Toward a New Enlightenment

Philosophy of Paul Kurtz

Paul Kurtz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351294386
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Paul Kurtz has been the dominant voice of secular humanism over the past thirty years. This compilation of his work reveals the scope of his thinking on the basic topics of our time and his many and varied contributions to the cause of free thought. It focuses on the central issues that have concerned Kurtz throughout his career: ethics, politics, education, religion, science, and pseudoscience.

The chapters are linked by a common theme: the need for a new enlightenment, one committed to the use of rationality and skepticism, but also devoted to realizing the highest values of humanist culture. Many writings included here were first published in magazines and journals long unavailable. Some of the essays have never before been published. They now appear as a coherent whole for the first time. Also included is an extensive bibliography of Kurtz's writings. Toward a New Enlightenment is essential for those who know and admire Paul Kurtz's work. It will also be an important resource for students of philosophy, political science, ethics, and religion.

Among the chapters are: "Humanist Ethics: Eating the Forbidden Fruit"; "Relevance of Science to Ethics"; "Democracy without Theology"; "Misuses of Civil Disobedience"; "The Limits of Tolerance"; "Skepticism about the Paranormal: Legitimate and Illegitimate"; "Militant Atheism vs. Freedom of Conscience"; "Promethean Love: Unbound"; "The Case for Euthanasia"; and "The New Inquisition in the Schools."

Part One

Ethics and the Planetary Society

Introduction to Part One

L. Bullough Vern

The source of many of the attacks on humanism by religious adherents of all stripes and persuasions is over the question of ethics. They question whether it is possible to be a good citizen, raise loving children, contribute to society, find life meaningful, and be aware of one’s moral duties without believing in a deity or following conventional religious observances. This is in fact what humanism is all about. Though humanists are certainly nonbelievers in a theistic universe, in other words atheists, humanism to them is a positive belief, not a negative one. Humanism then is something more than atheism, it is essentially an ethical system. It is this aspect of humanism to which Paul Kurtz has made major contributions.

There are at least two approaches to setting ethical standards in our society. The first is to deduce moral rules from God’s commandments found in the various forms of scripture in our society, from the Jewish and Christian scriptures, from the Koran, from the Book of Mormon, from the sayings of Mary Baker Eddy, to those of the Reverend Moon. Religious piety in these precedes moral conscience.

A second approach, which is equally historic, is to base ethical choices on rational foundations. In Paul Kurtz’s terms, one does this by “eating the forbidden fruit,” using human knowledge to develop an ethical system. The sources of such an ethics are many and varied. Some in fact seem to be biological, in that they are transcultural and have their roots in common human needs. Kurtz holds that among these are what he calls the common decencies, that is, common cultural wisdom of how we should relate to one another are so basic that society could not survive if they were consistently flouted. They have been handed down over generations and involve such traits as integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. These are supplemented by what might be called the ethics of personal excellence, which date back to early history and were, according to Aristotle, those virtues that are exemplified in the character of the morally developed persons. Kurtz defines them as autonomy, reason, self-discipline, self-respect, creativity, motivation, affirmative attitude, joyful living, and maintenance of good health.

Situations, however, change, and societies need to face new crises which go beyond the traditional solutions of the past and on which men and women need to create a new kind of ethics. Humanists are usually on the cutting edge of trying to find ethical answers for the new ambiguities and new problems which confront us. What kind of moral guidelines should direct us, and how should we react to these questions? Kurtz here offers some measuring rods by which solutions should be judged.

Humanists often turn to science for answers but they are cautious in this. They do not believe in scientism, that “science can save us,” and doubt that science offers only one answer, since answers often depend both upon the questioner and the time at which he or she asks it. They are well aware of the critique of the postmodernists but hold that science has a method, a process, which encourages what might be called critical thinking, and to be accepted as valid, others have to be able to arrive at the same conclusion, i.e. replicate the findings. This is because science is intrinsically fallible. We cannot make absolute assertions because there are continually new discoveries on the frontiers of knowledge. This means it is self-corrective and we can never hope to know the final or ultimate truth. In this, humanism differs from religion but ultimately religion itself also has had to come to terms with its own inability to know absolute truth. St. Thomas Aquinas, the great thirteenth-century Christian Church Father, believed that he could offer final proofs for the existence of God and the Christian religion by applying the logic and methods of Aristotle to Christian doctrine. The result was a wonderfully logical system of the universe based on a geocentric universe. When scientists challenged this universe, they were met with excommunication because the Church had the truth, and only in the late-twentieth-century pontificate of John Paul II has the Catholic Church finally said that it make a mistake in condemning Galileo. Humanists by nature have to be skeptical of absolutes, and we recognize, as Kurtz emphasizes, that science is a tool which we need to use, even as we recognize its fallibility and our own.

One of the criticisms Humanists have of ethical systems in the various religions is that even though many strive to propose universal ethical principles, they all are also deeply afflicted with what might be called parochialism. Though the best of religious thinkers try to go beyond this, they still are limited by their own theological assumptions. Kurtz argues that humanism has the ability to transcend this and feels it is important that we try to do so. To this end he offers his concept of what a new global ethics should include. Each reader might consider what else should be included or eliminated, since it is only by a dialogue with each other that there is any hope of realizing what Kurtz feels is essential to the building of genuine world community.

1

Humanist Ethics: Eating the Forbidden Fruit

The institutions of the United States have been under sustained attack by religious conservatives who maintain that we are in a serious state of moral decline. They attribute this to the growth of secular humanism, which they believe has corrupted the young and undermined the very fabric of society. The underlying cause of our moral degradation, they insist, is that we have departed from biblical morality: Only by returning to “traditional values” can we be saved from sin and immorality. They blame humanists for the violence, crime, drugs, pornography, and sexual freedom that they claim are signs of the decline of this nation. I surely don’t condone crime, violence, or the irresponsible trafficking of drugs or pornography; yet this, they maintain, is humanism.

There is something tragicomic about such indictments, for it should be abundantly clear by now that professed belief in the Bible is no guarantee of moral virtue. The double standard is all too apparent. Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, for example, railed against sinners even as their own indiscretions remained hidden. Some preach a gospel of love while condemning enemies—foreign and domestic—and insisting upon our being armed to the teeth. Others arouse fear of an impending Armageddon that will destroy the world and pave the way for the rapture of true believers. Unscrupulous faith healers work unsuspecting crowds, promising miraculous healings.

There has been a revival of neo-fundamentalist religious orthodoxy worldwide. Committed believers are all too willing to slaughter one another in the name of God: Moslems and Christians in Lebanon, Shütes and Sunni in Iraq and Iran, Jews and Moslems in Israel, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and Sikhs and Hindus in India. Paradoxically, religious sects often attribute contradictory moral commandments to the will of God. For example, orthodox Jews and Christians extol monogamy; Muslims, quoting the Koran, find polygamy morally exemplary.

Many conservative theists hold that morality requires religious foundations and that one cannot be a responsible person unless one accepts theistic religion as a guide to life. Richard Neuhaus, in his book The Naked Public Square, blames the First Amendment separation doctrine for excluding religion from public life. Many religionists attack the schools, the textbooks, the media, the legal profession, and the universities. They promise to remake America and turn it back to its “religious foundations,” but the so-called golden age of morality is an illusion. In the frontier society of America’s past, violence and bawdiness were rampant, few people were educated, women were denied equality, racism was de rigueur, and there was widespread unemployment and economic insecurity. We have come a long way in some areas of moral development.

The question that is often raised is this: Can one be a good citizen, raise loving children, contribute to society, find life meaningful, and be aware of one’s moral duties, yet not believe in diety or follow conventional religious observances? According to a recent Gallup poll, some ninety million Americans, forty-one percent of the population, do not belong to or participate in a religious organization, church, synagogue, or mosque. Millions of Americans are nominal members of a church, or consider themselves to be secularists, humanists, agnostics, skeptics, or atheists. Yet most cherish high ethical ideals and values. They demonstrate by their deeds that there are alternative paths to morality and that the lack of traditional religious faith does not mean that a person is immoral or misguided. It is surely not true that the only saints are within the churches and the only sinners without.

The Trees of Knowledge and Life

There are at least two approaches to morality in our society. The first, religious morality, attempts to deduce moral rules from God’s commandments as found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or the sayings of Mary Baker Eddy or the Reverend Moon. Here the chief duty is obedience to commandments that are usually taken as absolutes. Religious piety precedes moral conscience.

In the Old Testament, Jehovah forbids Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They disobey him and are expelled from the Garden of Eden. Jehovah expresses his displeasure and his fear that they might next be tempted to eat the forbidden fruit of another tree in the garden, the Tree of Life.

There is a second historic tradition, however, whose primary imperative is to base ethical choices precisely on eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. This tradition begins with the philosophers of Greece and Rome—Socrates, Aristotle, Hypatia, Epicurus, and Epictetus—and the Chinese sage Confucius. It was expressed during the Renaissance by Erasmus, Spinoza, and others, and many philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, seek to develop ethics based on rational foundations. Even the founders of the American republic—James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine—were deists and humanists, showing confidence in the power of reason to ameliorate the human condition. Robert Ingersoll, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, A. H. Maslow, Margaret Sanger, Carl Sagan, Sidney Hook, Isaac Asimov, and others express humanist values.

This deep cultural stream of civilization runs side by side with Judaic-Christian-Muslim tradition. It cannot be dismissed as its critics are wont to do, or labeled as “immoral.” The ethics of humanism is an authentic approach to moral principles and ethical values, and far from corrupting men and women, it has contributed immeasurably to human culture. It is a great disservice to our democratic society that secular humanism has been unfairly attacked as lacking ethics. On the contrary, if it is anything, humanism is the expression of an authentic ethical philosophy—one that is especially relevant to the present world.

The Common Moral Decencies

The question is constantly asked: How can one be moral and not believe in God? What are the foundations on which the ethics of humanism rest? Let me outline some of the main features of the ethics of humanism.

First, there is a set of what I call the “common moral decencies,” which are shared by both theists and nontheists alike and are the bedrock of moral conduct. Indeed, they are transcultural in their range and have their roots in common human needs. They grow out of the evolutionary struggle for survival and may even have some sociobiological basis, though they may be lacking in some individuals or societies since their emergence depends upon certain preconditions of moral and social development.

Nevertheless, the common moral decencies are so basic to the survival of any human community that meaningful coexistence cannot occur if they are consistently flouted. They are handed down through the generations and are recognized throughout the world by friends and lovers, colleagues and coworkers, strangers and aliens alike as basic rules of social intercourse. They are the foundation of moral education and should be taught in the schools. They express the elementary virtues of courtesy, politeness, and empathy so essential for living together; indeed, they are the very basis of civilized life itself.

First are the decencies that involve personal integrity, that is telling the truth, not lying or being deceitful; being sincere, candid, frank, and free of hypocrisy; keeping one’s promises, honoring pledges, living up to agreements; being honest, avoiding fraud or skulduggery.

Second is trustworthiness. We should be loyal to our lovers, friends, relatives, and co-workers, and we should be dependable, reliable, and responsible.

Third are the decencies of benevolence, which involve manifesting good will and noble intentions toward other human beings and having a positive concern for them. It means the lack of malice (nonmalfeasance), avoiding doing harm to other persons or their property: We should not kill or rob; inflict physical violence or injury; or be cruel, abusive, or vengeful. In the sexual domain it means that we should not force our sexual passions on others and should seek mutual consent between adults. It means that we have an obligation to the beneficent; that is, kind, sympathetic, compassionate. We should lend a helping hand to those in distress and try to decrease their pain and suffering and contribute positively to their welfare. Jesus perhaps best exemplifies the principles of benevolence.

Fourth is the principle of fairness. We should show gratitude and appreciation for those who are deserving of it. A civilized community will hold people accountable for their deeds, insisting that those who wrong others do not go completely unpunished and perhaps must make reparations to the aggrieved; thus, this also involves the principle of justice and equality in society. Tolerance is also a basic moral decency: We should allow other individuals the right to their beliefs, values, and styles of life, even though they may differ from our own. We may not agree with them, but each individual is entitled to his convictions as long as he does not harm others or prevent them from exercising their rights. We should try to cooperate with others, seeking to negotiate differences peacefully without resorting to hatred or violence.These common moral decencies express prima facie general principles and rules. Though individuals or nations may deviate from practicing them, they nonetheless provide general parameters by which to guide our conduct. They are not absolute and may conflict; we may have to establish priorities between them. They need not be divinely ordained to have moral force, but are tested by their consequences in practice. Morally developed human beings accept these principles and attempt to live by them because they understand that some personal moral sacrifices may be necessary to avoid conflict in living and working together. Practical moral wisdom thus recognizes the obligatory nature of responsible conduct.

In the Old Testament Abraham’s faith is tested when God commands him to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, whom he dearly loves. Abraham is fully prepared to obey, but at the last moment God stays his hand. Is it wrong for a father to kill his son? A developed moral conscience understands that it is. But is it wrong simply because Jehovah declares it to be wrong? No. I submit that there is an autonomous moral conscience that develops in human experience, grows out of our nature as social beings, and comprehends that murder is wrong, whether or not God declares it to be wrong. We should be highly suspicious of the moral development of one who believes that murder is wrong only because God says so. Indeed, I believe that we attributed this moral decree to God simply because we apprehended it to be wrong.

Today a great debate rages over whether moral education should be taught in the schools; many are violently opposed to it. But we do have a treasure of moral wisdom that we should seek to impart to the young and that all too often is not actively taught in the home. We need to cultivate moral intelligence, a capacity for rational thinking about our values. This is where the debate intensifies because some of the critics of humanism are opposed to any reflective questioning of values.

Ethical Excellences

The common moral decencies refer to how we relate to others. But there are a number of values that we should strive toward in our personal lives, and I submit that we also need to impart to the young an appreciation for what I call the ethical excellences. I believe that there are standards of ethical development, exquisite qualities of high merit and achievement. Indeed, in some individuals nobility shines through; there are, according to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, certain virtues or excellences that morally developed persons exemplify. These states of character are based upon the golden mean and provide some balance in life. I think that these classical excellences or virtues need to be updated for the present age. What are they?

First, the excellence of autonomy, or what Ralph Waldo Emerson called self-reliance. By that I mean a person’s ability to take control of his or her own life, to accept responsibility for his own feelings, his marriage or career, how he lives and learns, the values and goods he cherishes. Such a person is self-directed and self-governing. His autonomy is an affir...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Introduction: Toward a New Enlightenment
• Part One Ethics and the Planetary Society
• Part Two Democratic Ideas, Pluralism
• Part Three Skepticism: Science and Antiscience
• Part Four Atheism, Humanism, and Religion
• Part Five Paul Kurtz in Person and in Action
• Part Six On the Barricades
• Selected List of Publications by Paul Kurtz
• Index