How Secular Humanists Develop Ethics

How do Secular Humanists develop their ethics? This is the most consistently repeated question about Secular Humanism. Theists, in particular, have difficulty with the notion that ethics need not come from a set of rules laid down in an ancient book. Even Secular Humanists, put on the spot, have some difficulty giving a clear and convincing answer. Often they are stuck saying, “Well, we just are moral.”

Secular Humanists actually develop ethics using three characteristics of human beings: a kind of ethical tripod, if you will.

The first of these characteristics is a trait that evolved in all vertebrate species, a long time ago. When primates do something positive for fellow primates, their brains get a little charge of dopamine. Apparently, this happens in all vertebrates, but for some reason seems more pronounced in primates. This chemical gives pleasure so ancient human ancestors tended to do positive things for each other because of this reward even though they did not understand it. Modern neurological research supports this idea in both human and non-human primates.

The effect of this trait for human beings is that they are social, preferring to work positively with others and to co-operate in positive social ways.

The second of these characteristics, tribalism, is also an evolved trait. It, too, is present throughout the primate family, although it seems somewhat diminished in bonobos. Tribalism is the tendency to form small groups or sets of primates that co-operate with members of the same tribe, but not so much with other tribes

Tribalism seems to be the result of finite limits to food resources for foragers and hunter-gatherers. Without the science of cultivation to enhance food production, ancient human ancestors needed a minimum area for foraging and, later hunter-gathering. This, combined with relatively limited ability to travel long distances, also tended to isolate social groups geographically. This tribalism continues in modern ape species. Chimpanzees, for example, are very tribal with well establish territories. Their tribes often get into serious conflict along the borders of adjoining territories. Sound familiar?

This trait, then, in its extreme form, is a negative characteristic that can cause real conflict between different tribes. In the modern world, human beings use different terms for tribes-nations, churches, clubs, and so on, but these entities retain most of the characteristics of tribes.

There are, then, two seemingly opposing instincts: dopamine addiction and tribalism. How can Secular Humanists claim to develop ethics or moral codes from that teeter-totter?

Enter the third, predominantly human, characteristic, reason. Human beings have the most highly developed ability to reason on the planet (until cetaceans mount a good lobby group). Sophisticated human language skills, including the tendency to think in word form as well as communicate with each other give human beings considerable control over the first two traits.

This third characteristic allows human beings to balance the two other characteristics. Yes, balance is necessary. One might think that human beings would be better off abandoning tribalism completely.

However, without it, dopamine pursuit would lead to gullibility and make human beings very vulnerable. Pulling a thorn out of a lion’s paw is a noble idea, but in a purely dopamine-driven psychology very dangerous without the due caution one would need to pull it off — sorry out.

Controlled tribalism serves a purpose. It makes human beings sufficiently wary of unknown people and circumstances to reduce their vulnerability. This is the basis of the street smarts that help a child resist helping the stranger to look for the puppy.

When reason fails, either dopamine pursuit or tribalism takes over. The result is that human beings become either victims or predators and ethics go out the window. That is essentially what happens if tribalism is strong enough to give someone a dopamine response from following a dogma without the balance of reason.

Secular Humanists use reason to develop ethical guidelines balancing the dopamine reflex and tribalism to make moral decisions. This isn’t necessarily easy and not always successful, but the technique works at least as well as the technique of following a fixed set of rules set down in the past, often with tribalism as the predominant consideration.

Secular Humanists do not rely on a dogma-based answer to an ethical question, but will take time to apply reason to make the best possible decision under the circumstances present.

Atheists Rising: Wolf Blitzer Learns a Lesson and Arizona Lawmaker Says “Don’t Bow Your Heads”

May 22, 2013…from Salon, by Mary Elizabeth Williams

You’d think by now CNN would have learned to stop treating their assumptions and as truths. But when Wolf Blitzer made a casual comment Tuesday, it turned out to be a teachable moment both for the newsman and television viewers.

Speaking live to a survivor of the deadly tornado in Moore, Okla., Blitzer declared the woman “blessed,” her husband “blessed,” and her son “blessed.” He then asked, “You’ve gotta thank the Lord, right? Do you thank the Lord for that split-second decision?”

But as she held her 18-month-old son, Rebecca Vitsmun politely replied, “I’m actually an atheist.” A flummoxed Blitzer quickly lobbed back, “You are. All right. But you made the right call,” and Vitsmun graciously offered him a lifeline. “We are here,” she said, “and I don’t blame anyone for thanking the Lord.” Nicely done, Rebecca Vitsmun.

One in five American adults – and a third of Americans under age 30 — now declare no religious affiliation. We are less religious now than at any other point in our history, and our secularism is rising at a rapid pace. Get used to it, Lord thankers.

As Vitsmun pointed out, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with a statement of gratitude or even an acknowledgment of spirituality. I recently had someone tell me that she felt very “blessed” – right before adding that she was agnostic. Where Blitzer was insensitive — and just plain unthinking — was in his no-doubt well-intentioned demand that his interviewee cough up a Praise the Lord moment for edification of CNN viewers.

And Blitzer was not the only person this week who got his expectations rocked. When Tempe, Ariz., State Rep. Juan Mendez was asked Tuesday to deliver the opening prayer for the afternoon’s session of the House of Representatives, he delivered something different.

“Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads,” the Democratic official said. “I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people in our state.”

He went on to say, “This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration. But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences.”

It was a call to love and empathy that stands right up there next to any prayer in the book, and one that offered bonus inclusion and humanity. Afterward, he said, “I hope today marks the beginning of a new era in which Arizona’s non-believers can feel as welcome and valued here as believers.” And if the conservative state of Arizona can make it happen, there’s hope yet for the other 49, people.

In a nation in which the divide between believers and non-believers can be great and truly ugly – one of “militant atheism” on one side and unbearably ignorant religious conservatismon the other, with just a few words, Rebecca Vitsmun and Juan Mendez showed that the ideals of being respectful and compassionate belong to all of us. Whatever our personal views, we can give others space to have theirs and to express them with dignity. We can challenge assumptions, but we can conduct ourselves with kindness. Because what matters most in life isn’t what we believe in our hearts, it’s how we practice those beliefs with each other.

First Amendment doesn’t apply here: N.C. lawmakers push bill for state religion

By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring that the state has the power to establish an official religion — a direct challenge to the First Amendment.

One professor of politics called the measure “the verge of being neo-secessionist,” and another said it was reminiscent of how Southern states objected to the Supreme Court’s 1954 integration of public schools.

The bill says that federal courts do not have the power to decide what is constitutional, and says the state does not recognize federal court rulings that prohibit North Carolina and its schools from favoring a religion.

The bill was introduced Monday by two Republican representatives from Rowan County, north of Charlotte, and sponsored by seven other Republicans. The party controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature.

The two lawmakers who filed the bill, state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, did not immediately return calls Wednesday from NBC News.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued last month to stop the Rowan County Commission from opening meetings with Christian prayers. One of those prayers declared that “there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ,” the ACLU said.

The bill does not specify a religion.

The North Carolina ACLU chapter said in a statement Tuesday that the sponsors of the bill “fundamentally misunderstand constitutional law and the principle of the separation of powers that dates back to the founding of this country.”

North Carolina scholars also cast doubt on the bill.

“It has elements of not being American,” Gary Freeze, a professor of politics and history at Catawba College, told The Salisbury Post. “I think it goes far beyond religion and frankly doesn’t have a lot to do with North Carolina or tradition.”

Another professor at the college, Michael Bitzer, told the newspaper that the bill is based on discredited legal theory that the states can declare themselves exempt from federal law.

“We saw this in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education,” he said, referencing the integration ruling. “The belief is that the states hold more power than the federal government. If the federal government does something, the states can simply ignore it.”

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 3, 2013 10:45 AM EDT

The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Attack on America’s Children

April 2013

A chilling exposé of the well-funded, highly coordinated effort by Christian Nationalists to use public schools to advance a fundamentalist agenda

In 2009, the Good News Club came to the public elementary school where journalist Katherine Stewart sent her children. The Club, which is sponsored by the Child Evangelism Fellowship, bills itself as an after-school program of “Bible study.” But Stewart soon discovered that the Club’s real mission is to convert children to fundamentalist Christianity and encourage them to proselytize to their “unchurched” peers, all the while promoting the natural but false impression among the children that its activities are endorsed by the school.

Astonished to discover that the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed this—and other forms of religious activity in public schools—legal, Stewart set off on an investigative journey to dozens of cities and towns across the nation to document the impact. In this book she demonstrates that there is more religion in America’s public schools today than there has been for the past 100 years. The movement driving this agenda is stealthy. It is aggressive. It has our children in its sights. And its ultimate aim is to destroy the system of public education as we know it.

Katherine Stewart has written for The New York TimesReuters, andMarie Claire. She lives with her family in New York City.

Judge halts contraceptive mandate for Domino’s Farms

December 31, 2012 at 3:45 pm
By Christine Ferretti
The Detroit News

The founder of Domino’s Pizza won’t be subject to a new federal healthcare law requiring contraception coverage while a lawsuit he filed challenging the new mandate is pending, a judge has ruled. U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff of the Eastern District of Michigan on Thursday granted an emergency motion by Tom Monaghan to temporarily halt the enforcement of the federal Health and Human Services mandate.

Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, and the Domino’s Farms Corp., sued the federal government alleging the law violates their rights and has asked the court to strike it down.

“It was the best case scenario for us,” said Erin Mersino of the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, who is the lead attorney on Monaghan’s case. “It was a favorable opinion, and we are very happy for our clients.”

The lawsuit is among 11 others nationwide challenging the new mandate that became law in August.

Zatkoff’s ruling halts enforcement of the mandate against Monaghan and his company, of which he is the sole owner and shareholder.

Domino’s Farms Corp. manages an office complex owned by Monaghan and is not affiliated with Domino’s Pizza. Monaghan sold the pizza company in 1998.

Temporary restraining orders have been granted by federal judges in eight of the other pending cases, three other requests to halt implementation of the mandate have been denied. None of the cases have been resolved yet, Mersino said.

Monaghan in his Dec. 14 lawsuit says contraception isn’t health care but a “gravely immoral” practice.

Monaghan offers health insurance that excludes contraception and abortion for employees. The new federal law requires employers to offer insurance including contraception coverage or risk fines.

The federal government has said the contraception directive benefits women.

Mersino said the new law would have been effective for Monahan at the beginning of his company’s new plan year, which is Jan. 1.

Mersino added based on the reviewed discovery so far, the court has said there’s a likelihood of success in Monahan’s case based on its merits.

cferretti@detnews.com

(313) 222-2069

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121231/BIZ/212310396#ixzz2Gsp1pP78

Blake Page, West Point Cadet, Quits Military Academy Over Religion

ALBANY, N.Y. — A cadet quitting West Point less than six months before graduation says he could no longer be part of a culture that promotes prayers and religious activities and disrespects nonreligious cadets.

Blake Page announced his decision to quit the U.S. Military Academy this week in a much-discussed online post that echoed the sentiments of soldiers and airmen at other military installations. The 24-year-old told The Associated Press that a determination this semester that he could not become an officer because of clinical depression played a role in his public protest against what he calls the unconstitutional prevalence of religion in the military.

“I’ve been trying since I found that out: What can I do? What can I possibly do to initiate the change that I want to see and so many other people want to see?” Page said. “I realized that this is one way I can make that change happen.”

Page criticized a culture where cadets stand silently for prayers, where nonreligious cadets were jokingly called “heathens” by instructors at basic training and where one officer told him he’d never be a leader until he filled the hole in his heart. In announcing his resignation this week on The Huffington Post, he denounced “criminals” in the military who violate the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution.

“I don’t want to be a part of West Point knowing that the leadership here is OK with just shrugging off and shirking off respect and good order and discipline and obeying the law and defending the Constitution and doing their job,” he told the AP.

West Point officials on Wednesday disputed those assertions. Spokeswoman Theresa Brinkerhoff said prayer is voluntary at events where invocations and benedictions are conducted and noted the academy has a Secular Student Alliance club, where Page served as president.

Maj. Nicholas Utzig, the faculty adviser to the secular club, said he doesn’t doubt some of the moments Page described, but he doesn’t believe there is systematic discrimination against nonreligious cadets.

“I think it represents his own personal experience and perhaps it might not be as universal as he suggests,” said Utzig, who teaches English literature.

One of Page’s secularist classmates went further, calling his characterization of West Point unfair.

“I think it’s true that the majority of West Point cadets are of a very conservative, Christian orientation,” said senior cadet Andrew Houchin. “I don’t think that’s unique to West Point. But more broadly, I’ve never had that even be a problem with those of us who are secular.”

There have been complaints over the years that the wall between church and state is not always observed in the military. The Air Force Academy in Colorado in particular has been scrutinized for years over allegations from non-Christian students that they faced intolerance. A retired four-star general was asked last year to conduct an independent review of the overall religious climate at the academy.

There also has been a growing willingness in recent years by some service members to publicly identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or humanists and to seek the same recognition granted to Christians, Jews and other believers. Earlier this year, there was an event at Fort Bragg that was the first known event in U.S. military history to cater to nonbelievers.

Page said he hears about the plight of other nonreligious cadets in part through his involvement with the West Point affiliate of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The founder and president of that advocacy group said Page’s action is a milestone in the fight against “fanatical religiosity” in the military.

“This is an extraordinary act of courage that I do compare directly to what Rosa Parks did,” said Mikey Weinstein.

Page, who is from Stockbridge, Ga., and who was accepted into West Point after serving in the Army, said he was notified Tuesday of his honorable discharge. He faces no military commitment and will not have to reimburse the cost of his education.

West Point confirmed that it approved his resignation and that Page had been meeting the academic standards and was not undergoing any disciplinary actions. Page said he had been medically disqualified this semester from receiving a commission in the Army as a second lieutenant – like his classmates will receive in May – because of clinical depression and anxiety. He said his condition has gotten worse since his father killed himself last year.

It’s not unusual for cadets to drop out of West Point, an institution known for its rigorous academic and physical demands. But the window for dropping out without the potential for a penalty is in the first two years. Dropouts are rare after that point.

Page expects to leave for his grandparents’ home in Wright County, Minn., in the coming days. He plans to remain an activist on the role of religion in the military.

“I’d really love to be able to do this for the rest of my life,” he said.

Pat Robertson: Young-Earth Creationism Is “Not the Bible”

Noted televangelist Pat Robertson firmly rejected young-earth creationism on “The 700 Club.” As CNN reports, when asked by a viewer how to respond to those who believe “the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs,” Robertson suggested his viewers should not “fight science.”

“You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.”

If Robertson truly doesn’t want his viewers to “fight science,” he should also dissuade them from pushing “intelligent design.” The bills attacking evolution and pushing ID pseudo-science keep coming. As HuffPo notes, a newly elected Montana state representative announced plans to require the teaching of “intelligent design” alongside evolution under the guise of “teaching the controversy.” The one federal court to consider the question rightly concluded that “intelligent design” is creationism in pseudo-scientific drag.

Neither young earth creationism nor the rejection of evolution is required by the Bible. As Dr. Joshua Swamidass, “a Christian and career scientist,” noted in the WSJ last week:

the age of the Earth and the rejection of evolution aren’t core Christian beliefs. Neither appears in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed. Nor did Jesus teach them. Historical Christianity has not focused on how God created the universe, but on how God saves humanity through Jesus’ death and resurrection. . . .

there is simply no controversy in the scientific world about the age of the Earth or evolution. Evidence points to a billion-year-old planet.

The evidence for evolution is just as strong. In the past, evolution rested on ambiguous fossil evidence, but now it rests on much clearer DNA evidence that increases exponentially every month. Fully appreciating this evidence takes a lot of time, reading and patience. And it is not appropriate to “teach the controversy” in science class because there is no ongoing debate in the scientific community comparable to the theological debate.

The evolution debate is not a scientific controversy, but a theological controversy about a non-central Christian doctrine.

Religious leaders should no more try to deny evolution or the age of the earth than scientists should preach about Biblical commandments. Politicians, too, should stop pandering to scientific ignorance, even when grounded in religious belief — though this may be difficult. Polling suggests nearly 50 percent of Americans (58 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats) believe the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. As Beth Reinhard notes, “It’s not easy to reconcile matters of faith with matters of science, but smart public policy demands it.”

Inside the First Amendment: Christmas Wars

by Charles Haynes, director of Religious Freedom Education Project

——

In the angry eyes of Christians in Santa Monica, Calif., Damon Vix is the atheist who stole Christmas.

Vix is blamed for the city’s decision to ban all private displays in Palisades Park, ending a tradition of 14 Nativity scenes erected by church groups in the park every December for the last 60 years.

The Santa Monica Christmas controversy began several years ago when Vix decided to counter the crèches by posting a sign with a quotation mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

“Religions are all alike — founded upon fables and mythologies.” Other atheists joined Vix to demand space, forcing the city to set up a lottery to divvy up slots in the park. Tensions mounted in the community last December after atheist groups flooded the lottery pool and won most of the available space. Many of their displays were vandalized.

In June, frustrated city officials tried to end the holiday war by banning all private displays in the park. Churches fought back with a lawsuit. But last week they lost round one when a federal judge allowed the ban to take effect.

The dueling displays in Santa Monica are the latest example of a trend across the country.

Atheists are employing a new strategy to challenge the presence of religion in the public square: Wherever religious messages are allowed in public parks or government buildings, atheist groups increasingly demand equal time and space.

Of course, Vix and many other atheists would prefer to see all religious symbols banned from public property, even when privately sponsored, as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In their view, a Nativity scene on public property sends a message of government endorsement of religion.

But the U.S. Supreme Court sees it differently.

Although government may not promote a religious message, the Court has ruled that private religious expression in a public forum doesn’t violate the establishment clause as long as other expression is allowed on equal terms.

So Santa Monica may constitutionally allow churches’ Nativity displays in the park if, and only if, the city allows other groups to display their messages.

The only other option open to city officials is to shut down the forum for all nongovernment expression, which is what Santa Monica decided to do.

Savvy atheists have figured out that the best way to beat them is to join them: Counter religious messages with anti-religious messages — and government officials have no choice but to allow all or nothing.

The strategy seems to be working. A few years ago, Washington state barred all nongovernment displays in the Capitol building after atheist groups put up signs mocking religion next to religious displays in December.

In Arkansas, it took an order by a federal judge to force the state to allow atheists to erect a “winter solstice” display next to a privately sponsored Nativity scene at the Capitol. Similar conflicts have broken out across America.

Beyond the angry rhetoric, both sides in this battle have made valid — and valuable — constitutional points:

Religious groups have established that the First Amendment separates church from state, but not religious expression from public spaces. Whenever government creates a public forum, it can’t bar purely private religious expression.

Atheists have established that the First Amendment creates a level playing field. If religious groups get space in public parks or government buildings, then so must other groups — including in December.

So now that we all understand that a right for one is a right for all, maybe it’s time for atheist groups to declare victory and stay home for the holidays. Let Christian groups set up Nativity displays in public spaces unanswered in December — and save the atheist messages for another time of year.

Yes, I understand why atheists want to make sure that religion isn’t privileged by government in the public square (as it has been for much of our history). But at some point (and Santa Monica has surely reached it) in-your-face tactics become counterproductive and needlessly divisive.

After all, whether we celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, the winter solstice or none of the above, we can all benefit from a more civil and peaceful public square.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001; on the web at: firstamendmentcenter.org; by email at: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

‘No Religion’ On the Rise

From the Pew Research Center…One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation

POLL October 9, 2012

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).

This large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives.

However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor.

With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.

Read the rest of the article and see graphs at http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx