What is the atheist / secular humanist / freethought community missing?

Over the weekend, I was reading the paper edition of this New York Times article about a schism in a secular humanist organization called the Center for Inquiry. It's written as a profile of the Center's "exiled founder," Paul Kurtz, who has a different vision of secular humanism or atheism than the new leader, Ronald Lindsay. Things have turned very sour between them:

The center’s donations have fallen since Mr. Kurtz’s departure, which prompted warring blog posts between his defenders and Mr. Lindsay’s. Matters have not improved: on Wednesday, when Mr. Kurtz stopped by the center, where he still keeps an office, he found the locks had been changed. Mr. Lindsay told me that Mr. Kurtz did not need the new key because he “has no connection with us.”

I was surprised that this fact was put in the very last paragraph of a 5-column article. Isn't that the big news? The new leader is so hostile to the founder that the former effectively kicked the latter out of his office (just a few days before the article went to press). Instead, the article leads with a description of Kurtz's dogs — who are all named after famous "free thinkers" (John Dewey, Voltaire, Bentham) — greeted the reporter in Kurtz's driveway.

Anyway, what's the substance of the schism?

In books like “What Is Secular Humanism?” Mr. Kurtz has argued for a universal but nonreligious ethics, one he now calls “planetary humanism.” Its first principle is that “every person on the planet should be considered equal in dignity and value.” In his books, he explains how this principle can be derived from nature and from what we know of the human species.

And he contrasted his affirmative vision with recent projects under Mr. Lindsay, like International Blasphemy Day. (The 2010 version, held Thursday, was renamed International Blasphemy Rights Day.) Mr. Kurtz was also a vocal critic of a contest for cartoons about religion that included some entries that could be considered deeply offensive.

“Angry atheism does not work,” Mr. Kurtz said. “It has to be friendly, cooperative relations with people of other points of view.”

Lindsay defended his blasphemy day in a blog post:

Two points. Although blasphemy may not, at present, be legally prohibited in the United States, many still hold the view that criticizing religion is socially unacceptable. Religion is considered a taboo subject.

I disagree. Placing religion off limits in social discourse is just another, gentler way of prohibiting examination and criticism of religion. In my view, all subjects of human interest should be open to examination and criticism by humans. . . .

Second, as many of you may know already, blasphemy remains very much a live legal issue in many countries --and therefore, remains a live issue for anyone concerned about human rights. Call a Teddy Bear "Muhammad" in some Islamic countries and your risk losing your head. Moreover, there have been repeated efforts --successful efforts I might add --to have various United Nations bodies condemn so-called "defamation of religion." This is a prohibition of blasphemy by another name.

I admire Lindsay's concern for free speech rights around the world. He makes a reasonable argument — when you look at it from a coldly rational standpoint. But there are always many different ways you could make a single point, and someone as smart as Lindsay surely realizes that people react not only to well-reasoned arguments but to the emotional impact of words. He could have still made his substantive point about blasphemy without putting the word "blasphemy" in the title of his event.

As I said, the NYT article is 5 columns long (which isn't very long — each column was a short fraction of the whole page). We see a photo of the 84-year-old Kurtz sitting in his armchair, holding his dog John Dewey, with an expanse of books behind him (books presumably written by the likes of his dogs' namesakes). These were the first 5 of 6 columns on the page, but the 6th column on the page got my attention. It was a few small text ads under the heading "Religious Services." One of the ads said this:

Love and Completeness are Your Spiritual Right:

Say Goodbye to Loneliness, Fear, & Lack! . . .

> Doors open 6:30

> Inspirational music at 7:00

> You are Welcome

> Child Care Provided

This is what "atheist," "secular humanist," or "freethought" organizations aren't offering people.

I don't think the main obstacle for secular humanists is that they're too "angry" (Kurtz's word) or too critical of religious people. Negativity can actually be quite effective. People of all religious stripes will vehemently criticize the societal elements they consider noxious; they'll criticize other religions and worldviews; they'll even criticize other people and strands of thought within their own religion. To criticize atheists or secular humanists for criticizing too much is missing their real shortcoming.

It's all too easy to dismiss the recent, popular "new atheist" books as if they're the real problem with secular humanism. This has become an obligatory flourish for secular humanists who are trying to position themselves as moderate and reasonable: "I'm not like those angry atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris." (This is often said by those who haven't read Hitchens and Harris closely enough to know that they're not identical; for instance, they disagree profoundly about spirituality.)

The problem with secular humanists isn't their negativity, but their lack of a positive message that matters to most people. As brilliant and subtle and right as the books in Kurtz's library might be, most people aren't interested in reading philosophical treatises. Secular humanism might have no shortage of reason and insight for those who are interested, but how many people (other than academic elites) are actually interested?

Most people don't look to philosophically coherent doctrines for guidance in how to live; they care more about belonging to a community. And I don't mean "community" in the abstract sense in which we've become accustomed to using it ("the gay community," "the international community," etc.). I mean real community made up of your actual neighbors.

I have never seen a self-proclaimed atheist or secular humanist advertising an event with phrases like "You" — whoever you are! — "are Welcome," or "Child Care Provided." If secular humanist organizations want to become more of a force for good than religion is, they need to create communities that are meaningful enough that people will turn to them, by default, if they need someone to help take care of their children.

UPDATES: Lots of discussion in the comments. Also, someone on Twitter tells me that "child care is always provided at the @fofdallas" — referring to the Fellowship of Freethought in Dallas.


Short URL for this post: goo.gl/q7IR