These kids are all right
Today’s breath of fresh air comes from USA Today, which introduces us to its Kindness Challenge participants. No couch-ridden video game addicts or texting-teen socialites here. These kids are motivated.
Starting today, our five inspiring participants — who’ve already made incredible strides in philanthropy — will be working towards a specific goal that they’ve set, documenting their progress online with weekly blog posts throughout the challenge here in the Kindness community and at kindnesschallenge.usatoday.com.”
All five projects are admirable, but I’m most intrigued by 21-year-old (OK, maybe he’s not a kid) Jason Shaw, who launched INeedAPencil.com, a free online tutoring site for underprivileged youth preparing for the SAT.
I say bravo! You don’t have to be in the billionaires’ club to make a difference.
Filed under: Spotlight on Humanism | Leave a Comment
Tags: volunteerism
Dave Niose, president of the American Humanist Association, posted recently over at Open Salon a copy of a letter he received from an atheist friend. The friend wrote the letter to his own 11-year-old daughter, who was “very upset about her father’s non-belief” — particularly his refusal to pray for her (something apparently advocated by the friend’s wife, who is a Christian).
I won’t comment on a family situation I know next to nothing about, but it did remind me of the very issue that began the unraveling of my own faith: prayer. About 20 years ago, I was on a path to ministry. I was in the middle of co-founding a fellowship organization on my college campus and had just finished drafting the group’s constitution (as required by the school to be an official student organization and thus receive activity funds) when I had a moment of clarity while praying for guidance. Yes, I appreciate the irony.
The path I was on would have led me to fervent proselytizing. I was 19 years old and in training to present the Word to non-believers. I studied the Bible with an ordained mentor and doggedly researched apologetics. I was going to provide irrefutable answers in defense of Christ in debate.
But there were no irrefutable answers.
I decided to keep on it — after all, I was just getting started and I had faith more would be revealed as I continued in my studies. But each revelation was more suspect than the last. Every question I had was answered with circular reasoning (e.g., why believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God? Because the Bible says so.). Finally, while praying to understand God’s will, a giant hole ripped in the fabric of my belief: Who am I praying to? Why? Why does God require me to pray when he is supposedly omniscient? What does that say about the nature of the god I’m praying to?
The God I believed in was supposed to be perfect. Too perfect, in fact, for mortal minds to fathom. Ultimate love. True goodness. Omniscient. Omnipotent. Omnipresent. The whole nine yards and then some. Whenever something about God didn’t make sense to me, I countered myself by saying my definition of God must simply be too narrow. But because of that, God soon became just an infinitely thin abstraction. It was then a very small step to the realization that the concept of a personal God was absurd. Eventually, I came to understand the fallacy of the “God of the Gaps“. There was no chance I’d turn to another religion; it was clear they’d all fail the litmus test instantly.
I claimed to be an agnostic throughout my 20s. I left open the door to the idea of a higher power but, again, was pretty sure the matter was too complex to be comprehended. It wasn’t until my 30s that I faced the issue head on and realized I had been making the same weak excuses.
A sequence of events and introspection ultimately left nowhere for my intellect to hide. There was no God. And it quickly became clear that many of civilization’s messes — either directly or indirectly — were catalyzed by some form of religion. My eyes were opened, and I was faced with one big question: Now what? It didn’t take long to understand that the only sane response to an insane world was to roll up my sleeves and try to make it a better place. All alternatives were (and remain) unacceptable. Ultimately, I discovered my ideals matched those of organized Humanism.
So yes, you could say that prayer accidentally provided me with guidance. It was exactly the spark I needed to put me on the right path.
- Dave Niose’s blog at Open Salon
- Wikipedia: God of the Gaps
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: agnosticism, atheism, belief, Christianity, faith, humanism, religion
The Chernobyl Children’s Project International (CCPI) is a 501c3 organization founded in 1991 to provide direct and indirect humanitarian aid to the Chernobyl region, which still suffers the effects of the catastrophic 1986 nuclear accident.
The organization, which was the focus of the Academy-Award winning film “Chernobyl Heart“, was founded in Ireland by Adi Roche and later expanded fundraising into the U.S. in 2001.
CCPI’s programs include a children’s cardiac surgery initiative that has greatly reduced a waiting list for cardiac surgeries in Belarus from 7,000 children down to under 2,500 children in just 5 years, according to the organization’s website.
The organization also builds community centers, trains and sponsors nurses at orphanages, provides support for foster homes, offers rest and recuperation trips to Ireland, and provides medical and humanitarian supplies throughout Belarus.
CCPI is a United Nations-recognized NGO and has received Special Congressional Recognition in the U.S. (2006) for “outstanding humanitarian work”.
Filed under: Spotlight on Humanism | Leave a Comment
Tags: aid, Chernobyl Children's Project International, humanitarianism
Something to feel good about
Lately I’ve been doing some basic research on various charities for Foundation Beyond Belief and what I’ve discovered has helped kindle my personal optimism in our collective ability to confront what ails our world. The universe of organized humanitarianism is greater than I had imagined, and knowing these organizations exist gives me hope and strength.
The thought occurred to me, why not share the good news (to steal a phrase)? So occasionally I will post “spotlight” articles on The Viable Humanist to bring a little awareness to organizations and efforts that have caught my eye. Some of these groups may be worthy recipients of your charitable giving, while others could use your volunteerism. Each of them — intentionally or not — furthers Humanist goals in some way.
I hope others will find them as inspirational as I do.
Filed under: Spotlight on Humanism | 1 Comment
Tags: aid, charity, Foundation Beyond Belief, humanism, humanitarianism, inspiration
In the latest issue of Free Inquiry, the magazine of the Council for Secular Humanism, editor Tom Flynn puts forth his take on secular humanists acting as a group when giving to charities. In short, he opposes organized group giving as an unnecessary sectarian intermediary to the process of providing aid.
I feel strongly that organizing charitable outreach along denominational lines is an outdated concept. … Organized secular humanists, atheists, freethinkers, and other seculars are relative newcomers to the world of lifestance organizing, and in my view there’s no good reason why we should be scrambling to erect new ‘denominational’ charities.”
Coming across Flynn’s column is timely for me, considering my recent advocacy of Foundation Beyond Belief, a non-profit organization that facilitates aggregate atheist, agnostic and humanist giving. I admit my first reaction was defensiveness. But after I slept on it I realized, in the great tradition of secular humanism, that my beliefs deserved to be challenged.
The more I reread and reconsidered Flynn’s arguments, the more I respected them. But his idealism is rooted elsewhere than mine. Flynn advocates maximum individual autonomy — “emancipatory individualism” as he has described it in an earlier editorial — whereas I think secular humanism should be about something bigger than the individual: it should be about collective progressive activism that raises the tide for all.
There’s nothing wrong with pooling our individual resources in order to multitask: providing aid while promoting awareness of our cause. Flynn would probably argue — ironically — that having a cause to begin with is inherently sectarian. But I’d argue that standing up for a system of beliefs, such as the affirmations of secular humanism, is inherently and permissibly sectarian in its own way.
While considering the issue, I am reminded what a wide-ranging bunch we secular humanists are, why that fact should be cherished, and why it also can be our greatest obstacle to the necessary maturation of our mission. We need to determine how collective activism and individualism can flourish together.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: activism, charity, Free Inquiry, humanism, individualism, sectarianism, secularism
If you call yourself a secular humanist yet fail to back up that claim with concrete and deliberate action to make the world a better place, you’re not a secular humanist. You’re a hypocrite.
Secular humanism is nothing if not ambitious. It’s not enough for us to be considerate, fair and do no harm. The whole point of secular humanism is for us to leverage whatever skills and resources we have — individually and collectively — to affect positive change both locally and globally. This is the only sane reaction to the fact that there is neither a God to guide us nor an afterlife to serve as a consolation prize for suffering.
We, as individuals and a civilization, are responsible for each other. If you disagree with that statement, that’s your prerogative. But you can’t accurately call yourself a humanist.
This doesn’t mean we must sell all our belongings and go off to Africa to care for the sick and impoverished (kudos to those who do). From the arts and sciences, to our choices of vocations and methods of parenting, to volunteerism and charity, secular humanist ideals can and must be exercised in many ways.
Lately, I’ve become enamored with one shining example of something us regular folk can do in the name of humanism: becoming a member of Foundation Beyond Belief. This 501(c)(3) organization aims to fill a gap in the humanist community by providing a conduit for monetary donations to be funneled to researched, non-proselytizing charities. (Disclosure: I’m a donating member and I just received charity researcher permissions about a week ago, but I have nothing to do with running the organization.)
In announcing the formation of the foundation in May 2009, executive director Dale McGowan wrote on his Parenting Beyond Belief blog, The Meming of Life:
When religious folks give through religious charities and churches, it registers as an expression of their worldview. I want that too. I want my contributions to ‘count’ as a visible expression of my secular humanism.”
He goes on:
If people in Group A are asked to pass a plate full of the generous donations of their friends and neighbors and either add to it or not, 52 times a year, while people in Group B have no such regular and public nudge — I’d say something other than virtue is in play.”
Members can give a one-time donation or sign up for automatic monthly donations. But FBB is more than just a charitable-giving proxy. It’s also a discussion. Members can nominate and help research the target organizations (which change every quarter), as well as indicate how much of their individual donations go to which charity.
The charities cover a diversity of causes: health, education, poverty, environment, child welfare, human rights, animal protection and peace, as well as The “Big Bang” Fund (focusing on a small charity in which aggregated donations would have a “big impact”) and the opportunity to help FBB defray its own expenses.
According to the FBB website:
At the end of each quarter, 100 percent of donations goes to the beneficiaries and a new slate is featured.”
“Among other considerations, beneficiaries are chosen for efficiency, effectiveness, moderate size (annual budget under $10 million), compatibility with humanist focus on mutual care in this world and this life, and geographic diversity. In addition to direct research, FBB makes use of Charity Navigator, the Better Business Bureau, GiveWell, GuideStar, and other third-party sources of information and charity review. Featured beneficiaries founded in any worldview will be considered so long as they refrain from proselytizing.”
(Incidentally, I also dig that FBB posts responses from the charities, explaining how the money was spent.)
Is donating to FBB enough to check off “practice secular humanism” on your to-do list? Absolutely not. But it’s one convenient and effective incremental step along the path.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: charity, Dale McGowan, Foundation Beyond Belief, philanthropy, Secular Humanism
I am following with great interest the parade of announcements about The Giving Pledge, the philanthropic campaign championed by billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. The initiative encourages billionaires to enter into a gentlemen’s agreement — a “moral obligation” not a legal pledge — to donate half or more of their wealth to charity in their lifetimes or at death.
The encouragement, which has garnered more than $125 billion in pledges so far, is decidedly non-religious (although not anti-religious) and no specific recipient is endorsed. As Buffett said during a June 16 interview with himself and the Gateses on the Charlie Rose show: “It’s your money. I’m not going to tell you how or why.”
It is instead a general call to action. Said Melinda Gates:
“Philanthropy is very personal. To us it doesn’t matter what people give, whether it’s to the culture or to climate or to humanity or to societal issues — it’s what they’re driven by that gets them to give. We just want to make sure they’re thinking about giving.”
Buffett himself has pledged the majority of his considerable wealth to the Gates Foundation, which focuses the majority of Bill and Melinda Gates’ money and attention on global health and development. That’s on top of the fortune Buffett and his late wife donated to their own initiative which supports reproductive rights and nuclear weapons reduction.
The Giving Pledge now boasts dozens of mega-pledges from tycoons such as Paul Allen, Barry Diller and Diane Von Furstenberg, Michael Bloomberg, Larry Ellison, George Lucas, Pierre and Pam Omidyar, T. Boone Pickens, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner. And the effort to marshal the billionaires has only just begun to gain momentum.
The endeavor is already one of the greatest humanistic movements in our lifetimes. Not only have Buffet and the Gateses (and, according to some reports, David Rockefeller has been quietly instrumental, too) started this grand conversation, they’ve also fostered a social network, as it were, for helping each other get beyond the intimidating logistics that go along with that level of giving. Likewise, transforming sentiment into action will require diverse and in-depth inquiries into where can the money get the biggest bang for the buck. The pledges are cause for excitement, a little celebration and a lot of rolling up the sleeves and getting to work.
Of course, not everyone agrees. Some cynics call it a big PR stunt. Others seem to think it’s simply bad policy.
Economist John Tamny, in a June 17 column on Forbes.com, calls the initiative “misguided” and proposes that more good could come of using that money for investment than for charity, which by comparison would squander the funds for relatively short-term benefits.
“For the two richest men in the U.S. to monetize their wealth in order to support charities is for them to oversee the conversion of production goods to consumption goods. Some will no doubt benefit in the near term, but the removal of limited capital from the productive parts of the economy will ultimately reduce our standard of living, drive up unemployment and make individuals more–as opposed to less–needful of charity.”
Tamny inexplicably switches gears for a moment to pat the billionaires on the back, using nonsensical personification to claim that the Giving Pledge “rightly confirms that capitalism is, at its core, quite compassionate.” But this sentiment is unfounded. While not without its comparative benefits, capitalism is undeniably exploitative and perpetuates an economic imbalance that ultimately contributes to expansive poverty and its accompanying medical, educational and cultural deficiencies.
Keeping the pledged funds in so-called investment status would yield no long-term benefit. Quite the contrary, if we stop “hoarding the wealth” — as Tamny puts it — we risk short-term market discomfort for a chance to break an ultimately man-made cycle of inhumanity.
Tamny’s argument seems to suggest that the capital “taken out of the market” would, over time, simply disappear in some third-world economic black hole. Not so. The funding would expand jobs in other segments of our own economy and spur innovation of new technologies — including but not limited to medical advancements — that would aid our “haves” as well as global “have nots”. And who’s to say that some philanthropists won’t focus on domestic issues?
While The Giving Pledge is a great and historic good, it is only the easiest part of the equation. Ahead of us is hard work and tough choices, but those are the right challenges to have.
- The Giving Pledge, official site with pledge letters from the donors
- The $600 Billion Challenge, Fortune magazine June 2010
- Video interview with Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates, Charlie Rose June 2010
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Bill Gates, Gates Foundation, health, Melinda Gates, philanthropy, poverty, The Giving Pledge, Warren Buffett, wealth
A few thoughts on ‘Creation’
Thanks to Netflix, I finally had an opportunity this week to watch “Creation” with Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly.
I’ve long admired what I know about Charles Darwin but I’m not a Darwinian scholar. I know the basics about the man and his theories, and that’s about it. But what I know resonates with me. It is, to me, common sense.
It is apparent through my reading that Darwin was a contemplative man and not at all like the stereotype of the cold, analytical scientist. So what struck me most about the movie was how it conveyed his inner turmoil, his awareness of the magnitude and ramifications of what he was proposing.
Darwin knew his theories undermined the tenets of a society — and it would appear that this awareness brought about feelings of fear and loneliness that all true pioneers feel. He could not look away from an inevitable truth, and he had no point of reference to know how to react to his conclusions.
This inner conflict puts a whole different spin on his famous quote: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” He could very well have been referring to himself and the cultural and philosophical metamorphosis he experienced personally.
He once said, “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, – a mere heart of stone.” But perhaps this was simply a lament that he himself did not possess such a cold heart, despite being portrayed that way by his critics.
In short, I don’t know how factual the movie was, but it admirably conveys a humanity within the legend. If nothing else, it has inspired me to learn more about the man and the great gift he has given us all.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Charles Darwin, Creation, evolution, movies, society
In my experience, anyone who uses online tools to translate more than a word or two into a foreign language is just asking for trouble. It’s a recipe for embarrassment, at the very least.
Case in point: Foreign languages do not come easily to me. I’ve formally studied German, French, Spanish and Latin and still cannot hold a meaningful conversation in any of them. When it comes to language, I’m purely a book learner and have lacked the cultural immersion necessary to become comfortable expressing myself in a foreign tongue.
Years ago, I used an earlier version of Google Translate to send a lengthy Christmas note to my wife’s family in Germany. The results, I found out later, were hilarious. Taken at face value, the note was clearly written by an imbecile.
But the quality of machine translations, while still inconsistent, is noticeably improving. What was once a Utopian pipe dream — the dream of instant interpersonal communication regardless of native language — could be achieved in our lifetimes.
In the June 2010 issue of Wired, Clive Thompson writes about Google’s success in using statistical techniques to improve Google Translate results:
The technology is now surprisingly mature. …. Instead of trying to teach a program the rules of language, computer scientists locate massive corpora of online documents previously translated by humans — say, UN proceedings, which are routinely available in six different languages, or bilingual newspapers. Then they train cloud computers to recognize which words and phrases match up across tongues.
Regardless of commercial intent — last I checked, Google is still a for-profit, shareholder-controlled business — competent machine translation would be a significant milestone in the advancement toward Secular Humanist ideals. Communication is critical to understanding, which is vital to the growth of knowledge. And we SecHums believe that knowledge leads to solutions to human problems.
Thompson also points out that quality machine translation comes with a bonus: Individual cultures would be maintained.
The geopolitical implications are profound. For years, pundits have wondered which language will eventually dominate. Will English remain the lingua franca? Will Mandarin ascend? But maybe it’s no longer a competition. Machine translation could be good enough to obviate the need for a primary global language.
This again complements SecHum goals (see the affirmation that begins with “We believe in an open and pluralistic society”).
Admittedly, I’m a technophile (aren’t all SecHums technophiles by definition?) and an optimist (ditto), but the advancement of machine translation is one more piece of a Humanist future getting ready to fall into place.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: communication, Google, language, machine translation, Secular Humanism, technology
RSS feed for this blog
-
Recent Entries
- These kids are all right
- How prayer created a non-believer
- Spotlight On: Chernobyl Children’s Project International
- Something to feel good about
- Secular humanism: collective activism vs. emanicipatory individualism
- Secular humanism is an action verb
- The incomparable generosity of The Giving Pledge
- A few thoughts on ‘Creation’
- Sprechen Sie Humanism? Machine translation improvements promising
Categories
- Spotlight on Humanism (3)
- Uncategorized (6)
