linuxmafia.com 2013/2013.06.linuxmafia.com/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/humanist.txt

Microsoft Windows Help File Content | 1996-02-20 | 18KB | 312 lines

:Date:   20 Dec 90  08:14:26 PST
:From:   [e-mail] (The Skeptic's Board BBS)
:To:     [e-mail]
:Subj:   Skeptics and Humanists
------------------------------------------------
The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things:  Of
ships, and shoes, and sealing wax, of skeptics and humanists.
Some history is in order:  The skeptics' movement, as an
organised affair, started abruptly, between the covers of _The
Humanist_, a magazine published by the American Humanist
Association to promote that philosophy.  The movement's genesis
was an article (or perhaps manifesto) in the 9/75 issue called
"Objections to Astrology:  A Statement by 186 [later 192] Leading
Scientists".
Reactions pro and con were _so strong_ that a number of the
article's backers, including James Randi, Martin Gardner, Paul
Kurtz, and Ray Hyman, decided in May 1976 to form a committee to
critically examine fringe-science claims.  This was (and is)
CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Claims of
the Paranormal, run from Buffalo, NY, by its chairman, SUNY
Buffalo professor of philosophy Paul Kurtz, on a tight budget but
with a dedicated professional staff.  CSICOP began to accumulate
as Fellows and consultants an impressive array of magicians,
scientists, and academics, apparently quite diverse as to
philosophical and religious inclinations.  It has published a
quarterly journal, _The Skeptical Inquirer_, since 1976.
At nearly the same time, some sort of parting of the ways
transpired at the AHA.  Kurtz, who was then _The Humanist's_
editor, left the AHA and founded a similar organisation, CODESH,
the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism.  (Lest the jest
be lost on most people, "codesh" means "holy" in Hebrew.)  It's
the group that puts out _Free Inquiry_ magazine.
CODESH was and is run out of the _same_ small building on Bailey
Avenue as CSICOP, but its affairs were kept separate.  (Note the
word "were" -- more on this later.)  There are also a number of
related enterprises, such as the Academy of Humanism, Prometheus
Books, the Biblical Criticism Research Project, and the Committee
for the Scientific Examination of Religion (the group that
exposed "faith-healers" Peter Popoff, W.V. Grant, etc.)
The substantive difference between the AHA and CODESH is subtle.
Even having read both journals for many years, and supported both
groups, I find it difficult to nail down.  Both seek to advance
systems of ethics not rooted in mysticism, but differ in emphasis
and tone.  Neither group seems to ever refer to the other.
One difference can be seen in the names of their locally-based
offshoots.  The AHA-inspired local groups all seem to be called
"Humanist Community of [location]", while CODESH-type groups are
called "Secular Humanists of [location]".  CODESH also seem to be
associated (if I remember correctly) with the "Secular
Organizations for Sobriety", which run AA-type programs devoid of
AA's generic deity, the "Higher Power".  Both outfits are
_effectively_ quite secular, but the CODESH-type groups make a
special point of it.
There is also the curious matter of the AHA's tax-exempt
non-profit status.  It's registered as exempt under U.S. Internal
Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), as a _religious_ organisation,
which has caused some dissention among AHA supporters.  This is
_particularly_ odd since the same Code section also covers
cultural, scientific, and educational groups, any one of which
categories might equally apply, instead.
Back to the skeptics:  About a year ago, the folks in Buffalo
unveiled a venture called "The Voice of Inquiry", a series of
radio and television programmes mixing skeptics' and humanists'
topics.  Thus, we get "African-Americans and Humanism"
chockablock with "Spontaneous Human Combustion".  "Euthanasia"
rubs shoulders with "Out-of-Body Experiences", and "Can Reason
Alone Make Us Moral?" with "Why Astrology Won't Go Away", all on
tapes available from something called the "Center for Inquiry",
which appears to be a new umbrella group for CSICOP and CODESH.
More recently, we've heard that, according to glossy mailings and
appeals for donations in _Skeptical Inquirer_ and _Free Inquiry_,
a new, two-million-dollar "Center for Inquiry" _facility_ is
being built.  CODESH and CSICOP are to be incorporated into this
Center, which will also house a "Center for Inquiry Institute"
(to run seminars, workshops, etc.).
Now, both the humanist and skeptics' movements strike me,
personally, as extremely valuable causes.  I support both,
strongly.  However, this blithe mixing of the two tends to create
problems.
Part of the strength of the skeptics' movement lies in its broad
appeal:  Critical examination of fringe-science claims requires
no creed, no investment in any ideology, just the curiosity to
look into extraordinary claims.  Thus, my group, Bay Area
Skeptics, can include parapsychologists, Protestant
fundamentalists, Catholic nuns, Wiccans, and militant atheists,
and _all_ can feel equally welcome.  For this reason (among
others), we've carefully stayed away from philosophical, ethical,
and religious-belief claims, to avoid alienating our natural
allies for no good reason.
If this point is unclear, consider an analogy:  I'm also a
feminist and an environmentalist.  Now, I'd _like_ to see my
fellow NOW members arrive at meetings by bicycle, and my fellow
Greenpeace supporters lobby for "comparable worth".  However, I
don't want to _drive male chauvinists away_ from Greenpeace, or
gas-guzzlers away from NOW.  The fact that both these causes aim
to improve our condition does not mean that _combining them_ is
wise.  The fact that humanism and skepticism both involve
"inquiry" and "critical thinking" does not make their combination
a good idea, either.
Further, one of the traditional ad hominem appeals against the
skeptics' movement has always been that its inquiry is
(allegedly) not objective, but has a hidden ideological agenda,
variously called "scientific realism", "fundamentalist
materialism", and the like.  I've been at some pains, over the
years, to refute this mud-slinging charge, by pointing out the
tremendous variety of viewpoints in skeptics' journals, and their
_lack_ of endorsement of particular ideologies.  I always invite
our critics to submit articles for our newsletter and to speak at
our monthly public meetings (which almost invariably disarms the
criticism and makes for us a friend).  Now, when confronted with
the "Center for Inquiry" as contrary evidence, I find myself
tempted to reply, "CSICOP is _not_ the skeptics' movement".  I
would prefer not to need this last-resort argument.
I shouldn't overlook the potential harm to the _humanist_
movement.  I've met plenty of astral travelers, tarot readers,
Bigfoot groupies, and assorted cranks who make fine humanists.
What's the point of alienating them?  (They no doubt say "Moen is
an OK humanist, just a bit nutty on fringe-science topics".  We
get along fine.)
Accordingly, I think both skeptics and humanists have a bit of a
problem, and this concern is broadly shared by skeptics I've
spoken with here in California.  What I don't know -- yet -- is
how skeptics elsewhere feel.  I'm quite curious.
Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics  (but speaking for himself alone)
:Date:   23 Dec 90 02:18:58 EST
:From:   [e-mail] (EMORY KIMBROUGH)
:To:     [e-mail]
:Subj:   Skeptics and Humanists
------------------------------------------------
I am generally in agreement with Rick Moen's comments on keeping
humanism and skepticism separate.  When we challenge a particular
pseudoscience, our strongest argument is that virtually all
scientists, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist, agree
that the pseudoscience in question is flawed.  If we allow our
opponents to claim that our opinion is only that of atheist
liberal humanists who happen to be scientists, then our position
is much weakened.
I wrote to Barry Karr at CSICOP about this about a year ago. In
particular, I was concerned by how various local groups publish
plugs for the humanist or freethought groups in their area.
Since the local skeptics' groups are autonomous, CSICOP could not
insist that this practice be stopped, but I think that they
should suggest that newsletters of local skeptics' groups not
publish ads for freethought groups.
I am less concerned than Mr. Moen about the reverse practice of
humanist groups supporting skepticism.  If one looks at The
Affirmations of Humanism:  A Statement of Principles and Values,
which often appears on the back of _Free Inquiry_, one will find
several statements about reason, science, and the supernatural
that are really the defining statements of scientific skepticism.
Thus, I don't see any problem with humanist/freethought groups
supporting skeptics' groups, even though I fully agree with Mr.
Moen that skeptics' groups should be very careful about supporting
humanist/freethought groups.
:Date:   Thu, 27 Dec 90 10:41:00 CST
:From:   llnl!Tom LeCompte-Northwestern University
:To:     [e-mail]
:Subj:   Skeptics and Humanists
------------------------------------------------
                                            Fermilab, 27-DEC-1990
    Rick Moen brings up some interesting points, and I agree with
most of them.  However, I don't see exactly the problem here.  It
seems that CODESH and CSICOP were in the same building before,
and after the "Center For Inquiry" is built, they will still be
in the same building.
    Now, if money from one group were to be funneled to another,
I would object.  But this seems harmless enough.
                                   Tom
:Date:   29 Dec 90  10:18:34 PST
:From:   [e-mail] (The Skeptic's Board BBS)
:To:     [e-mail]
:Subj:   Skeptics and Humanists
------------------------------------------------
Tom LeCompte at Fermilab writes as follows:
> Rick Moen brings up some interesting points, and I agree with
> most of them.  However, I don't see exactly the problem here.  It
> seems that CODESH and CSICOP were in the same building before,
> and after the "Center For Inquiry" is built, they will still be
> in the same building.
If Tom is correct that they're merely moving from a small
building on Bailey Avenue to a larger one on Sweet Home Road,
then there is no problem (not counting financial strain).
However, is this really the sum and substance of the "Center for
Inquiry", and of the "Voice of Inquiry" radio and television
facilities?
All of CSICOP's recent efforts have been under the "Center for
Inquiry" umbrella.  The Center "will offer noncredit
graduate-level courses in skepticism and humanism" (per Center
fund drive flyer, Dec. 1990).  The "Voice of Inquiry" radio
programmes ("loosely based on the successful National Public
Radio program `All Things Considered'") freely mix, and even
juxtapose, skeptics' and humanists' topics in a somewhat bizarre
fashion, as I documented in my prior posting.
There is clearly considerable momentum behind all this,
especially given the capital outlay behind the video/audio
production facilities entailed:  "We have installed complete
audio and video duplicating systems, equipment for audio mixing
and editing, a high-quality system for recording telephone
interviews for air, four-track audio production capability, and
other basics at minimal expense" (Center Director Tom Flynn, in
_SI_, Vol. 15, No. 1 -- Fall 1990, p. 35).
Let's back up a bit.  The first peep about all this was in
_Skeptical Briefs_, the four-page irregular publication CSICOP
sends out to the local skeptics' groups, in the Dec. 1989 issue
(Vol. 5, No. 2), in a short piece by Barry Karr, CSICOP Executive
Director.  It mentions the "Center for Inquiry" for the first
time, as a "media production facility" to produce audio/video
programmes for CSICOP.
The first _public_ notice was tucked way in the back of _SI_, in
a sidebar on p. 428 of the Summer 1990 issue (Vol. 14, No. 4),
again describing the Center as a video/audio production facility.
It lists several skeptics' topics as examples of the programming
then recorded, while omitting completely the humanist topics then
already on the same tapes.  The only oblique clue is a statement
that the programmes will cover "topics of interest to skeptics
and _other proponents of critical thinking_" (emphasis added).
The next reference was the aforementioned larger sidebar by Tom
Flynn in the following issue.  Again, the skeptics' topics on the
then-recorded radio programmes are listed in detail, while the
humanist topics are omitted completely.  This time, the only
reference is that programmes will concern "science, skepticism,
and _related themes_" (emphasis added).
Four pages further on, we see a debut announcement of the "Center
for Inquiry Institute Seminar Series".  It describes topics of
the then-recent "first skeptics workshop" in Buffalo and the
impending second one, in Tucson.  There is no further explanation
of the "Center for Inquiry" or the "Institute", and no mention of
humanism.
Finally, about the same time, CSICOP mailed out sharp-looking
fund-solicitation brochures, announcing construction of the
two-million-doller "Center" buildings on Sweet Home Road.  Here
we see mention of the collaboration with CODESH, and the
"graduate-level courses in skepticism and humanism".  The "Center
for Inquiry" has now been transformed from an electronic
production organisation to an umbrella name for CODESH and
CSICOP, under which all new efforts so far are being carried out.
The most recent issue of _SI_, Winter 1991 (Vol. 15, No. 2),
_does_ give a full listing of the "Voice of Inquiry" topics, for
the very first time (p. 197), creating the bizarre juxtaposition
of skeptics' and humanists' topics I referred to earlier.  Once
again, the Center is described as a "media production facility".
However, the next two pages have a scaled-down version of the
"Center" fund-solicitation brochure, omitting mention of the
Institute's "graduate-level courses in skepticism and humanism"
(though it does mention the Institute itself).
Is this a picture of CSICOP and CODESH just moving to a larger
building?  I don't think so.  Probably, CSICOP's intentions have
been evolving over time (I would guess).  However, it's clear to
me that there has been an ongoing move in Buffalo to intermix the
skeptics' and humanist movements, and that the full story of this
has been only slowly coming out in print.
Is everyone but Emory Kimbrough and me (and several hundred
skeptics on the West Coast) comfortable with this?
> Now, if money from one group were to be funneled to another, I
> would object.  But this seems harmless enough.
The "Center" donations, like many prior ones, will no doubt go
towards common facilities.  In that limited sense, there's been a
long history of mixing of funds.  However, it seems to me this is
the least of the problems.  Next time I'm told that the skeptics'
movement is just a front for humanism and "the philosophy of
scientific realism" and is therefore inherently biased, what am I
supposed to say besides "CSICOP is _not_ the skeptics' movement"?
In a related posting, Emory Kimbrough of Alabama Skeptics
([e-mail]) writes as follows:
> I am less concerned than Mr. Moen about the reverse practice of
> humanist groups supporting skepticism.  If one looks at The
> Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles and Values,
> which often appears on the back of _Free Inquiry_, one will find
> several statements about reason, science, and the supernatural
> that are really the defining statements of scientific skepticism.
> Thus, I don't see any problem with humanist/freethought groups
> supporting skeptics' groups, even though I fully agree with Mr.
> Moen that skeptics' groups should be very careful about supporting
> humanist/freethought groups.
I actually wasn't too worried about the humanists, who have no
problem generally deciding what they're all about.  However, I
still imagine that humanist groups slightly limit their appeal by
effectively discouraging mystics and paranormalists from
supporting them.  (CODESH does, but many others don't, by the
way.)  My primary concern, though, is with the effect on the
skeptics' movement, and that concern has been, if anything,
becoming more acute over time.
Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics  (but speaking for himself alone)
:Date:   Mon, 31 Dec 90 10:57:00 CST
:From:   llnl!Tom LeCompte-Northwestern University
:To:     [e-mail]
:Subj:   Skeptics and Humanists
------------------------------------------------
                                            Fermilab, 31-DEC-1990
    I wholeheartedly agree that being a "skeptic" does not
necessarily make one a "humanist", and certainly not a "secular
humanist".  Perhaps skepticism logically follows from secular
humanism, but the reverse is not true.
    If the founder of CSICOP happens also to be a humanist,
that's a connection we're stuck with. One of the inventors of the
transitor happened to be a racist - I disagree with that
philosophy, but it doesn't stop me from using transistors.
    However, this connection should stop there.  I'm not
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that any funny business is
going on, but will admit that it looks awfully fishy.  Telling
different things to different people is not a good sign.
                            Tom LeCompte
                            Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
                            Northwestern University
                            (All opinions are my own, and do not
                            necessarily reflect those of
                            Northwestern or Fermilab.)