Very few thinkers today would claim that the ontological argument proves the existence of God. Yet Immanuel Kant demonstrated how all arguments for God’s existence ultimately depend on this single, flawed idea. 

Kant is therefore an underappreciated figure in the history of atheism, having paved the way for the rejection of the supernatural and the establishment of humanistic ethics.  

The (Imaginary) God of Pure Reason: Kant on the Failure of Rational Theology

I will begin with two premises:

1. Humanity is comprised of individuals.
2. Humankind is a social animal.

Groups don’t feel emotions or experience pain, or have thoughts, individuals within groups do. But individuals are not eternal atomized units, we as people are shaped by others around us (family and culture), and we are all dependent upon the common toil (the economy, government infrastructure and institutions) for our personal welfares.

Excessive collectivism crushes the individual under conformity and in-group exclusion, but hyper-individualism ironically also crushes the masses of individuals by allowing a small few to monopolize economic power and create massive inequality (which if severe enough becomes a threat to political democracy) and leads to oligarchy.

People should be free to pursue their own interests and not be forced to conform to cultural norms, beyond that which protects others from harm, but people also have obligations to each other.

Everyone should be given as much opportunity as possible to succeed based on their own merits, and there is a baseline level of human dignity we shouldn’t let people fall under.

Individuality and the common good should not be opposing principles. With rights come duties, and with duties come rights.

Then it cannot be the case that Humanism is bad.

And in order for there to be a distinction between A and not-A, it must be the case that A=A.

A self-conscious Humanism must be conscious of itself at the epistemological level. It can exists without this awareness, but it cannot defend itself without this awareness. And if it cannot defend itself, then it cannot argue its value above that which it is not, or that which it rejects. Which is to say, all Humanism is based on and relies on the authority of The Laws of Logic.

Humanism, unlike religion, should be conscious of this fact, and not only embrace it, but continue to refine its logical authority and value.

Online event for £4.50 by James Croft (who you may know channel Deep Humanism) and Andrew Copson (Chief Executive of Humanists UK, ex-president of HI)

Star Trek is one of the most successful media franchises in history – and may be the most influential humanist artwork ever. Beloved all over the world, Trek's vision of the human future in space has inspired millions. On the 60th anniversary of the first episode's airing, we ask what are its achievements, what are the possibilities for its future, and why do we love it so very much?

Join philosopher, speaker, and humanist chaplain James Croft as we travel beyond the final frontier to explore how Star Trek's interstellar humanism promotes reason, pluralism, and moral courage, while illuminating the challenges of our own time.

I'm very excited to see this.

Personally I am an agnostic, I would not say that there is no God, be rather the question of metaphysics is beyond man’s empirical senses and rational powers of perception and is hence unknowable by (which is not to say that certain religious claims aren’t falsifiable, many absolutely are). I could be called an agnostic atheist, but I think I prefer just being called an agnostic.

I also dislike antitheism. I don’t take issue with people for believing in a supernatural power that loves them or that their grandparents are in Heaven, what I dislike is religious justifications for bigotry or cruelty, or denial of science (especially on the topics of medicine or climate change). I have Christian friends, and I have no desire to make them lose faith in their religion.

I do absolutely agree with secular humanism on basically all its moral and ethical positions, humans to men seem to be responsible for themselves and their own welfare, rather than dependent upon an outside power. I believe morality can be rationally constructed based on human freedom and compassion, seeking universal happiness and fairness.

I believe humanists should be cosmopolitans, meaning that we should view ourselves to some extend as citizens of the world and members of the universal human family. Our love for our fellow man should not be limited based on borders, anymore than it should be limited to ethnicity or sex.

However, I think sometimes people follow into a rather reactionary opposition to patriotism because of witnessing its negative mutation into chauvinistic nationalism. But it is only natural that in the hierarchy of human affection that we hold our families in a special place in our hearts, and the welfare of our immediate neighbors we can see and speak to daily right outside that. Citizens of democratic countries are most able to impact the politics and conditions of their own country in which they can vote, and their personal welfare and welfare of their loved ones are most directly tied to the welfare of the country. It is virtuous, for example, to fight to defend your nation from outside aggression, like the Ukrainian soldier heroically repelling invasion.

I think humanists should be both patriots and internationalists. We should love our country and promote its best interests (which includes opposing when it is going in the wrong direction), while also supporting an international framework that promotes peace and cooperation between nations, economic development and aid in poorer nations, and the universalization of democratic models of government and human rights.

Humanism focuses on blending science-based reason with compassion.

Internally, that often includes discussions of leaving religion, atheism, and naturalism (science-based epistemology). That's our inside voice.

Externally, Humanism endeavors to reduce human suffering, to end governmental and cultural oppression of women and minorities, and generally to make the world a better place, all without expecting a reward in an afterlife. That's our outside voice.

Which of these, inside voice or outside voice, most attracts (or attracted) you to Humanism, which do you use most, and of course, why?

I recently left traditional religion behind. I grew tired of making excuses for a god that was supposedly loving yet couldn't be bothered to help his creations when it came to war etc.

I would say I'm a universalist at heart but I'm not sure where to go from here? I mean where do I turn now that my eyes have been opened?

How ancient Epicureans honored the wise among them and some aspects of their theory and practice of philosophical transmission.

Here's the summary of the notes I took on Sunday, August 9, while attending Ottawa's World Humanist Congress.

(Earlier I posted a similar summary for Saturday, August 8. Sorry for the delay in posting day 2's notes. I was traveling non-stop since the Congress ended.)

Again, the theme for the congress was "HUMANISM AS RESISTANCE."

(A) While the official delegates met separately conduct Humanist International’s official business, other attendees heard first from Humanist Podcasters representing Humanist organizations in the UK, Philippines, Canada, and Humanists International itself.

Although they spoke first of podcasts, it became clear that they also were heavily engaged in creating content for TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc.

They noted that each of these media outlets are flooded with religious content, much of it now A.I. created (AKA, AI-Slop). They contended that if Humanists & Secularists were to create more human-focused, human-created content, it would generate a greater audience. They encouraged those in attendance to venture into the content creation arena.

(B) Next was a discussion of “Who Decides? Reproductive Rights, Power, & The Future of Freedom.”

We learned that women in England & Wales were being criminally investigated and one woman jailed for ending her own pregnancy without consulting a physician. Only recently was that law lifted by the House of Commons, but it faced an uphill battle in the House of Lords.

The panelists noted that economic, ethnic, and location creates disenfranchised groups of women who are unable to have access to family planning & abortion services.

Todd Blanche the new Attorney General in the US has stated that he intends to prevent the use of interstate access to abortion medications.

(C) Next I attended a break-out session called “A Stumbling Cafe” led by Christian Lomsdahl, leader of Norwegian Humanists.

He presented a “menu”, where participants were allowed to notice the ways in which they had “stumbled” in life. Christian mentioned his own first marriage, which happened when he was very young, and ended before he was 25 years old.

The format was in terms of “courses”, where each subsequent course encouraged participants to share a bit more about their own internal criticisms and acknowledge the various ways that being human involves stumbling… a lot.

Lomsdahl has used this exercise as a way of building connections between local community members in Norway, and as a way of helping participants feel less isolated when they experience missteps in life.

(D) The next panel presentation was entitled “Hope & Community As Resistance.”

- Darrel Ray from Recovering From Religion and the Secular Therapy Project spoke of the need for developing leadership skills for local Humanist & secular groups to avoid folding out of poor planning.

- Urte Zukauskaite Zabuke (Lithuania), Humanist Ideas Ambassadors (HIA) spoke of the Social Franchising Model, where people need Humanist services (weddings, funerals, community connections). Even though people in Lithuania are largely no longer religious, they still need ways to mark significant events in their lives. Humanists there offer such services, and in so doing, are building a community that is focused science-based perspectives and Humanist approaches to making meaning.

- Evan Clark (Atheists United) was probably the least optimistic. He posited that, given the vigor that the Trump administration has applied to dehumanizing vast numbers of people (immigrants, religious minorities, trans people), it may be that active resistance and confrontation will be required.

- Uttam Niraula (SOCH - Nepal) noted that, even though he is a Humanist, in Nepal anyone who is not a Hindu or Muslim is thought to be a Christian. His Humanist group is providing medical services without regard to religious affiliation, which has resulted in them becoming a trusted source of neutrality in the face of Hindu v. Muslim conflicts.

(E) The last panel presentation focused on “What Next?”

- Andrew Copson from Humanists UK noted that we were naive not to have anticipated the backlash to growing human rights. This morning the official delegates in their meeting approved The Ottawa Declaration as a new affirmation of Humanism as resistance. https://humanists.international/policy/the-ottawa-declaration-on-humanism-as-resistance/ He encouraged Humanists to create better stories of hope than those based on fear told by authoritarian or religious groups.

- Shane Haro, Humanist Alliance Philippines International, spoke of more “unshackling” instead of resisting. In the Philippines, people’s lives are shackled by government not allowing divorce, difficulty in gaining access to family planning, and a low level of LGBTQ rights. Because the Philippines has a higher use of Facebook than any other country in the world, they need to maintain constant vigilance to counter misinformation found there.

- Monica Belitoiu, Romanian Humanists, pointed out that constant threats have kept Humanists there in reactive mode, but they’re now moving toward becoming more pro-active. Fear of being called an atheist is strong in Romania, so they focus more on inviting people to learn about science and then introducing them to Humanist perspectives.

- Louis O’Reilly, Humanist Canada, spoke of the need to collaborate with the American Humanists, because so much of what happens in the US affects Canadians. Still, he said the Canadian social & legal institutions are more robust than they seem to be in the US.

(F) Finally we heard Prof. A. C. Grayling, Northeastern University-London, speak. He is currently Vice President of Humanists UK.

He encouraged us, rather than simply clinging to irrational hopes and dreams, to hold onto Rational Hope, one based the actions that we can take to make a better world.

He has spoken in many places (for example, this address available on YouTube), and trying to summarize his lecture here would not do his presentation justice.

However, he ended saying that democracy defends our civil liberties and confirms the rule of law. To fight against authoritarianism, defend democracy.

Thanks for reading. I know this is a lengthy post, but hopefully an informative one

\#Enlightenment

We live in a dysfunctional self-centered world, allowing many to struggle due to humanity’s indifference.

Though most man-made challenges may be ended today, we choose not to.

Rather humanity prefers to accept the status quo.

Inequity, prejudice, war, hunger, are but a few of the hundreds of problems and harmful actions we ignore, believing there is little we may do to stop these injustices.

We may end these needless hardships though.

To do so, humanity must wake from its slumber, realizing only together, recognizing the equal importance of every life, will our planet and all life on it thrive, and humanity’s many self-inflicted problems be mitigated.

Our children are needlessly dying, their light extinguished before their appointed time.

Innocent, they die from indiscriminate violence, drugs, starvation, their slight bodies lifeless in an uncaring world, too self-centered to care or notice.

A world allowing the genocide of children is untenable.

To end this carnage, we must rise up, challenge the self-absorbed beliefs allowing this to happen, then embrace all our children, regardless of their appearance, beliefs, or circumstances in life, with unconditional love and genuine concern for their well-being, rather than to continue to feign ignorance and indifference to the injustices they may suffer in the world.

I'm starting a reading group where we can read together Martin Buber's book 'I and Thou'.

Moderators - if this post is against group rules please do remove or let me know if I can make any changes to it. I do not earn from this group.

Here is a description of the group -

Martin Buber’s book ‘I and Thou’ is a book about relationship.

It speaks of relationships of deep presence, and relationships of use.

Relationships of use are those where we seek something from the other – support, care, pleasure, money.

Relationships of presence are those which form when we fully experience what is between ourselves and the other, as it emerges and changes, every moment. The emotion I feel as I meet you, the thoughts that run through your mind as you meet me, the ache in the back that might lie underneath these thoughts and emotions in our stream of experience, the sound of the bird chirping in the background.

Relationships of use help us construct a world around us – a world of goodwill and care, or a world of indifference and mechanisation of life.

Relationships of presence are the ground on which our experience of this world emerges – they are how we first experience life, every day, every moment, before we choose to sustain or move away from what we experience into building our world.

Relationships of presence are what allow care to remain care and not become mere performance of care, what allow deep listening to remain deep listening rather than a hearing and reacting from our set patterns.

Buber never ceases to emphasise that the relationships he speaks of are between us and other human beings, but also between us and nature, as between us and the industrial, internetted civilisation we live in.

This reading group is a place for a small group of 4 or 5 people to read a few passages from Buber and pause, and speak about our own personal experience of the world – our emotions, bodily experiences – in ways that they are illuminated by what the book expresses.

It is a place to form a community rooted in relationships of presence, anchored in these words as a stirring point but not entangled with them.

It is not a place for scholarly conversations, for debates, for difficult language or abstract philosophisations, even though at times the nature of the book and the nature of reading itself might lean us in those directions.

It is open to anyone willing to read a paragraph or two together, and spend the next hour and a half or so sharing their experience in that light.

We need not read full pages, we need not finish the book, but we try to breathe in its essential spirit.

One doesn’t need to have read this book or any book beforehand.

We meet once a fortnight for 1.5 hours.

If interested please send me a DM.

Here's the summary of my own notes from Ottawa's World Humanist Congress.

The theme was "HUMANISM AS RESISTANCE."

I'm a little late getting these up, and they're a bit long. So I'll post the Saturday summary here first. Look for the Sunday summary upcoming.

Saturday, August 8 Session:

(A) Saturday’s session began with a keynote by sociological researcher Sarah Wilkins-Laflamme on “Challenging Misinformation & Narratives of Polarization as Forms of Nonreligious Resistance.”

Her premise, documented with a variety of surveys & statistical data, was that humans in general have been for several decades undergoing a “secular transition,” one that appears to be unabated & happening in all the continents on earth. The process appears to occur when the younger generation does not learn about religion as children.

She noted also that surveys indicate that polarization is not so pronounced as news reports have suggested.

(B) Next was a panel discussion of “What Are We Resisting?”

Represented were delegates from Canada, Ghana, Peru, & USA.

Each noted some of the issues that were unique to their own countries.

Most striking among them was Ghana’s increasingly draconian ant-LGBTQ laws, returns to female genital mutilation, and polygamy (which disempowers women).

The Peruvian delegate indicated that critical thinking was “opening doors to anti humanistic ideas. (Time & his accent prevented me from fully understanding that issue.)

(C) Then Prof. Francesca Klug gave a presentation on “Human Rights as Resistance.”

Her core premise was that resistance was always at the core of increasing human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights inspired people to resist when their governments oppress their own citizens. Paramount now is that human rights need to be defended against the idea that majority rule can subsume universal human rights.

(D) Next we heard from a variety of Humanist legislators from Norway, UK, Iceland, & Canada.

In general, each had reasons for optimism in their own countries, as well as areas where struggles remain.

(E) Finally we heard from a pair of Humanist Chaplains, Greg Epstein from Harvard & MIT, and James Croft from the University of Sussex, UK. They spoke primarily about the one-on-one relationships they built with students and the communities they help build on campus constructed around helping underserved communities (locally & internationally).

~ Living in an Insane World ~

We live in a world in which we accept the senseless death of innocents from war, starvation, random violence, drugs, as a normal part of life. This world is self-centered; its inhabitants are insane, only concerned about themselves.

Humanity has the ability today to end war, hunger, climate change; to mitigate inequity, greed, prejudice. These and all other of humanity’s self-inflicted problems and negative emotions result from living in an indifferent world that cares little about its harmful actions toward others.

We may only begin to alleviate our insanity by embracing another path through life, realizing we are alive to selflessly help, not harm each other, and that regardless of our differences, every life is equally important. We must no longer pretend we do not see. Only then may we not only begin to mitigate humanity’s insanity but discover the path to its spiritual evolution as well.

Many form opinions, prejudices about others, observing their appearance, words, beliefs.

The true value of a life though lies not on the outside.

Rather, it may only be found within, where the genuine worth of another has always been.

Can I be a Humanist, if I believe we all continue consciousness after mortal death, and there is a source of creation? I'm following the Baha'i Faith.

Within each of us lies an infinite force able to transform the world.

Though it is often hidden behind the self-centered illusions we were taught to believe, it awaits our permission to be heard.

To do so may cause great distress, as we must confront the many falsehoods we once believed to be true.

Only when we do this though, may we not only discover meaning in our own lives, but help transform the world as well.