Appropriate decorum
A guy called Erich Vieth did a useful interview with Paul Kurtz the other day. There are some odd things in it, which could shed some oblique light on the PK-CFI quarrel.
PK says he left voluntarily but under great duress, which is useful to know. I don’t think I’ve seen that before. Then they talk about why no explanation of his resignation appeared in Free Inquiry, and he said it was because it was censored. Vieth said isn’t that at odds with free inquiry?
PK: It is similar to thought police. Alas! They refused to publish three of my editorials, and they refused to publish my statement regarding my resignation. What a contradiction. Even though I am the founder of the organizations, their position essentially was that I had no right to publicly express my concerns about the direction of the organization or the new management practices adopted under the current leadership — both of which I have grave reservations about. I consider this as similar to a Board of Bishops seeking to control its Founder.
Look closely at that last sentence. Look at the capital F on Founder. He’s saying it’s like bishops trying to control Jesus, and he’s Jesus.
PK: I have been censored and members of the staff have been instructed not to reveal any information about CFI to me. Barry Karr said that since I resigned, I have no right to be made aware of internal matters within the organization. I asked, “What about my moral authority? I said, “This is similar to what happened to Galileo when placed under house arrest.”
Except for the part about being placed under house arrest, and the part about Galileo.
PK: I never intended for the organization to mock religion…
EV: Are you suggesting that it is improper for anyone to ridicule religion?
PK: No, others in society can and should do so, but not Free Inquiry and CFI. As I just pointed out, I have always considered these organizations to be important philosophic and scientific forums requiring appropriate decorum.
But Free Inquiry published the Motoons – it was the only magazine in the US that did. Jesus Galileo seems to be moving the goalposts here.
<blockquote> I have always considered these organizations to be important philosophic and scientific forums requiring <b>appropriate decorum</b></blockquote>
Yes, exemplified by comparing them to a pre-enlightenment church trying to restrain scientific advance through force, that sort of decorum?
I’m sorry, but I am not humanist but I am an atheist, and so I find this whole episode completely absurd. It sounds very much like Paul Kurtz version of humanism is a religious belief. Which isn’t too surprising if we were to look at the Ludwig Fauerbach’s Essence of Christianity. Hence why I’ve always perceived Humanism as suspicious. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Paul Kurtz is no longer atheist but a full believer in humanism. And there is the only explanation I can think of without resorting to dementia.
Since I didn’t even know the existence of CFI until recently, it is no loss to me. But this is a considerable blow for atheists who consider themselves humanists. All I can say is, why? Why be a humanist? There is something religious about it, something unhealthy. I hope uber atheists don’t get too sucked in by these various godless legacies of Christianity.
As the great Max Stirner–the arch-nemesis of Marx–wrote: “Communism, and, consciously or unconsciously, egoism-reviling humanism, still count on love“. And I’m afraid, unthinking love for mankind does not solve its problems, but reason does. Whenever a human leaves reality for the realm of the mind or the realm of the heart, she usually ends up in unreason.
I see this as a good sign: that humanism cannot replace atheism any more than humanism can replace theism. If I am to be a friend to humanists then they must also be a friend to me, the uber atheist, and if I am too unhuman for them, then to hell with them. I’ll stick to my irreligious atheism thank you, away with your religious humanism.
I think in your second paragraph, it should be Free Inquiry (the magazine not the endeavour). This whole thing is working on my nerves to say the least. Lindsay’s sober refutations seem to not have been answered by Kurtz. I suspect there was probably a good reason they didn’t publish his farewell essay and I doubt it was because he was Jesus Galileo (h/t Ophelia).
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Appropriate decorum http://dlvr.it/6YbKp […]
Well, Egbert, I disagree, and fairly intensely too. Humanism is a good option for unbelievers, for it is a positive idea about how the world would go better without religious belief, but with concern for the human. It is also a rational ideal, which seeks, through knowledge, and the attempt to understand the world better, to improve conditions for humanity, and now, I hope, as we become more aware of the suffering of animals, for animals as well. This is not a contemptible ideal, and it is not, despite your remarks, religious, and given humanist associations and societies around the world, which try to put human ideals into practice, and combine to oppose the contiuing influence and power of the religions, I would even go so far as to say that your remarks are not only ignorant, which they are, but also pointlessly arrogant.
Atheism, as you describe it, is simply a negative, a denial of the existence of a being that over half the world believes in in one form or another. Stalin was an atheist, and not a particular exemplary one. Living in terms of pure negation is really not very inspiring or helpful. AC Grayling, to take but one example, is an atheist, but also a humanist, very sharply critical of religion and religious belief, but very anxious to improve the lot of people who suffer various indignities and injustices on account of religious imperialism. He is on record as disliking the term ‘atheism’, since it gives too much away to theism. As a philosopher and humanist he has been very active in support of human rights, and is concerned with the obvious threat to human rights that religion represents. He seems to find within the humanist movement a source of support for these concerns, and it seems petty to slight them without more information. Humanism has a long, distinguished history, and is something that every unbeliever should take with some seriousness, even if they are not joiners.
I think Paul Kurtz’s ideals, so far as they go, are unexceptionable, and I find it hard to understand why they could not have been accomodated within organisations which he founded. I know it is sometimes difficult for founders and leaders to let go, and perhaps it is just as simple as that. I don’t think by remarking about his being the founder, and then talking about boards of bishops, he is comparing himself with Jesus. He is simply remarking, with some chagrin, and not a little hurt, on being ignored in organisations which he did in fact found, supported and guided for so many years. It is a pity that some kind of relationship could not have been established so that he could have been seen as in a sense the resident wise man, as the next generation took over, and guided the organisation in new directions. However, it’s hard to judge from outside, and so I will not do so.
I’ll have to disagree here. “Useful interview”? Only in the limited sense that Kurtz was allowed to leave no doubt about his vainglorious and self-pitying side. Otherwise, it was pretty much a big suck-up that didn’t even pretend to care about an unbiased view of the issues. “How did it make you feel when you were forced to resign?” Seriously?
Well, frankly, that was part of what I meant about useful.
@ Eric Macdonald
With great respect, you choose to attack me rather than hand me your humanist hand in friendship, I find that rather telling. Which is why I choose not to call myself a humanist. I have stated on Professor Dawkins website many times that I am a friend to humanists, and yet I get attacked by them, and the recent article in the press by Paul Kurtz and even members of CFI seem to suggest that humanists are very willing to attack us atheists (not nihilists). Apparently I have nothing positive to add to anything because I’m atheist, which is nonsense. I don’t need to be a humanist to add something of value.
But I won’t take offence, I genuinely hold out my hand in fellowship with you, and everyone here because I think we face far greater problems than our own sensibilities. But if me being non-humanist is too much of a gap, too great a chasm then that worries me. It would perhaps only prove to me that humanism is religion in disguise.
Not to nitpick too minor a point, but the Mo-toons were also printed by both Harper’s and The Weekly Standard:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081081
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/697dhzzd.asp
Hi Ophelia,
Interesting point with the Muhammad cartoons. I was saved from digging through my pile of mags and found the publication online.
“PK: I never intended for the organization to mock religion”
Here’s part of Tom Flynn’s text on the issue:
“In part, we do this in solidarity with several European newspapers, demonstrating our commitment to the Enlightenment principle of free expression and the fundamental democratic principle of a free press. But as secular humanists we have additional grounds to think it important that these images see print. As noted in the Center for Inquiry’s mission statement, we are committed to freedom of inquiry “in every area of human endeavor,” and that emphatically includes religion. No religious teaching, community, or institution should be held immune from criticism simply because it is religious in nature.
[]
In any case, as journalists and as U.S. citizens, we have the right to treat sacred matters in the same uncompromising way we might approach any other issue. Inquiry, criticism, satire, even the occasional resort to mockery—all can be within bounds, depending on the context.”
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=flynn_26_3Also, scroll for issue here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=index_26
I was how much all of this has to do with emphasis and context.
Correction: “I wonder how much this has to do with emphasis and context?”
Ugh. Well, I just read that entire interview. Later it says:
“EV: To what extent is it OK for someone to criticize or ridicule religions and believers?
PK: I believe that in an open, free and democratic society, people should be permitted to express their views, but to the extent that CFI does, I believe it should be a product of intellectual probity and decorum.”
Of course what he means by “intellectual probity” is simply with that CFI do it with intellectual honesty and integrity, that is how the cartoons were offered.
I’m getting awfully tired of this ordeal. He didn’t move any goal post. Darn it, reading these debates over the past week starting with that Shook essay has been immensely frustrating. I really expect more from the freethought community. Oh well.
Eric MacDonald addresses Egbert: Humanism is a good option for unbelievers, for it is a positive idea about how the world would go better without religious belief, but with concern for the human.
[…]
Atheism, as you describe it, is simply a negative, a denial of the existence of a being that over half the world believes in in one form or another.
Indeed (though I take issue with your contention that “half the world believes in [the same] magical being”, but that is by-the-bye).
Humanism is an ideology; atheism is a state of being.
Which is why I’m an atheist, but not a humanist (except incidentally).
Kurtz really has a great sense of self-importance – wow, comparing himself to Jesus and Galileo in one interview!
I think the interview illuminates one important point which is that religion IS being treated as a special case compared to other non evidence based beliefs. If that were NOT the case then the implication would be that CFI must never indulge in ridicule or mocking when dealing with any irrational belief. We must never point and laugh at ghost hunters, bigfoot chasers, homeopaths, psychics, astrologers. All such beliefs must be dealt with in a dry academic manner. While I agree that we should be rigorous in our testing of such claims I do wonder whether a purely academic approach would have much if any impact on the public at large.
Kurtz wanted to turn CFI into syndicated secular humanist churches through opening ‘centers’ all around the world. That was his greatest ambition (often stated publicly) and it was pursued with the urging of some whose power in the organization was seemingly linked to the creation of these centers. Previously, there were scores of independent but affiliated groups, which demanded no monetary support. But Kurtz wanted more direct authority and dependence between local groups and CFI, including preventing them from affiliating with other humanist organizations. Thus, the idea of ‘centers’ was developed, and these centers became professionally-staffed, requiring money from the CFI headquarters, but without any apparent economic benefit to the organization. This is partly the reason for the declining economic conditions there when he left as the model CFI pursued of numerous secular humanist churches was totally unsustainable. No one ever thought of a rational way to expand the empire without bankrupting it. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
I think I understand Paul Kurtz’s reasons for turning against atheists, because we all fall short of his perceived moral standards. But that doesn’t explain all the attacks sustained by other members of the CFI, like John Shook, who apparently has apologised and somewhat backtracked
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/of_reputations_and_harsh_words/
Is there not mixed messages coming from CFI? I would just like to understand if they’re for the uber atheists or against us, because I know that I stand firmly for it.
Yes, but MoToons only upset evil, extremist Muslims, while the CFI is now upsetting good, progressive Christians too. See, no double standard! </sarcasm>
Eric, if PK is not comparing himself with Jesus, why is “founder” capitalized? And who, after all, is the founder of any board of bishops? (Mind you, I’ve been assuming this was an email interview, in which case it was PK who made it “Founder.” But I suppose it could have been a phone interview. It doesn’t read that way though.)
My limited experience with CFI and Kurtz (a few years ago) led me to think that there was something cultish about the desire to proliferate cells all over the country. Is the model churches or radical political groups? I don’t know the answer but it made me uneasy at the time. Partly this is just my typical atheistic unwillingness to join a group, but I don’t think it was just that.
Ophelia:
As you mentioned above, I conducted the interview of Paul Kurtz that appeared at Dangerous Intersection (http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/02/expelled-founder-paul-kurtz-explains-his-departure-from-the-center-for-inquiry/ ).
I would point out that Mr. Kurtz never compared himself to Jesus, contrary to your assertion. He did compare himself to a “Founder” of a church, who was kicked out by a “board of bishops,” but “Founder” does not refer to Jesus (simply Google “board of bishops founder”). Nor did Kurtz ever mention Jesus anywhere in the interview. He did compare his predicament to that of Galileo.
Erich,
Well it’s an interpretation rather than an assertion – but it’s not simply obvious from what’s on the page that he meant the founder of a church. (What is a “founder of a church,” anyway? Do individuals commonly found churches?) The capital letter, in particular, did seem to hint at The Divine (as capital letters in such contexts do). But was the interview over the phone, or written via email? In other words, was it you who wrote “Founder” rather than “founder,” or was it PK?
It’s an odd choice, in any case. Why a board of bishops, of all things? And founders of boards of bishops just do suggest Peter – on this rock I will found my church, you know. Paul could have said it was like a board of trustees, or shareholders, or all sorts of secular boards, but instead he chose one that has at the very least echoes of Jesus’s putative foundation of the catholic church via his buddy Pete the Rock. So, frankly, I think he was comparing himself to Jesus, if in a slightly veiled, coy way.