The Humanist Small Group held its third meeting this afternoon at Andala Coffee House in Central Square, Cambridge. There were seven of us, and in addition to conversation, we enjoyed hot drinks and Middle Eastern food.
The main topic of conversation was how to develop direction and values in the absence of a holy book that gives us all the answers. I think we all agreed that we rejected the notion associated with some interpretations of multiculturalism that holds that all points of view are equal, and that religion is an equally valid interpretation of the world as science and should be above criticism.
I think we also all agreed that our approach should be evidenced-based. But then two points were made that show the limits of an evidenced-based approach.
1. Contemporary social science tries to emulate the physical sciences, but by their nature, social science studies contain many more confounding variables, and their conclusions are much less reliable than in the physical sciences.
2. Certain fundamentals cannot be proved, but must be assumed. For instance, policies that maximize health, wealth, or happiness are probably better than those that do the opposite, but that’s ultimately a matter of feelings. Some people might hold the view that dissatisfaction is a spur to achievement. Once we understand what we fundamentally value (for instance, to be happy) we can then use an evidence-based approach to try to bring this about (e.g. maximize happiness in society).
We had some general agreement on this abstract level, but a considerable divergence of viewpoints once we got into the nitty gritty. The discussion touched on John Rawls, Ayn Rand, Kant, and Epicurus, the latter of whom turns out to have been the opposite of the hedonist image associated with the word Epicurean.
I think we mostly agreed that there are aspects of humanism buried within religion, such as the Golden Rule, and that sensible ideas that originate in religion could be carried over to secular values, while the elements that cannot be justified rationally should be discarded.
We got into a discussion about whether people should feel they have a duty to others or whether it all comes down to self-interest, enlightened or otherwise. Deontelogical ethics came up.
We also talked a bit about education, the sexual preferences of Ancient Athenians, neuroscience, whether god figures originate in parental attachments.