the 21st century would be a post-modern period.

Russell would have liked this, he would have valued its return to ideas of the pre-Enlightenment age and its new, more open-ended approach to science. Pest-modernism tells us the world is open-ended. Dewey focussed on the process of open-ended inquiry. The brain is an open-ended instrument. Russell would have approved of such an approach.

What is the good life? A humanist perspective

ALBERT LYNGZEIDETSON, Professor of Philosophy, Florida Atlantic University, said that we need to face the destructive aspect of the Christian right. They were conducting a carefully orchestrated campaign proclaiming the failure of liberal humanism. Humanists often come from academic backgrounds and are insulated from ordinary people. The Christian right says that Russell and Dewey promised a happier world, but instead we have pornography, higher crime rate, decline of morality. Education standards are declining. Humanists cannot castigate Christians without offering a viable sense of direction. Christians get a sense of security from their belief in a higher being.

There is a great contrast between humanists and Christians of the right. Christians promote intolerance and ethno-centrism, humanists are democratic and antagonistic towards authoritarianism. Christians like things fixed and permanent, while humanists are more comfortable with the ever changing complexities of life. Humanists should take the moral high ground and proclaim that the principles of liberal democracy and tolerance are basic to society. Humanists need a positive message that atheism can lead to a good life.

NICHOLAS GRIFFIN, Professor of Philosophy, McMaster University, pointed out that Russell recognised the need for a plurality of 'goods' for different people. The problem of providing a good life is a social as well as a personal one. Without food, shelter, peace, etc. it is not possible to lead the good life. Russell said that fear itself was bad: for a good life we need to have worthwhile work and companionship, including intense personal relationships.

PHILIP JONES, President of CSHAFT (the coalition of North American humanists), said that there was no clear model for a good life, which involves choice of life-style for different people. For a secular hum.anist to achieve the good life it is necessary to have a distinct value system. We try to live a good life as an individual relating to other individuals, as an individual relating to society and as an individual relating to the globe. We must try to live by the golden rule, to look for the points of view of others, and to assess pragmatically the consequences of our actions. Pleasure is important, but not enough for being involved in society, and righting wrongs is equally valuable.

NORM ALLEN, Executive Director, African Americans for Humanism, suggested that a personal conception of the good life involved positive thinking which was as common among the poor as the rich. We need the value of joy, self-confidence and fulfilment. In some environments war and starvation make the good life impossible - this is true of much of Africa. Freedom from fear of hell fire is a source of happiness. The wise person does not fear death, but accepts himself or herself, their heritage and identity. Pleasure in drink and sex are not enough, happiness means also the life of the mind and helping others. 

What Humanism means to me

TO ME, humanism is what you are left with if you strip away what doesn't make sense. I was always attracted by science, and the more I learned, the more I found that many established world-philosophies (particularly among some of the organised religions) didn't make any form of intuitive sense. Undoubtedly they bring great comfort to their believers, but I found that I was unable to sincerely believe in any divine architecture to the cosmos, or in any predetermined destiny for any race or creed or even for any individual.

From my teenage years onward, I basically came to think that we humans are a most peculiar species huddled together in a rather uneven and random way on a rather pleasant planet, and it's up to us to do our best. I have never felt that we can look for assistance elsewhere. What we see around us is what we've got. Now that might sound as if I am some sort of unemotional reductionist - a B. F. Skinner playing the role of doctor - but I know that I am not. Accepting a humanist view of our world does not mean that you don't feel love, anger, fright, tenderness - or even humour. A humanist basis simply allows you to spend less of your time twisting what you see and contorting it to fit somebody else's idea of what ought to be. Of course I could be wrong: but if I am I don't think I shall have done all that much damage on the way - on average, humanists don't.