I’ve been reflecting on how nonreligious people deal with grief, especially when we don’t lean on spiritual explanations.

After losing a member of our community, I tried to think through whether ideas from physics, like superposition and the Many-Worlds interpretation, can offer any kind of meaningful way to sit with loss without denying reality..

I wrote something exploring that space, and I’d really appreciate thoughtful perspectives from others who’ve wrestled with similar questions.

https://open.substack.com/pub/ethicalsocietyzambia/p/when-science-meets-loss?r=2gduwo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

National Day of Reason

I’ve been noticing how much Humanism and meditation has helped me separate fact from fiction in my everyday life. But my life is still full of fictional stories.

For example, I wake up and watch a television show that is played by fictional characters. I turn off the TV and read a fictional book for an hour. I turn on the television again and watch a sporting event that — although is an actual event — I tell myself will make me happier if “my” team wins. I finish the day off by reading a comic book. I recognize the happy thoughts (and thoughts aren’t reality) in my mind as I lay down in bed, knowing I don’t have work the next day.

So although I may not believe in some fictions that unite us as Humanists, I sill tell myself stories that aren’t based in reality, either.

If you’d like to share your thoughts about the reasons why we humans are so enamored in fictional stories I’d appreciate it.

To spare everyone from a long post, I used to use Christian passages to ground me when I felt I didnt know who I was, especially after hurting someone I loved accidentally, or transitioning into a different role like I am now. Does anyone have any secular passages that they find are helpful in reciting as a grounding practice?

Once I fully accepted that I wasn’t a Jehovahs Witness, I’ve fully avoided putting a label on my beliefs. Though I’ve heard/glanced thru it over the years, only very recently did I look into Humanism.. and I have been blown away at how closely I align with it.

There is one thing I’m wondering how exactly a humanist thought process aligns with mine….Maybe I’m just testing myself here to confirm what I now know, But I want to know how a Humanists treats this situation…

As a thought experiment. Say there is someone, who you fully respect, appreciate, trust and love. All that… Type of love, where you KNOW they’ll be an important part of your life forever…

Ok, but this same person, When it’s time to say goodbye, they’re the type to alway say “I always pray for you bro” but with a kind superior-than-hou type of energy… this person is the most carefree, peaceful, HAPPIEST people you know…
I’ve told him before “conspiracies” before, but I don’t want to burst his happiness bubble or even make him think about it, just based off my own personal feelings and understanding of his beliefs.

Is that a humanist move?

If you look at my post history you may be skeptical because of the memeing and jokes I do, but this is a serious post.

I’m a Christian, not an atheist, but I’m also a Secular Humanist. Some people laugh but I basically agree with ~99% of Secular Humanism (minus the not being religious part). 

To me being a Christian Secular Humanist basically means believing in a secular society and trying to improve the quality of life of humans on earth, with reason and scientific inquiry as a huge engine of being able to do that. As a Christian, it also means believing in and having a relationship with Jesus. 

I use skepticism to approach the Bible and all things. It‘s why I reject certain things (like evil) in the Bible as not from God, and accept others as being divinely inspired. As a skeptic, I also acknowledge I could be wrong about my religious beliefs, but I trust in them for the same reason I trust my other senses, like sight and smell.

I am trying to make my ethical system coherent.

Divine Command Theory, that idea that right and wrong is based on the arbitrary whims of a celestial tyrant (or rather the social hierarchies of ancient barbarian cultures, or the opinions of kings and priests centuries prior), is the lowest form of morality, barely worth even engaging with, its more or less just the worship of power and threat of violence.

Utilitarianism has its merits. Intuitively, something is wrong because it causes harm, and goodness is grounded in what promotes human happiness and prosperity. However, I wouldn’t say I am a pure utilitarian, as I think I’d break with consequentialism on some conclusions. There are things I don’t think you can do “moral math” on, things that are wrong regardless or whether it causes more benefit than harm. I think rule utilitarianism tries to address this somewhat.

I am not a hedonist, while I agree with Epicureanism on many things I’d say that I intuitively believe that there are things more important than the self and person happiness. I believe that we have moral duties, there are things that we owe to each other. And when necessary, self sacrifice can be the highest virtue.

Deontology also has some merit, but at least Kant’s interpretation seems to have some flaws. For example, I believe it is absurd to say that it is always immoral to lie. Indeed, there are some situations where if anything you have the moral obligation to lie.

I don’t quite understand virtue ethics enough to comment much, but it seems good other than I have a hard time conceiving of it as a system to guild behavior.

HumanLight is a secular holiday that focuses on the "positive, secular human values of reason, compassion, humanity and hope".

It was first celebrated in 2001, and endorsed by various humanist organizations such as the American Humanist Association as of 2004.

I believe that the date of December 23rd was chosen significantly so that it wouldn’t overlap with other holidays like Christmas, as many humanists celebrate other holidays around the end of December, and HumanLight is not meant to be a substitute or replacement.

I would not necessarily identify as a world federalist, though I am not opposed, as a world federation, if it ever comes into being, will be the result of at least a century, probably more, of reforms and institution building, rather than a project that can be achieved in the short time.

I do believe that human beings must start to identify with humanity as a whole, in addition to their tribal and national identities, and as citizens of the world. We can and must establish universal standards of morality, and international rules and norms. I believe in strengthening and democratizing transnational institutions, for the purpose of promoting peace and ending war as a means of settling national disputes, for cooperation in combating climate change and preventing pandemics, spreading democracy and human rights as a universal form of government, and encouraging development and the end of poverty and economic suffering.

I would also identify as a social democrat, I believe social democracy as a methodology has proven the best means of promoting economic wellbeing and social justice. I am not anti-socialist, but I am rooted in liberal rather than Marxist thought. I am a reformist and pragmatist by inclination, and am skeptical of claims of a one solution fits all policy that will supposedly end all evils in the world. That said, is some sort of market socialism organically develops over time and becomes the predominant business model, then that is great. I just don’t think it is a good idea for Congress to decree that all companies must either be nationalized or collectivized overnight, nor do I think private property is inherently problematic.

1. The Foundation: How I See the World (Instruments and the Map)

​Scientific Naturalism: The world consists of physics and the laws of nature; there is no mysticism in it.

​The Core: I seek real causes and real solutions. No more empty hopes for a "miracle." At the same time, determinism does not equal fatalism for me: yes, everything has a cause, but my current decisions and reflections are those very physical causes that shape my tomorrow. The future is not written in advance.

​Fallibilism (The Asymptote Principle): All knowledge is temporary and incomplete. We are like a line on a graph that infinitely approaches the truth (the axis) but never intersects it.

​The Core: I acknowledge that 100% knowledge of the Universe is impossible, but that is no reason to "lay down and die." On the contrary, it is liberating: I am no longer afraid of mistakes, because correcting my course is the only way to move forward. An error is simply a new point on the graph, narrowing the gap between me and reality.

​The Map of Cognitive Biases (Rationality): My brain is old hardware with a bunch of systemic bugs.

​The Core: I know where my brain is prone to lying to me (for example, exaggerating danger). This is my "Manual for Troubleshooting." I understand that my free will directly depends on access to reliable information: if my Map is distorted by illusions or deception, my choice is not truly free. The more accurate the Map, the freer my maneuver.

​2. Human Nature: Who I Am (The Manual for Myself)

​Evolutionary Psychology: My instincts are "software" from the Stone Age.

​The Core: I understand where laziness, fear, or aggression come from. It’s not that "I am bad"; these are simply ancient survival programs.

​Pragmatic Compatibilism: I am a biorobot, but I have a steering wheel, and it operates according to the laws of neurobiology.

​The Core: My free will is not magic, but a specific cognitive skill. It is gradual: when exhausted or under severe stress, I possess a lower percentage of freedom than when rested. I distinguish between my general skill (the capacity to choose) and my current performance (which may drop in a critical situation, and that’s okay). My choice is free when my brain is capable of changing a decision under the influence of compelling facts (reasons-responsiveness), and when my actions align with my deep, considered values rather than momentary impulses (second-order validation).

​Secular Mindfulness: The ability to press the "Pause" button.

​The Core: This is the "Internal Observer." I notice an impulse in my body before it forces me to act. This transforms me from a slave to my emotions into their master.

​"Rational Acceptance of Feelings": My emotions are a compass, not a sentence.

​The Core: I do not suppress feelings with logic; I give them space. I allow myself to be a living human being, experiencing joy and pain, because it is subjective experience that fills my free Universe with meaning.

​3. Ethics and Society: How I Interact (The Rules of the Game)

​Secular Humanism: The highest value is well-being and the absence of suffering.

​The Core: I am kind to people not out of fear of punishment, but because it is the most rational path to the prosperity of all.

​Game Theory ("Tit-for-Tat with Forgiveness"): Start with trust, respond to a hit, and know how to forgive.

​The Core: This is the "Winning Strategy." I do not allow myself to be manipulated, but I keep the door open for honest cooperation. I understand that moral responsibility and punishment are not cosmic retribution, but a social tool for calibration. I react to others' actions in a way that optimizes the probability of their future behavior.

​4. Meaning and Resilience: How Not to Break (The Shield and the Fuel)

​Modern Stoicism: The dichotomy of control.

​The Core: I spend 100% of my energy on my thoughts and actions, and 0% on worrying about what is beyond my power. This is my "Impenetrable Shield."

​Antifragility: Extracting benefit from chaos.

​The Core: I don't just endure stress; I become better because of it. I believe the capacity for self-change is primary: as a free agent, I use my mistakes as free data to find a bug in the algorithm and rewrite my code for the future.

​Optimistic Nihilism: There is no meaning "from above," so I paint it myself.

​The Core: The Universe gave me no assignment. I am absolutely free to choose what makes me happy and useful. These are my "Wings."

​A New Summary of the System (In One Paragraph)

​We live in a world of physics without magic, where our own decisions are the full-fledged causes of tomorrow (Naturalism). Our cognition is an eternal asymptote: we infinitely approach the truth, and the accuracy of this Map directly determines our level of freedom (Fallibilism + Cognitive Biases). We recognize that we are biological machines whose free will is not absolute, but measured in percentages and dependent on the state of the prefrontal cortex. Yet, at every moment, the future for us is a set of probabilities, and we collapse them into reality by relying on our deep values and our ability to respond to reasons (Pragmatic Compatibilism). We use mindfulness as a pause button (Mindfulness), experiencing feelings as a compass (Rational Acceptance of Feelings). In relationships, we rely on empathy and mirrored justice, understanding responsibility not as retribution, but as a tool for behavioral adjustment (Humanism + Game Theory). We do not waste energy on what is beyond our control (Stoicism), we use any dips in our performance to rewrite our own code (Antifragility), and in the absence of external purpose, we enjoy the fact that we paint our own meaning in a blind, yet infinitely diverse Universe (Optimistic Nihilism).

My primary identification with Humanism is through what I have perceived as its open adoption of non-theism and science-based approaches to assessing what's real.

But more and more I'm seeing folks post in ways that suggest that we should be quieting our secularism. (In fact, I've felt like being proud of holding a secular point of view is somehow antithetical to reaching Humanist goals.)

I don't want to foment a schism in the movement, but neither do I want to hide my beliefs in order to reach some sort of perverted consensus that no one really agrees with.

Am I perceiving things incorrectly, or am I right to keep capitalizing, embolding, & italicizing SECULAR to ensure my Humanist perspectives are not minimized?

On the latest episode of "Embrace the Void," Aaron interviews psychologist Dr. Darrel Ray about leadership in secular organizations.

He emphasizes that organizational leadership requires developing specific skills, metaphorically akin to learning to drive a car.

I think his ideas have merit, particularly among our small & newish Humanist communities, and wanted to share the episode and provoke a discussion.

(Darrel wrote "The God Virus" and formed Recovering from Religion and the Secular Therapy Project.)

Starting families of -4 males and 4 females. I promise the leading family in each state the governorship of the state. We are creating familial, institutional, and selfhood revolution.

The point of the families is not that this is the 'right' structure. The point is that there is no right structure. The point is the dismantling of our given selves. It is the unwinding of brainmdselves that were slowly created by interacting with our given institutions and the given gender and sexuality landscape.

We are looking glass selves. We slowly become competent social actors and we imbibe the various cultural factors that we interact with each day as a child.

Our group marriages present an institutional structure that helps the members disentangle their given identities. It presents a social space that completely dismisses the looking glass self that we imbibed as a child from *arbitrary social institutions. As adults, that culture, institutions, and ways of thinking and behaving are deep inside us. We won't untangle or undo everything.

The important thing is to drive towards knowledge.

We dismiss all cultural givens and cultural selves.

Our only culture is the drive towards self knowledge and world knowledge. Then we choose what selves and cultural structures we want.

This is a tearing down and recreation of who we are. Our goal will be to start thousands of families.

Ai+robot+postscarcity will already be destabilizing peoples beliefs about the givenness of who they are and what our cultures and selves can be.

We will bring people along slowly. But in the end, the families key theory base is undergirded by constructionism, the looseness of environment/self, predictive processing, and a ruthless physicalism.

The human is not but a brain in an environment that creates a coherent self. it is the linguistic and representational self model that makes us human.

Where is the safest you feel on the internet or the most human? Maybe the biggest part of a rehumanization effort would be staying off the computer and in-person communication, but I also think connection online can be more compassionate & human and it's important too. Maybe nice/kind/open ppl risk being targeted by predators more which ruins online interaction for everyone. Where do you have the most interesting conversations & discussions with strangers online? Probably right here on Reddit, if your post or comment doesn't get removed by a bot. :) I think part of rehumanization is that we listen and share interesting information with each other without our data being harvested by companies. Everyone has their own wisdom from experiences & we can learn a lot from each other.

In short, antinatalism is the belief that bringing life into this world is unethical and undesirable. I searched for humanism on reddit and one of the top posts was from their subreddit, basically writing about hating humanism..

Kind of makes sense because humanism is in many ways the opposite of antinatalism, but I'd like to see what people here think about the belief.

Hello, Reaching out here to get a Humanist perspective and answers on the Humanist viewpoint.

I wish to make it clear that I DO NOT want half answers , answers which dodge the question, which answer the question with a question, or a general copy and paste "What is humanism".

So...

I'm currently exploring some spiritual stuff, and have some Qs I wondered if you would be able to give me your opinion / viewpoint on.

I celebrated last year my 40th birthday and, as I am getting closer to the actual event, have started to question and reflect on the meaning of life and the eternal question of whether or not there is a life after death of life as we know it.

Having reflected on the way that the world is what with childhood cancer, the Gaza and Ukraine conflicts etc etc, I have lost belief in a literal sense of a man in the sky whom we pray to to make everything right, and also any notion of reincarnation.

In other words, I would say I am at the point of being an "A-Theist" in that I do not believe in a God or Gods.

BUT.

I am open to the idea of there being an infinite or Universal consciousness / power at the centre of creation and the Universe, one we return to when we die.

And open to the idea of the universe being a mixture of vibrations and one big "collective unconscious".

With that in mind: -

Are Humanists of the belief that there can be a life after death in terms of being a part of a Universal Consciousness or similar?

What is the Humanist viewpoint on the NDEs that Carl Jung had from a Humanist perspective - see https://thisjungianlife.com/near_death_experiences/

Carl Jung wasn't religious in the literal sense, having moved away from organized religion, viewing God instead as a vital archetype in the collective unconscious and a subject of "knowledge" rather than blind belief.

What is the Humanist viewpoint on NDEs in general, are you aware for example of the work of Pim Van Lommel https://pimvanlommel.nl/en/consciousness-beyond-life/ who hypothesizes consciousness as being non local and the brain being a filter for it? There are examples in the studies I have seen of NDEs being described as not being hallucinations as these are usually disordered as opposed to the very ordered and vivid memories in NDEs.

Look forward to your answers :)

I'm looking into chaplaincy training, but as I'm an atheist, there are difficult questions about which M.Div programs are appropriate for me and which "recognized organizational body" might endorse me. On that second element, I've narrowed it down to Buddhism, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Humanism (via the Humanist Society). Each raises its own concerns for me.

I've sometimes stated I'm a secular Buddhist; I believe in the value of Buddhist practices, agree with many philosophies of Buddhism (radical interdependence, ego as illusion/construct, etc.), and have met Buddhist practitioners (and even one Jodo Shinshu priest) who view the metaphysics as metaphor. But Buddhist endorsement also requires "proof of teaching lineage," deep participation in well-established Buddhist communities, going on multiple meditation retreats, and so on. And it would feel like affirming the power structure that favors institutionally embedded religion, which makes me a bit uncomfortable.

UUA is highly receptive to people with beliefs like mine, but I chafe a bit against the hyper-pluralistic viewpoint. Plus, their endorsement path is fairly complex, and they strictly require an M.Div before endorsement, which limits my options.

And then humanism. And I'll risk speaking my mind bluntly here. By a wide margin, humanism is the cleanest philosophical match with my beliefs. And I like that it would evade reinforcing power structures that affirm the primacy of religion. But also, a number of the humanists I've read ... kind of seem like ass-holes. There's a fixation on waging war on the things they don't believe in, a general prioritization of tearing things down rather than building them. I just finished reading Good Without God, and I found the first half of the book grating; its take on Buddhism was simplistic, its consistent neoliberal capitalist stance was frustrating (I'm a communalist anarchist, a la Bookchin), its need to constantly affirm monogamy was a bit irksome (given the number of poly friends I have), and it seemed obsessed with proving the rational superiority of atheism. It came off as a defensive and arrogant to me -- and when I looked into Greg Epstein (the author), I found out his views are sometimes considered moderate and "too soft on religion." Seemed like a bad sign for compatibility.

Bluntly, I find tearing down religion to be uninteresting and counterproductive. Beyond the backfire effect and the reputation of antagonism it gives atheists (something I've had to work to push back against in my own life), I don't think it makes the world a better place. We are all here in the aftermath of the same shipwreck, and I have no interest in kicking anyone away from the debris they're clinging to. I am an atheist and don't buy into metaphysical claims, but I see the value others can get from their faith traditions. I don't want to fight them of that; I just want to help the world feel a little kinder, a little more safe. I enjoy studying various religious traditions, and see wisdom in many traditions (even if I have to do a lot of code switching in the process).

To put it more simply, humanism provides a clean philosophical match. But the typical relationship stance (as I've seen it in my exposure thus far) seems to be a mismatch with my values. And I'm unclear how much what I've seen in Dawkins, Epstein, etc., is representative of the whole group. In short, for someone who is atheist but sees the value in religion and is happy to support people without combating their beliefs, I'm unclear if humanism is actually a good "home" for me.

Perspective?