Now, to an even more specific set of issues, I will quote from an article written by Tom Flynn, another prominent eupraxopher. The following is an extensive excerpt from his article, "Defining--and Implementing--Eupraxophy" (Free Inquiry, Summer 1990, Vol. 10, No.3):
"Self-definition poses special problems for the secular humanist. To admit being one invites a barrage of questions. `Does that mean you are an atheist, an agnostic, or a rationalist?' the questions run. `You're one of those materialists, aren't you? Or are you a pragmatist?'Many humanists would correctly answer all those questions "yes"; after all, each term addresses a different sphere of interest. But even if I say that I AM an atheist, AND an agnostic AND a rationalist AND an adherant of the scientific method, and all the rest, I will fail to capture what I mean when I say simply, `I am a secular humanist.'
Paul Kurtz has advanced the concept of eupraxophy to describe secular humanism. A eupraxophy is neither a religion nor a philosophy, but rather a total stance toward life that combines a cosmic outlook with a code for vibrant, ethical living. It does this in the context of the scientific world view, and with a large dose of the zest for life in this world.
Defining secular humanism as a eupraxophy represents a significant step forward, for it gives us a vocabulary with which to define our shared commitment in a way that can engage the imagination as well as the mind. What does it mean to say that secular humanism is a eupraxophy? What do we gain by saying this that we lose by using any--or all--of those other labels? It's instructive to consider what traditional labels say about us as humanists, and what they leave unsaid. Since I am my most convenient guinea pig, I will demonstrate how those well-worn labels apply to me.
I am a secular humanist. Does that mean I am an atheist? Yes; "atheism" fairly describes my position on religious issues. I call myself an atheist because I reject the purposeful, often personal cosmic landscapes that human speculation so far has painted. It is not that I reject the idea of the transcendant out of hand; it is simply that insufficient evidence exists for accepting any particular account of a universe beyond the one we know. I can account for the world of experience well enough without accepting any of the dubious deities the world's religions have set before me.
For the same reasons I am a materialist. "Materialist" describes my approach to metaphysics as aptly as "atheist" describes my approach to religion.
My secular humanism also makes me a rationalist; that is my philosophy of human nature. I believe that reason is the highest faculty humans possess, the sextant most likely to guide us toward successful behavior. I'm no starry-eyed advocate of the "religion of humanity," content in some rosy faith that human triumph is inevitable. My world view admits the possibility that evolution may return a negative verdict on homo Sapiens. The best we can do may fall short of being good enough; still, I believe that if humanity should prevail, it will be because of reason.
Does my secular humanism make me an agnostic? Yes, that too. "Wait a minute." I hear someone saying. "I thought you said you were an atheist." Well, I am, where religion is concerned. But I am also agnostic--that word describes my epistemological stance: my philosophy of knowledge. I am keenly aware of the limits of human awareness. Proud as we are of our hard won wisdom, we can never be sure how much of it is wrong; science teaches no harsher lesson than this. And if it's difficult to know when we are wrong, it's harder still to be sure when we are right. In the world of experience, it is also more dangerous. Epistemic humility seems the wiser course; we should demand the most compelling of evidence before we impose our judgement on others. Because I am a secular humanist, I am also a pragmatist; that is my ethical stance. No other morality presumes so little and is so open to corrective feedback from the outside world. When persons of good will cannot agree what is right, they can still share in observing what works. And over the centuries, pragmatic experience has demonstrated the existence of a few firm moral verities, the "common decencies" cited by Paul Kurtz. These create a platform on which it is possible to build a humane yet rational ethics without either supernatural content or ecclesiastical sanction.
Finally, because I am a secular humanist, I am a supporter of democracy and freedom. I am too aware of the limits of knowledge to dream that any centralized bureaucracy can guide society better than the men and women who live in it. The quest for bountiful living is better served by a great number of small personal experiments than by a few very large collective ones."
Ditto Mr. Flynn! I couldn't have said it better myself.
Get your own Free Home Page