The Heart of Humanism

I’ve been having an interesting exchange with Brian Flemming, who wrote a blog yesterday about the recent AP story on our conference. In yesterday’s piece, he asks me to apologize for the use of the word fundamentalist in the AP article. This presents an interesting dilemma. I’ve already put in hours of blogging and responding to blogs, where I’ve been clarifying that I don’t think Dawkins, Harris, etc. are fundamentalists. And I think apologizing is really a wonderful, necessary thing to do often. We human beings are so imperfect, we hurt each other and fail to live up to our own standards so often that learning to properly apologize is practically a survival tool. At least in my life it has been– I fail often to be as loving, or as smart, or just plain as right as I’d like to be. And I have seen how liberating, how Humanistic, it can be to simply apologize, admit I was wrong, and ask for forgiveness. The value of a good apology is one of those things that both religious people and secular people have done well to recognize the power of. Though it must be said I absolutely don’t consider apology a form of excusing bad behavior in the first place, as in what I think certain forms of Christian (or secular) confession can justify.

But on the other hand, I don’t think it is fair for “New Atheists” to be able to use language that is as harsh as they want, but a “New Humanist” like myself has to be nice and friendly back to them at all times. So here is my latest response to Flemming.

Brian, the delay in my response was to give me a chance to read the Newsweek debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren. Have you seen it? I think Sam does a beautiful, heroic job. He is absolutely not in any way whatsoever a fundamentalist. Moreover, I think he is getting better and better with his message and I believe some of the prodding he has received from people urging him not to be so quick to offend has helped him find more effective language. I would be happy to praise him publicly again for this great work.

But at one point in the debate Sam is asked to defend his statement that it is a “ludicrous obscenity” when someone takes his children to Church. Sam does not apologize for this language. He says, “To some degree the stridence of my writing is an effort to get people’s attention.” He then justifies this attention getting by saying that it is okay because he thinks his cause is urgent. Well, some of the language I have used to criticize aspects of Sam’s approach has also been part of an effort to provoke thought. And I too believe I am justified by the urgency of the cause– if we don’t do more to emphasize and build the positive side of Humanism and atheism, I believe the powerful potential of this moment which you and Sam and Richard and countless others have built may go to waste, to the detriment of all humanity.

So the truth is, I would absolutely be willing to consider apologizing for using harsh words in order to make my point (I think apologies are one of the most important things we can offer in life)– but perhaps when Sam and others are willing to consider apologizing for doing the exact same thing. Until then, I am not going to allow them to call people stupid and ludicrous and obscene but accept the double standard that I have to be nice and friendly to them and I can’t use any words that might make them a little bit mad.

You can print what I’ve just written. A final note: even Richard Dawkins himself, after a bit of email discussion, wrote that he wishes us well with our conference. He hopes for our success. That was big of him, and I think it says a lot about his approach. Not for my sake but for the sake of hundreds of people involved, and thousands if not more who have been glad to see us promoting Humanism and non-theism so boldly at such a well-known place as Harvard, it would be great if we could have your well-wishes too.

Can I publish that you wish us success?

I’d like to conclude by inviting you to Harvard to speak. This conference’s program is full, unfortunately, but next semester and beyond we are interested in putting on some big programs and we’d be delighted if you would join us as a leading voice in one of them. Perhaps we could host a major Harvard-wide forum on “The New Atheism” to follow up on our conference in September, October, or November, giving you and others a chance to speak out, even against whatever you have a problem with? We will be hosting Rep. Pete Stark in the Fall as well– to my knowledge Harvard is the only place he’s agreed to speak publicly on his non-theism, at least so far– so with you on the schedule as well it would be a huge, wonderful semester.