Humanism

March 9, 2018

Roy Speckhardt
Executive Director
American Humanist Association
1821 Jefferson Place NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Speckhardt:

Thank you for your invitation to become a member in the American Humanist Association. It sounds like a group of conscientious individuals interested in freedom, the applications of reason and science, and in social justice. Good things, all. Before I commit to membership, I wonder if you might answer some questions I have about statements found in your invitation/description pamphlet. My questions will focus on your quotes from eminent humanists.

“The betterment of the people around me…is what makes me a humanist.” – Adam Savage, 2017 Humanist of the Year.

I was a little puzzled by this statement; I wondered why you included it. Mr. Savage seems to have a high opinion of himself, imagining that he will enhance the lives of others by his very presence. Perhaps if he had said something like, “There’s something wonderful in all humans and I’m amazed at the many ways I’ve seen people help and better one another,” he might have seemed a more appealing representative of humanism.

This leads to my first question which is, essentially: How do you define “humanist”? You suggest a benevolent perspective by saying, “Humanists affirm the dignity of every human being.” But are all humanists benevolent? Adolf Hitler considered humans to be the arbiters of good behavior. His view was narrower, of course, in that he believed the Aryans race was a higher sort of human than the rest. The rest of the world had some doubts. Josef Stalin was deeply concerned for the human race, as well, and held a deep conviction that resources should be shared equally, no matter how many millions might have to die in order to establish this equality. Charles Darwin was another who venerated the human race. Perhaps it is not his fault that social Darwinism spawned from his scientific speculations. But this “logical” bastard argues that, since biological history is about the survival of the fittest, the moral imperative is to care for the fittest while discarding the unfit. The exploitation of the weak, as well as the disposal of the weak continue today, in some cases reliant on this perspective.
These three are examples of disastrous ideologies built on humanist foundations. As your Association puts it, “…humanity is responsible for its own destiny, having within itself all that is needed to improve the conditions of life.” There doesn’t seem to be much acknowledgement or awareness of the fact that humanism is capable of terrible errors.

“When we speak of equality, of women and men, of Blacks and Whites, of all the world’s people, we are talking about humanism.” – Gloria Steinem, Founder of Ms. Magazine and 2012 Humanist of the Year.

Neither Ms. Steinem nor, I’m guessing, the Association, since it supports the “freedom of women to control their reproductive futures”, seem to consider the Unborn part of the human race. Since the science that you espouse makes it clear that the fertilized human egg contains all of the biological information and structure needed to form a mature human, how is it that this large segment of society is not afforded the human dignity and rights that you vigorously promote? [“The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.” – American College of Pediatricians]

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist and 2009 AHA Isaac Asimov Science Award Winner.

Here’s a surprise—a scientist with inflated notions about scientific authority. Science is fundamentally about the continuing study of the physical world. Scientific research supplies new “facts” and hypotheses every day. Much of today’s science contradicts the science of 100 years ago…or 10 months ago. Scientists will happily proclaim their new dramatic discoveries while proclaiming from the other sides of their mouths that science is fundamentally about facts. The fact is, there are no scientific facts—there are only scientific hypotheses which have been tested either a little or a lot.

I do not mean to belittle science. It is a crucial tool for human survival, with potential for doing great good. But science is not authoritative—it is ever changing. More problematic for a humanist, I would think, is to derive any sort of moral guidance from scientific discoveries. Science has no “oughts”, even if many scientific articles are filled with them. Scientists hypothesize that the history of living creatures is environmental adaptation, and then infer that survival is a moral imperative. Setting the hypothesis aside, the inference of moral imperative is irrational. Maybe it would have been “better” for the planet if it had no living organisms. Once science defines itself, it has the right to identify good science or bad science, but it lacks any tools for determining “better” in any other context. The assignment of value is no longer science. So when you say that humanism is guided by science, what can you mean?

“Why is humanism not the preeminent belief of humankind?” – Joyce Carol Oates, author and 2007 Humanist of the Year.

I can see how humanism is more attractive than some of the beliefs floating about the planet. Some of them seem contrived, fantastic, and disjointed. Some seem so awful that death seems a more honorable option, but humanism has its own profound weaknesses.

As a general philosophy established on the reasoning powers of humans, what do you do with the fact that humans reason to a broad range of conclusions? It’s one thing to proclaim that humans can reason to grand conclusions, but if reasoning leads to a hundred thousand conclusions, in what sense can this reasoning be grand?

Please explain the claim of allegiance to science. If the Association is saying that science is considered a good tool for addressing problems of the physical world, well, okay. Do you think other groups say otherwise? If the Association is saying science guides morality, please explain how this is possible.

The Association claims to stand for the dignity of all people but it seems to have excluded the unborn from the definition of human. Please explain why this is the case…and why this is not a great crime against humanity.

The Association has emphasized its commitment to reason, and I applaud it for this. But, again, I think you would be hard pressed to find individuals or groups who say, “I stand firmly for unreasonable thought.” So, big deal; you believe in reason. One can start with an asinine premise and reason perfectly to an asinine conclusion. Reason is useless unless it starts its argument with a foot on hard truth. What is the foundation of your reason?

I’m also a bit surprised by the Association’s contention that humans are fundamentally good and have the ability/inclination to reach reasonable conclusions, and to act accordingly. Such a view doesn’t seem particularly reasonable. Little doubt, you object to my characterizations of Hitler and Stalin as humanists. If this is so, please explain the basis on which they are excluded from the humanist camp.

More broadly, if humans are good, why is racism so intractable? Why does the world have nuclear weapons, and in spite of efforts to contain them, why are the sources of these weapons growing, and why are the delivery systems becoming more sophisticated? Why has the American political system been overrun with lobbyists, who have effectively removed the American voter from political impact? Why does America have 300 million guns and kill over 30,000 people per year with those guns? Why is the internet, a wonderful tool, used so prevalently for gossip and escapism? Why is the system overrun with scams and plagued by viruses? Why is it that the internet is now a crucial military tool? Why is opioid addiction so prevalent in the U.S., and why is it that the sources of this addiction are not only the illegal drug trade but the careless administration of prescription drugs by American doctors? Why are GMOs being allowed to threaten world grain stability? Why is world wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, while the number of people struggling to make ends meet increases? Why do Humanists, who put their faith in humans, and who organize into Associations, imagine that they have the right to political lobbying, while opposing that right to other associations (particularly churches)? I could write until next Thursday about prevalent harmful human behaviors, but I think you get the gist of my question.

I’m sure you are a very busy man but I would appreciate answers to my questions, even if you must delegate the job. In fact, as long as your response is not a profanity-laced diatribe, I promise I will post it in my blog, along with this letter. I do thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Easton Omither
Easton Omither