Practicing Humanism (by Kendyl Gibbons)

[Alex]

Practicing Humanism
BY KENDYL GIBBONS, SENIOR MINISTER,THE FIRST UNITARIAN SOCIETY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
Quest, March 2010
http://clf.uua.org/quest/2010/03/gibbons.html

...At the most basic level, believers of all kinds want the same things. We want to be good people, to live satisfying lives, and to escape as much pain as possible and postpone death for as long as possible.  ...What we don’t have is a consensus about how to get those things...

So how are we to choose among them? How do you know? How do you know that compassion and honesty are the way to be a good person? How do you know that reason, creativity, effort and generosity will make for a satisfying life? How do you know that some combination of science, dignity and eventual acceptance is the most effective response to pain and death? I would say that I know these answers from my observation of my own and others’ experience. ...

The other way in which we might seek to answer the question of how to fulfill the basic wants of human life comes down to something like, “Read the manufacturer’s directions,” or “Figure out who’s in charge, and ask them.” ...But this is the method to which the Humanist says no when we affirm the sufficiency of human experience. We are saying that for us, all the questions of human living, large and small, must be answered on the basis of human knowledge, human reason, and human experience. ...

...there are several types of evidence that we accept as criteria for knowing something, for recognizing something as wisdom. The practice of humanism requires an ability to recognize and distinguish among them. There is, of course, our direct sense experience, but if that were all we trusted, then the whole resource of others’ wisdom would be closed to us. There is much that we are content to believe because it is in accordance with reason. I have never died, but I accept the logic that says I surely will. I accept many accounts of the experiences of others—that divorce is painful, that parenthood is both rewarding and draining, that war is hell...

...We all have emotional, moral, aesthetic and spiritual convictions that are not arguable in the formal sense. To be a humanist is to acknowledge that such beliefs are altogether human; that they, too, are the products of perception and experience, and that we must take responsibility for them. For we cannot just believe whatever we want. Rather, we have undertaken the religious discipline of believing what the evidence indicates is true. If I had my preference, I would like to believe that absolutely everybody loves me. I am fortunate to have some evidence that a few people do. ...

...another sort of “evidence” that must also be considered. I think when we say that we know that it is wrong to steal, or to be cruel, and that we know it is good to be gentle, or cheerful, or generous, we are not only talking about the cumulative human experience of the past, we are also talking about the sort of world and the quality of community that we hope to create, and the kind of people we want to be in the future. Vision and aspiration are integral parts of the human experience on which we base our convictions. It does not require the promise of the creator of all that is to assure us that the future might be different from the past, that human creativity and skill and the gathered knowledge of the generations might work together for increasing good. To expect either a utopia of perfect goodness and happiness, or of everlasting life, doesn’t seem to me to fit with what we already know of mortality and fallibility. ...

[Alex]

I suggested to Dr Gibbons to replace:

"But this ["read the manufacturer's directions"] is the method to which the Humanist says no when we affirm the sufficiency of human experience."

by the less assertive and hence philosophically more robust:

"But this is the method to which the Humanist says no when we admit that it is still a big unanswered question whether "the manufacturer" exist at all, and hence what left behind is human experience, which is all we have."


Dr Gibbons answers:

I think you have hit on the very point where for me, religious humanism and secular humanism diverge.  As a religious humanist, I am willing to describe myself as a religious person, and one who has faith -- not faith in the improbable supernatural, but faith that in fact human experience is sufficient to answer our most essential questions and enable us to live as meaningfully as possible given our contingent nature.  As far as I can see, both solipsism and nihilism -- and determinism for that matter -- are philosophically irrefutable, but unproductive and uninteresting as life stances.  I am more concerned with producing robust human beings than robust philosophy per se.

I am also technically an agnostic; I don't care enough about the possible existence of gods to spend any time attempting to prove or disprove them. Were I to be persuaded that they somehow exist, that does not in itself mean that I would attribute to them any authority over my life.  Thus, whether or not the "manufacturer" could be consulted, the responsibility for wise and fruitful choices remains with us, individually and collectively.


I answered:

I see the point.  Even if God existed and could be consulted, rather than consulting Her, it is our own responsibility to make responsible decisions and choices by ourselves.