Paul Kurtz (1925-2012)

[Dogdoctor]

One of the founding fathers of modern skepticism and secular humanism.

He's in Heaven now.

Ok so you made me laugh ...........now stop this sacreligious behavior

 

[Dogdoctor]

I could relate to Kurtz philosophy, mostly I am sorry he died but then eventually so will we all.

 

[angrysoba]

I agree with you that he was very much an academic, probably too much so for gaining mainstream appeal. Though Dawkins is an academic too (a retired one at least), he is acquainted enough with pop culture to appeal to people who would probably find a purely academic work too dry to read. Kurtz by contrast would rail against pop culture in a way that sounded like a social conservative.

I think I like this guy. Dawkins is such a publicity whore.

Kurtz also disliked the more in-your-face approach taken by Dawkins, Harris etc. Though I suspect it is partly because of envy. The new atheists made more of a mark in less than a decade than he did over the span of several decades.

Yeah, they're also a bit Holier Than Thou.

All these schisms sound to me like the narcissism of small differences. May they all burn in Hell.

 

[maddog]

A thread where Wolfman saves the real discussion from inane back-biting. Unbelievable! (but well done, Mr. Wolfman!)

On a more serious note, Mr. Kurtz was an important *voice* in the community. Whatever his faults, he was someone who spoke up with his opinions and added to the dialog. Proliferation of denominations has aided Christianity, because those who are looking seem to be able to find some group that works for them - and similarly, the skeptical movement is helped by diversity of opinions, groups, leaders.

 

[angrysoba]

Proliferation of denominations has aided Christianity, because those who are looking seem to be able to find some group that works for them - and similarly, the skeptical movement is helped by diversity of opinions, groups, leaders.

Oh Gawd! Denominations of secularism with "leaders"? Count me out!

 

[Wolfman]

On a more serious note, Mr. Kurtz was an important *voice* in the community. Whatever his faults, he was someone who spoke up with his opinions and added to the dialog. Proliferation of denominations has aided Christianity, because those who are looking seem to be able to find some group that works for them - and similarly, the skeptical movement is helped by diversity of opinions, groups, leaders.

While I agree that a diversity of groups is a good thing, those groups should still recognize that they have a common goal, and be willing to work with and support each other. Many skeptical organizations function in that way, including the JREF. But under Paul Kurtz's leadership, CFI was not only constrained from cooperating with others, but Kurtz appeared to view any other organization as an opponent. It wasn't until he stepped down that CFI was really able to start taking steps of reconciliation with other individuals and groups...and for all that CFI exists in large part because of his efforts, I think that overall CFI is a better organization, and far more effective, since he stepped down.

I wish that the early Paul Kurtz had been the one that dominated...the man who saw a need for organization and unity within the skeptical movement. He had a great vision, a vision that is being carried on by many others today. But somewhere along the line, he came to suffer from the delusion that only he knew how to achieve that goal, that only he was suitable to lead...and thus, that anyone who disagreed with him was, by definition, the opposition. He seemed almost congenitally incapable of cooperating with anyone who did not first acknowledge him as absolute leader, or who had the audacity to question him.

I am saddened at his passing. But I'm more saddened by how many opportunities were lost because of his ego. A Paul Kurtz who had been willing to work with others, and to recognize that differing opinions and approaches enriched the skeptical movement, rather than threatening it, would have been a potent leader indeed.

 

[Humes fork]

The reason he failed was that he didn't just want to unite them...he wanted to unite them with himself as unquestioned leader. He had his own vision about how to do things, and a very strong "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude towards anyone who disagreed with him, or had other ideas.

My impression was a Kurtz was very much interested in what should replace religion. As a result, he carefully crafted an alternative called secular humanism (based on earlier forms of humanism, but IIRC he was the one making it explicitly secular). He intended it to be the philosophy that could replace traditional religions, a sort of secular religion or eupraxophy as he called it. "Secular religion" here is not meant as an insult, I just don't know what else to call (as he clearly intended for it to replace traditional religions).

The problem was though that Dawkins, Hitchens etc (and Sagan back in his day) showed almost zero interested in crafting an overarching philosophy to replace religion.

About ten years ago, we were talking with his organization about gaining their support to help establish a Chinese skeptical organization. He informed the Chinese organizers in no uncertain terms that gaining his support meant that they were not allowed to cooperate with or form alliances with any other organizations, and that doing so would mean immediate cessation of support from his organization. He also demanded that the Chinese organization had to be run according to his ideas and principles. The fact that China has an entirely different culture, an entirely different political climate, and perhaps most importantly, entirely different issues, meant nothing. The worst part was that if you didn't agree with him, he not only would refuse to work with you, but in some cases took active steps to oppose the work you were doing. (Witness the case of CFI, where after he stepped down as the leader of the organization, and they started doing things he disagreed with, he tried to convince donors to stop supporting their work)

Out of curiousity, what are the main skeptical/humanist issues in China? I know it's a very different culture from those I'm most acquainted with (those in Europe and the Americas).

He may have had the goal of uniting everyone, but his methods were one of the main reasons for some major schisms in both the skeptical and the secular Humanist communities. His vision of "unity" was one with him as unquestioned leader...a vision that was never going to happen, and that I found quite perplexing in a man who generally called for others to question their leaders.

I see. One thing I have observed is that in Internet communities (which the skeptical community to a very large extent is), it is nigh impossible to get people to unite under a single leader. The best you can do is to propagate your ideas, and if other people find them sound, they will also start to propagate them, or at least agree with them.

He had a great vision, a vision that is being carried on by many others today.

What was his vision exactly, and who carries on with it? Dawkins, Shermer etc are not carrying a humanist banner more than as an afterthought. They are not proposing secular humanism to replace religion, like Kurtz would have liked.

Perhaps I'm looking at the labels too much here (I know I have a tendency to do so, so I'm just being honest), but in this loose community, by far the most popular labels are "skeptic" and "atheist". I don't think any of the other, like "freethinker", "rationalist" or "humanist" comes close.

 

[Wolfman]

My impression was a Kurtz was very much interested in what should replace religion. As a result, he carefully crafted an alternative called secular humanism (based on earlier forms of humanism, but IIRC he was the one making it explicitly secular). He intended it to be the philosophy that could replace traditional religions, a sort of secular religion or eupraxophy as he called it. "Secular religion" here is not meant as an insult, I just don't know what else to call (as he clearly intended for it to replace traditional religions).

That's only a part of what he was doing...he was also very active in promoting skepticism, and I'd argue in fact that it was in that regard that he was more influential. His name is nowhere near as strongly associated with secular Humanism than it is with skepticism.

Out of curiousity, what are the main skeptical/humanist issues in China? I know it's a very different culture from those I'm most acquainted with (those in Europe and the Americas).

Well, China's a country where being an atheist not only has no negative stigma, it is the norm. Consider issues like 'separation of church and state'...in China, the problem is the exact opposite of that in North America, where there is an atheist government that has established itself as the head of all religious organizations.

I see. One thing I have observed is that in Internet communities (which the skeptical community to a very large extent is), it is nigh impossible to get people to unite under a single leader. The best you can do is to propagate your ideas, and if other people find them sound, they will also start to propagate them, or at least agree with them.

Again, it's not an issue of "trying to get people to unite under a single leader". I don't think anyone expects that. It is the fact that Kurtz viewed anyone who disagreed with him as the enemy. Dawkins, for example, may have a strong personality, but is still willing to work with people from other Humanist/atheist/skeptical organizations. Kurtz, by contrast, absolutely refused to do so.

What was his vision exactly, and who carries on with it? Dawkins, Shermer etc are not carrying a humanist banner more than as an afterthought. They are not proposing secular humanism to replace religion, like Kurtz would have liked.

Again, I'm talking about skepticism and critical thinking, not Humanism. As a Humanist myself, I'd consider Kurtz to be a very minor and relatively unimportant figure with regards to Humanism; but a very influential and important one in regards to skepticism. All of the major organizations and magazines that he founded were focused primarily on skepticism...I'd personally consider discussion of Humanism as a red herring, as it wasn't his main area of involvement, and wasn't the main cause of schisms between himself and others such as James Randi and Richard Dawkins.

I don't agree entirely with everything that Randi or Dawkins does...but I know that both would be willing and happy to support critical thinking and skeptical efforts in China, without attaching all sorts of strings to their help, or demanding that I not work with anyone except them. Both of them have built organizations that are distinct, but that actively and regularly work closely with other atheist/skeptical/Humanist organizations.

Kurtz refused to do that...and that was his biggest weakness, his biggest downfall.

 

[Ian]

Paul Kurtz obituary in The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/28/paul-kurtz

 

[AlBell]

...

Perhaps I'm looking at the labels too much here (I know I have a tendency to do so, so I'm just being honest), but in this loose community, by far the most popular labels are "skeptic" and "atheist". I don't think any of the other, like "freethinker", "rationalist" or "humanist" comes close.

"Bright" didn't catch on, other than something for outsiders to laugh at.

 

[RandyN]

One of the founding fathers of modern skepticism and secular humanism.

He's in Heaven now.

Nope...he's in HELL!!!

 

[Humes fork]

I think I like this guy. Dawkins is such a publicity whore.

Not sure of that. If I'm not mistaken Dawkins is a bit dissappointed that he so often gets to represent atheists on British TV when there is a debate on such issues. The reason was that most thinking people are atheists.

 

[Humes fork]

That's only a part of what he was doing...he was also very active in promoting skepticism, and I'd argue in fact that it was in that regard that he was more influential. His name is nowhere near as strongly associated with secular Humanism than it is with skepticism.

I didn't know he was more separable from one rather than the other of those.

Well, China's a country where being an atheist not only has no negative stigma, it is the norm. Consider issues like 'separation of church and state'...in China, the problem is the exact opposite of that in North America, where there is an atheist government that has established itself as the head of all religious organizations.

I see. The skeptic organization you was going to found in China, were the organizers Chinese or Western expats?

Again, it's not an issue of "trying to get people to unite under a single leader". I don't think anyone expects that. It is the fact that Kurtz viewed anyone who disagreed with him as the enemy. Dawkins, for example, may have a strong personality, but is still willing to work with people from other Humanist/atheist/skeptical organizations. Kurtz, by contrast, absolutely refused to do so.

Why did he do that? It sounds very obtuse.

I don't agree entirely with everything that Randi or Dawkins does...but I know that both would be willing and happy to support critical thinking and skeptical efforts in China, without attaching all sorts of strings to their help, or demanding that I not work with anyone except them. Both of them have built organizations that are distinct, but that actively and regularly work closely with other atheist/skeptical/Humanist organizations.

I see what you mean. I know that Randi was initially associated with CSICOP, but later left. Was that due to issues with Kurtz?

 

[RandyN]

Im a little skeptical about this whole skeptic movement.

 

[cj.23]

The Founder of CSI and Skeptical Inquirer passes - I expected a rather more sombre response. I had no idea he was so unpopular. My own views are completely different to Paul Kurtz, (given I am a theist and something of a pranormalist) and I have critiqued the Jesus Seminar, many Skeptical Inquirer articles and am clearly opposed to the ideology that he espoused through CSI(COP), yet I never doubted his intelligence, or commitment. I am for him the enemy, but I raise a glass now to his memory, and the undeniable good he did in the service of scepticism, however authoritarian and divisive it appears he was at times. Like Martin Gardner he struck me as one of the great figures of American scepticism, and while my respect for him never came near my immense admiration for Gardner, I find it hard to imagine today's sceptical scene developing without the contribution of Paul Kurtz. There is a great irony in my being genuinely saddened by his passing when others clearly are not. Bon voyage, Mr Kutz.

cj x

 

[Humes fork]

The Founder of CSI and Skeptical Inquirer passes - I expected a rather more sombre response. I had no idea he was so unpopular. My own views are completely different to Paul Kurtz, (given I am a theist and something of a pranormalist) and I have critiqued the Jesus Seminar, many Skeptical Inquirer articles and am clearly opposed to the ideology that he espoused through CSI(COP), yet I never doubted his intelligence, or commitment. I am for him the enemy, but I raise a glass now to his memory, and the undeniable good he did in the service of scepticism, however authoritarian and divisive it appears he was at times. Like Martin Gardner he struck me as one of the great figures of American scepticism, and while my respect for him never came near my immense admiration for Gardner, I find it hard to imagine today's sceptical scene developing without the contribution of Paul Kurtz. There is a great irony in my being genuinely saddened by his passing when others clearly are not. Bon voyage, Mr Kutz.

cj x

I don't think he was unpopular. But he was very much an academic, and unable to appeal to a wider audience. Say what you will about Dawkins and Hitchens, but they were much better at that.

 

[Jono]

I don't recall ever hearing much about Kurtz, prior to this thread. He was certainly not a notable in Sweden. I wonder if I've just missed the threads were people, here, talked about him or... they simply never did talk about him that much?

 

[Humes fork]

I don't recall ever hearing much about Kurtz, prior to this thread. He was certainly not a notable in Sweden. I wonder if I've just missed the threads were people, here, talked about him or... they simply never did talk about him that much?

He was not particularly notable in the US either. At least I suspect your average American is more likely to have heard about Dawkins than about Kurtz. In fact, I think he was only notable within the skepticism/atheism/humanism universe, and even there you can find people who are far more notable. At least these days.