UNIT 1: SECULAR HUMANISM AND THE NATURALISTIC OUTLOOK
Concept of standing on the shoulders of giants (read preamble from Hawkings book)
Introduction (3 min)
-when I got interested in science in grade 9 good teacher, started astronomy club, read carl sagan cause uncles loved science, history and math
-got degree in engineering science, during which launched UTSA
-got hired at CFI
-About CFI, briefly - paranormal, medicine, naturalism
Review of Critical and free inquiry leads to a) skeptical inquiry and b) atheism/naturalism/secular humanism
-unlike religions, ours is more a methodology
-reminder of skeptical inquiry (2 min)
Unit 2: Secular Humanism and the Natural Outlook
1. Definitions (3 min)
2. Planetary Humanism, which includes
a. Principles of Humanism (from Free Inquiry magazine)
b. Read from Humanist Manifesto 2000 (Section on V Ethics and Reason and III Scientific Naturalism)
c. Scientific worldview (issues affecting big questions like our place in the universe, controversial issues - eg. Evolution, big bang, consciousness, Big History etc)
- The Centrality of Evolution
- The Scientific Outlook and Democracy
3. Brief History of Disbelief Video, part 1, 31:50-35:18 (preamble: common elements like spirits hint at evolutionary origins)
4. Notable Freethinkers
5. Frequently Asked Questions
6. Globe and Mail position
7. About us
- freedom of expression - preamble - 1 min
- read Free Inquiry Austin Dacey June/July 2008 article - 8 min
- watch Ezra Levant video - 6.5 min
-get involved - start a high school group
-Pass out magazines and documents and stickers, what is secular humanism booklet, and reading list
-Questions?
1. Definitions
Weak atheism:
a disbelief in the positive claim of god’s existence
many atheists consider themselves agnostics but with the exception that they feel the likelihood of god’s existence is significantly less then 50%
default skeptical position: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence (eg. Bertrand Russell’s china teacup)
god claim is TAP not PAP
Strong atheism:
a belief in the claim of god’s non existence
statement of faith
Agnosticism:
A suspension of judgement in light of not having enough information to form a decision
strong or weak depending on whether individual believes god’s existence and non-existence are equally likely or that it is impossible to approach the question
secularism:
-political neutrality with respect to religion or belief vs. unbelief
-of or relating to the worldly or temporal, not ecclesiastical or clerical
2. Planetary Humanism
2.a Principles of Humanism
- mention how there is no dogma in humanism, none of what we read is a bible
- clarify why humanism not a religion
b. Humanist Ethics
- inconsistency of faith based ethics (is it really ethical to do things for rewards, and anyway you need to make the secular individual conscience based choice to follow religion)
2.c Scientific Worldview
-Science has a story to tell (issues affecting our place in the universe, and controversies: eg. evolution (present major evidence for it, explain what part is fact and what theory, problems with Expelled film), BIG HISTORY: big bang, evolution, consciousness, etc) how much science influences life (eg. light in room, transportation to school, sun outside
- how scientific outlook tied to democracy and progress
-science a method not a dogma, an ethical method gives us ideals of freedom, openness, accountability, free criticism, fallibility
- what is scientific method, how does it get done: done in field work through studies, peer review in journals and conferences, some mainstream press, textbooks, etc
-Science and ethics
tech developments permeate every ethical controversy (abortion, stem cells, global warming, energy crisis, Science Debate)
scientific method, democracy and our legal system all evolved together -> open inquiry, burden of proof, judgement by peer (like peer review), system of checks and balances, accountability, fallibility -> our open democracy and legal system sound closer to science then religion methodologically, especially in constantly changing, progressive world
understandings of psychology, evolutionary psychology, biology -> ex trolly experiments
- no one appreciates science’s role
- how much science influences life (eg. light in room, transportation to school, sun outside
- what is scientific method, how does it get done: done in field work through studies, peer review in journals and conferences, some mainstream press, textbooks, etc
2.d Evolution
What is Evolution and its evidence – fact/theory
ID/evolution controversy and problem in Canada – stats
Play -> Kevin Padian, Robert T. Pennock (science is not dogmatic), Neil Shubin
Darwin’s Predictions and Fossil Evidence (NOVA site)
DNA & Mutations (NCSE site)
3. Brief History of Disbelief Video
(preamble: common elements like spirits hint at evolutionary origins)
Part 1, 31:50-35:18 (Pascal Boyer on innate intentionality)
Mention Michael Persinger experiments
Recommend reading Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell
39:34-42:15 Atheists not citizens + quotes from founding Presidents *can mention other anti-atheist stuff
Part 3, 6:30- belief in belief – not false but dangerous argument
27:00-28:27 – danger of Darwin (with Denneett) – maybe all complexity like that
4. Notable Freethinkers
93% of NAS members atheists
5. Frequently Asked Questions
Why do you have a concern with people’s personal beliefs
- People have the freedom to express themselves openly (on both sides)
- But actions which hinder the freedoms of others should be curtailed
eg. medical issues like denying blood transfusion, leads to violence, intrudes on secularism, stops children from appreciating science
- Indoctrination which Limits a child’s ability to make a free choice later in life should concern us
- All beliefs should be open to public criticism and debate
Do you believe that religion can be used as a social/moral code?
religions cherry pick from their books and traditions
always opposite ethical principles defended – suffrage, slavery
Euthyphro argument against divine authority for morals
Religious being forced to adapt to each other caused progress against their will
Evolutionary psychology – grouplin lends to promote moral strategies in all complex social species -> insulting that early societies have no morals – what of animists or Buddhists
What is our relationship with religious groups?
-One School System Network alliances with religious groups
-Muslim Canadian Congress co-hosted secular muslim meetups at CFI
-Book launch of CCPC and Oraynu authors
-Event cross-promotion
-Humanist councillor at U of T
-Does God Exist debates with campus for christ
Evidence to convince me of god’s existence?
what definition of god? Basic definition of god fundamentally flawed on logic grounds, poorly described (what does all powerful mean? Omnibenevolent?)
if you’re talking about a very powerful being: stars lining up to give a message might be convincing of that
creator/deistic god: no evidence could ever disprove so none could prove
how come no one asks what evidence could convince you you’re wrong? Or have wrong god?
Which god? How would I choose
Dangers of religious belief
reaffirms acceptability of choosing beliefs on bad evidence
leads to bad public decisions, bad parental decisions
leads to self righteous infallibility (ex: Spanish in new world)
What is it like to be an atheist?
Does life have meaning and purpose?
Purpose not defined for us, not defined externally, but is our own (not absolute, but objective by consensus)
is it really meaningful to YOU if someone tells you what’s meaningful?
Religions never define what meaning is -> Is it just spreading belief? Worshipping god?
What is your response to suffering and evil?
An unfortunate part of human existence
But we can use human reason, science, technology and critical thinking to pull through
We should not be arrogant to attribute our personal suffering and salvation to god
What do you think about death and afterlife?
We live through our accomplishments and the way we change the people around us
Consider how unlikely we are to even be living now
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.
-- Richard Dawkins, excerpt from Chapter I, "The Anaesthetic of Familiarity," of Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (1998)
Is it satisfying being an atheist?
It is refreshing and beautiful seeing world as really us and being open to fallibility
Humanist worldview offers a sense of deep connection to web of life, 15Billion yr cosmic evolution, born from star stuff, etc
Being open to anything, not worried that next discovery will shatter our worldview
About us
Mission: to promote “science, reason, secularism and freedom of inquiry” in all areas of human endeavour
CFI’s rational and motives: “Although modern world civilization is based upon the achievements of science and technology, until this time there has been no authoritative and credible voice defending the scientific outlook in examining religion, human values, and the borderlands of science.”
Interested in 3 main areas:
1. Paranormal & fringe science claims (UFOs, psychics, ghosts, etc)
2. Medicine and Health (complementary and alternative medicine)
3. Religion, ethics & society
What do we do?
Events (presentations, debates, discussions)
Social/Community services
Political advocacy
Campus outreach
Multimedia
Major accomplishments
- Established the first physical home for humanists in Canada
- Built a coalition that stopped public funding to currently private faith schools
- Worked with a coalition that ended religious arbitration, establishing One law for all Ontarians
- Built the first series of alliances between humanists and faith groups
- Attained National TV, radio or newspaper press every month
- Given regular appearances in the Globe and Mail and Michael Coren TV show faith/ethics panels
- Invited to address a legislative committee during the Lord’s Prayer review
- Established over 30 campus groups and 3 Communities for Inquiry across Canada
- Established the first humanist councillor among campus chaplaincy
Why is CFI important organization for ppl who are part of secular community: cause we’re getting things done and representing them
Political activities
What drives me to fight religion in public sphere?
education and youth
hypocrisy -> equality but not for atheists (eg prayer, multifaith centre), secularism but then special privilege to religious (ex: schools)
science as basis of our entire democracy and progress but no appreciation cause only obsessed with results not method of science (but method is what gives us ethical ideals of freedom and free criticism)
Privileges of religious vs. atheists
charity law
multicultural discussions, media panels
traditions change only to reflect theist club then stop changing (ex: peter kormos and prayers)
public school funding
religious accommodations (eg. At university, etc)
Government funded religious schools
book banning
$
Multiculturalism (atheist schools? Fund all or non)
Segregation vs. integration and why segregate during childhood only?
Discrimination in pupil admission and teachers
Indoctrination limits critical thinking and free choice later
State of science in classroom
evolution in catholic schools – worldview must permeate whole system what if something doesn’t fit or if they re-interpret evolution so there is some purpose and miss the whole point, etc?
evolution peripherally to biology compared to newton’s laws in physics
no class in critical thought mandatory
Free Speech/Campaign for Free Expression
Last month, upon the inauguration of the Centre for Inquiry’s Campaign for Free Expression, our main political ally, the Canadian Secular Alliance, released a position stating the following: “It has long been recognized by enlightened philosophers and thinking citizens of western liberal-democracies that society is best served by ensuring the maximum freedom consistent with good order. They may be self-evident, but it was a long and difficult journey to get them enshrined in our laws. Of all the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in our society, freedom of expression is the keystone. Indeed, several of the others: freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc., are really derivatives of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, through some progressive-thinking social engineering combined with a failure to grasp philosophical fundamentals throughout the last decade or so we find a rapidly diminishing scope for free expression in Canada.”
The most direct threat to our freedom of expression in Canada seems to be coming, ironically, from a source that should be protecting free speech and all such human rights, namely, the Human Rights Commissions. In February 2006 The Western Standard was one of the only publications in North America courageous enough to re-print several of the notorious Danish Mohammed cartoons. For his courage, the editor, Ezra Levant, was brought before the Alberta Human Rights and citizenship commission for interrogation in after agreeing to investigate a complaint brought by Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, and the Edmonton Muslim Council. “It is especially perverted,” reported Levant, who reposted the Mohammed cartoons the day he appeared before the commission, “that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights.”
-other examples of violations
-
-PLAY VIDEO
There is a crucial point to be made here and on it hinges the entire defition or re-definition of free speech. That is that only individual people deserve protection from descrimination, not ideas, religions, beliefs or values.
Limitations on speech, such as libel and slander, exist to protect individuals from harm. For example, a libelous or slanderous statement that results in the loss of a person's job a person causes material harm, such that the speaker ought to be held responsible. By contrast, the discourse of Islamophobia and defamation of religion fails to distinguish between speech that constitutes real risk of harm to individuals, and speech that merely subjects ideas to "discussion, criticism, or expression of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse."
The foundational assumption of international human rights is identical: Rights belong to individuals, not ideas. Freedom of religion protects the person who believes (or disbelieves), not the contents of the belief. As the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo, has noted, the legal concept of defamation of persons cannot be extended to belief systems: “the provisions on protection of reputation contained in international human rights law are designed to protect individuals, not abstract values or institutions”
For precisely this reason, the European Union has stated that the "defamation of religions" is not a valid concept in human rights law. As the CFI report explains, “feelings of offense do not generate a human right not to be offended. From a moral point of view, we owe respect to other persons. Respect for persons does not require that we never hurt their feelings, but rather that we treat them as possessing dignity equal to our own, and therefore hold them to the same fundamental intellectual, ethical, and legal standards to which we hold ourselves. Therefore, respect for a person is not only consistent with criticism of a person's beliefs; respect for a person sometimes requires criticism of his or her beliefs.”
There is no such thing as a human right to not be offended. Unless we are equally free to be offensive as we are to be offended, we really do not have freedom of expression. So please, next time you hear something you don’t like, think of how you would feel if a new secular humanist campus club was banned, as was attempted at one of our campuses in Ontario. The student union used eerily similar language to that employed to justify the ban on pro-life groups, with reference to discrimation, tolerance and the creation of a hostile atmosphere.
- Austin Dacey quote ->READ AUSTIN DACEY ARTICLE