Humanist Small Group notes

Andala Coffee House in Cambridge, where the third meeting was heldFor a couple months now, a little group of people have been meeting biweekly under the name Humanist Small Group. It was started by a classicist and teaching fellow (I believe is his position) at Harvard who wanted regular fellowship with like-minded folks, more than was facilitated by the social events the Harvard humanist community hosts once a month or so.

Rick Heller has chronicled the last two meetings, the latter of which was this Saturday. As you can see, we covered a lot of standard ground, and more unexpectedly virtue ethics came up at a few points. As it did earlier this month when I stopped by the University of Chicago and sat in on a seminar by Deirdre McCloskey on virtue ethics, Christianity and capitalism. (Guess there’s more than one way to do it.)

I find all humanist/etc. groups to be fraught with theoretical difficulties. For example: Is any group labeled “humanist” a protest group against religion? If not, why does it exist? If so (and surely it is, if only to a very small degree), to what degree should religion and irreligion be a focus of conversation? But refreshingly, these have not seriously affected the actual meetings, and perhaps exist merely in my head.

A related issue that did come up, at the end, was the suggestion that the “humanist movement,” being full of individualistic, highly opinionated people, may never become unified and cohesive enough to be a real force in society. I made the suggestion that, perhaps, but perhaps there is room for more specialized groups within the wider movement. And of course there is Sam Harris’s suggestion that there be no movement at all.

One Comment

  1. Rick Heller says:

    I think the diversity of humanist opinion reflects the diversity of opinion in social science and psychology, and the inability to prove a heck of a lot with regard to individual and social psychology. Humanists would like to be scientific about our values as much as possible, but social science has no where near the accuracy of the physical sciences, because experimental conditions cannot be easily controlled, and fundamental mechanisms have not been elucidated. Thus, we’re left with educated guesses, opinions, and intuitions, and these can differ quite a bit even for people who are committed to thinking rationally.

Comment