We live in times when the fundamental humanity of us all is assaulted by the forces of hate, small-mindedness, and flagrant self-interest. We need to reclaim what is most precious in us.
Joe, I will treasure this. However, I do have a critique of the Humanist Manifesto. It says in essence that the universe arose from nothingness. How did the authors know that? How can a universe that approaches the complexity of infinity just pop-up out of non--existence. If Humanists respect the scientific process, why are they not open to what some astrophysicists are saying, They are confident that they are closer to discovering how it all began. You are dead right that the world needs major doses of mutual respect, compassion, and adherence to an ethical code. And what about the quest for unity, and can Humanism reach those who are leaving organized religion. I believe that promoting a sense of awe of the night sky is community building. Many of the world's people no longer see the night sky. If the world community can be mobilized to bring the majestic star studded majical dome back into view, a sense of shared awe, may help us see one another as the brothers and sisters that we are.
Abe, I much appreciate your reflections. I know you have been working for a long time, and have put much thought into, speculations about cosmic origins. If the Manifesto were written today its authors would be well served to consult the research of contemporary cosmologists.
I have a hunch that when asserting that the universe is "self-existing," thus negating the notion of a point or act of creation, they were basing their assertion on Spinoza. For the latter God is Nature, Nature God. It was Spinoza's logical predication that God - or Nature is infinite in all dimensions, including space and time. If so, there can be no point of creation. It always was, is, and will be. And since there can be nothing outside of Nature it is self-sustaining and self-existent.
I agree with you about the unifying potential of awe. As a lover of astronomy since my childhood, I lament the reality that most children will never behold the night-time sky. Light pollution has ensured that there are very places in this country where one can see the marvels of the night-time sky that moved me to awe as a child.
Who am I to argue with Spinoza, but how did he know that Nature is infinite in all directions? I not only appeal to our sense of awe, but to the joy of following the pursuers of the mystery of existence.
On Spinoza: It is sometimes said of Spinoza that he was "the last of the medievals and the first of the moderns." Spinoza employs the rational logic of medieval scholastic philosophers to draw radically modern conclusions. Christian metaphysics is premised on the foundation of two primary substances - matter and thought. Spinoza logically argued that this dualism was a contradiction. If there are two, each would be limited by the other, but their existence necessitated that they be unbounded. Only a single substance - again unbounded, ie, infinite, would fit this conclusion required by logic. That substance is God, which Spinoza identified with Nature, assuredly a heresy, two hundred years ahead of its time.
I am not sure Dewey believed that all that all that is unknown will one day be known. I think he affirmed that the human condition is existentially constituted so that we will always be confronted with problems to be resolved and overcome - only to be find that we confront new problems. The foundations of Spinoza's philosophy and Dewey's are very different. Spinoza was a supreme rationalistic, who held that reality, God or Nature, was deterministically structured. It is has an absolute foundation that could be revealed through the correct use of reason. Dewey eschewed absolutes. As a naturalist, he believed nature was in continuous flux. The use of collective intelligence could deduce insight into nature so that we could make more productive and practical use of it. For Dewey, there are no final truths as they were for Spinoza.
I believe that the very search for the origin of the universe, and multiverse, without preconceived formulations, will one day capture the imagination of the human species. As quantum conundrums are unmasked and flashed across the Night Sky our sense of unity will strengthen and we will become increasingly motivated to find ways to sustain life on our "Blue Dot." Although this might sound like pie in the sky, my new writing, in process, includes proposed ways and means.
Yes, Ken, and it is time to describe Trump for what he is --- a wannabe Fascist who was frustrated because he did not have Generals like those who obeyed Hitler.
I have enjoyed reading your essay. Every word resonates with me. As a lapsed Unitarian unhappy with their current reincarnation (narrow-minded, puritan, punitive of dissent) I appreciate your pointing out the role Unitarian thinkers have played in coming up with a “humanist manifesto”.
Thank you for delving into the history of humanism and its values which culminated in a revolt against the strictures of religion and feudalism in Europe, the US and elsewhere. Humanist values are indeed universal.
I think we are about the same age. I was a student of French, English and German literature, first at Heidelberg and then Columbia. I remember attending a seminar in my second year on John Donne (whose relevance I only dimly grasped since my English was less than adequate). But what I remember best is that he grappled with the split in the realm of knowledge into “scientia” and “sapientia”. Those of us in the Humanities curriculum felt a bit superior to the mere “bean counters” and “cold rationalists” in the hard sciences. In fact, we were wrong. We need each other and we can learn from each other. E.O. Wilson’s book “Consilience” comes to mind. What Maureen Dowd reports as a trend in her recent column is sad and tragic and does not bode well for us as a society.
Thank you, Elizabeth. This is a lovely and important statement. I am not a Unitarian, and all I know about the current movement is second-hand and anecdotal, and therefore I need to be humble and tentative. It seems to me that Unitarianism has gone through several reincarnations since the late eighteenth century. Originally it was the left wing of Calvinism. This is the Unitarianism against which Emerson rebelled. He found it priggish, too doctrinal, not credible in its supernaturalism, and he referred to it as "corpse cold." The Unitarianism of his day was centered around Boston. It was the faith of Boston Brahmans.
As noted, in the early twentieth century, some churches in the mid-West (not Boston, the headquarters) identified with humanism. This, I think, became a mainstay of the movement. In the `70s Unitarians discovered "spirituality." Some became New Age, they also became committed to diversity, and promoted individual belief within their churches. It seems that the Unitarian movement then began to internally diversify. Some began to re-Christianize, others retained a New Age, spiritual, diversity of belief sensibility. Some remained humanist, or retained humanists within their ranks who were usually older members. Some such have complained to me that they had become increasingly alienated.
It seems to me that Unitarianism has appropriated a sensibility of social trendiness. Unfortunately, I have heard from some that this includes nowadays a type of left wokeness, leading to the kinds of attitudes and conduct you reference. I find this very troubling. You might want to look at my previous Substack newsletter, a review of the book "Left Is Not Woke," by philosopher, Susan Neiman. She expresses these concerns much better than I can.
I certainly agree with you on the demise of the humanities and liberal arts. At a college I once taught, students can no longer major in philosophy, anthropology - and English! I see you have a background in languages. I majored in college in ancient Greek and Latin, and I don't regret it for a moment. One has to ask, if students are no longer so educated, what is education for? What type of citizenry and nation will we be? Increasingly dominated by the juggernaut of corporate capitalism, education is quickly becoming a machine to turn out cogs to feed the interests of the owners and overlords who direct our lives and mold our aspirations. Universities used to be a type of counter-culture. But no longer.
You are right we need both science and the humanities in a proper balance.
Humanism is a belief system to respect fellow beings. Their rights and freedom should be respected. Humanism is a service to humanity. "Seva"in Sanskrit means Service to others.
We find joy and happiness when we are able and willing to serve others. This Seva is based on humility and equality.
Dear Mr. Chapman your writing is well thought eloquent as well as we can easily relate to our social and political issues.
Thank you Sir for sharing your knowledge and thoughts. It enriches us🙏
I've shared this elegant essay with the board members of our local humanist group, and also with the minister at our local UU church. We intermingle members; I hope your article will provoke some thoughtful conversation somewhere.
In North Carolina for 10 years now, I still miss NYSEC and your lectures there.
Thanks, Jean. Humanism in the deepest and most sublime sense resides in the heart and how we appreciate the humanity in others. Beyond that perception, it is at its fullest when it inspires us to conduct in fashioning a world that will enable the humanity of others and ourselves to flourish.
Joe, I will treasure this. However, I do have a critique of the Humanist Manifesto. It says in essence that the universe arose from nothingness. How did the authors know that? How can a universe that approaches the complexity of infinity just pop-up out of non--existence. If Humanists respect the scientific process, why are they not open to what some astrophysicists are saying, They are confident that they are closer to discovering how it all began. You are dead right that the world needs major doses of mutual respect, compassion, and adherence to an ethical code. And what about the quest for unity, and can Humanism reach those who are leaving organized religion. I believe that promoting a sense of awe of the night sky is community building. Many of the world's people no longer see the night sky. If the world community can be mobilized to bring the majestic star studded majical dome back into view, a sense of shared awe, may help us see one another as the brothers and sisters that we are.
Abe, I much appreciate your reflections. I know you have been working for a long time, and have put much thought into, speculations about cosmic origins. If the Manifesto were written today its authors would be well served to consult the research of contemporary cosmologists.
I have a hunch that when asserting that the universe is "self-existing," thus negating the notion of a point or act of creation, they were basing their assertion on Spinoza. For the latter God is Nature, Nature God. It was Spinoza's logical predication that God - or Nature is infinite in all dimensions, including space and time. If so, there can be no point of creation. It always was, is, and will be. And since there can be nothing outside of Nature it is self-sustaining and self-existent.
I agree with you about the unifying potential of awe. As a lover of astronomy since my childhood, I lament the reality that most children will never behold the night-time sky. Light pollution has ensured that there are very places in this country where one can see the marvels of the night-time sky that moved me to awe as a child.
Who am I to argue with Spinoza, but how did he know that Nature is infinite in all directions? I not only appeal to our sense of awe, but to the joy of following the pursuers of the mystery of existence.
On Spinoza: It is sometimes said of Spinoza that he was "the last of the medievals and the first of the moderns." Spinoza employs the rational logic of medieval scholastic philosophers to draw radically modern conclusions. Christian metaphysics is premised on the foundation of two primary substances - matter and thought. Spinoza logically argued that this dualism was a contradiction. If there are two, each would be limited by the other, but their existence necessitated that they be unbounded. Only a single substance - again unbounded, ie, infinite, would fit this conclusion required by logic. That substance is God, which Spinoza identified with Nature, assuredly a heresy, two hundred years ahead of its time.
Joe, your explanations are compelling. However, what about John Dewey's position that with science we will learn everything?
I am not sure Dewey believed that all that all that is unknown will one day be known. I think he affirmed that the human condition is existentially constituted so that we will always be confronted with problems to be resolved and overcome - only to be find that we confront new problems. The foundations of Spinoza's philosophy and Dewey's are very different. Spinoza was a supreme rationalistic, who held that reality, God or Nature, was deterministically structured. It is has an absolute foundation that could be revealed through the correct use of reason. Dewey eschewed absolutes. As a naturalist, he believed nature was in continuous flux. The use of collective intelligence could deduce insight into nature so that we could make more productive and practical use of it. For Dewey, there are no final truths as they were for Spinoza.
I believe that the very search for the origin of the universe, and multiverse, without preconceived formulations, will one day capture the imagination of the human species. As quantum conundrums are unmasked and flashed across the Night Sky our sense of unity will strengthen and we will become increasingly motivated to find ways to sustain life on our "Blue Dot." Although this might sound like pie in the sky, my new writing, in process, includes proposed ways and means.
We must revive the spirit of truth and compassion in our society broken by crass
material concerns see Murdock for instance spreading lies and crude across the media and backing all the lies of Trump
How true! How unspeakably awful!
Yes, Ken, and it is time to describe Trump for what he is --- a wannabe Fascist who was frustrated because he did not have Generals like those who obeyed Hitler.
I have enjoyed reading your essay. Every word resonates with me. As a lapsed Unitarian unhappy with their current reincarnation (narrow-minded, puritan, punitive of dissent) I appreciate your pointing out the role Unitarian thinkers have played in coming up with a “humanist manifesto”.
Thank you for delving into the history of humanism and its values which culminated in a revolt against the strictures of religion and feudalism in Europe, the US and elsewhere. Humanist values are indeed universal.
I think we are about the same age. I was a student of French, English and German literature, first at Heidelberg and then Columbia. I remember attending a seminar in my second year on John Donne (whose relevance I only dimly grasped since my English was less than adequate). But what I remember best is that he grappled with the split in the realm of knowledge into “scientia” and “sapientia”. Those of us in the Humanities curriculum felt a bit superior to the mere “bean counters” and “cold rationalists” in the hard sciences. In fact, we were wrong. We need each other and we can learn from each other. E.O. Wilson’s book “Consilience” comes to mind. What Maureen Dowd reports as a trend in her recent column is sad and tragic and does not bode well for us as a society.
Thank you, Elizabeth. This is a lovely and important statement. I am not a Unitarian, and all I know about the current movement is second-hand and anecdotal, and therefore I need to be humble and tentative. It seems to me that Unitarianism has gone through several reincarnations since the late eighteenth century. Originally it was the left wing of Calvinism. This is the Unitarianism against which Emerson rebelled. He found it priggish, too doctrinal, not credible in its supernaturalism, and he referred to it as "corpse cold." The Unitarianism of his day was centered around Boston. It was the faith of Boston Brahmans.
As noted, in the early twentieth century, some churches in the mid-West (not Boston, the headquarters) identified with humanism. This, I think, became a mainstay of the movement. In the `70s Unitarians discovered "spirituality." Some became New Age, they also became committed to diversity, and promoted individual belief within their churches. It seems that the Unitarian movement then began to internally diversify. Some began to re-Christianize, others retained a New Age, spiritual, diversity of belief sensibility. Some remained humanist, or retained humanists within their ranks who were usually older members. Some such have complained to me that they had become increasingly alienated.
It seems to me that Unitarianism has appropriated a sensibility of social trendiness. Unfortunately, I have heard from some that this includes nowadays a type of left wokeness, leading to the kinds of attitudes and conduct you reference. I find this very troubling. You might want to look at my previous Substack newsletter, a review of the book "Left Is Not Woke," by philosopher, Susan Neiman. She expresses these concerns much better than I can.
I certainly agree with you on the demise of the humanities and liberal arts. At a college I once taught, students can no longer major in philosophy, anthropology - and English! I see you have a background in languages. I majored in college in ancient Greek and Latin, and I don't regret it for a moment. One has to ask, if students are no longer so educated, what is education for? What type of citizenry and nation will we be? Increasingly dominated by the juggernaut of corporate capitalism, education is quickly becoming a machine to turn out cogs to feed the interests of the owners and overlords who direct our lives and mold our aspirations. Universities used to be a type of counter-culture. But no longer.
You are right we need both science and the humanities in a proper balance.
Thanks, again, for interest and thoughtfulness.
Humanism is a belief system to respect fellow beings. Their rights and freedom should be respected. Humanism is a service to humanity. "Seva"in Sanskrit means Service to others.
We find joy and happiness when we are able and willing to serve others. This Seva is based on humility and equality.
Dear Mr. Chapman your writing is well thought eloquent as well as we can easily relate to our social and political issues.
Thank you Sir for sharing your knowledge and thoughts. It enriches us🙏
happiness.
I've shared this elegant essay with the board members of our local humanist group, and also with the minister at our local UU church. We intermingle members; I hope your article will provoke some thoughtful conversation somewhere.
In North Carolina for 10 years now, I still miss NYSEC and your lectures there.
Many thanks, Jamie. I am grateful for your interest.
You make a scholarly case for moving beyond old definitions of humanism towards a new one emphasizing empathy and kindness.
Thanks, Jean. Humanism in the deepest and most sublime sense resides in the heart and how we appreciate the humanity in others. Beyond that perception, it is at its fullest when it inspires us to conduct in fashioning a world that will enable the humanity of others and ourselves to flourish.