What is the legacy of Paul Kurtz?

[Humes fork]

It is well-known that Paul Kurtz was instrumental in founding the modern skeptic and secular humanist movements. That was in itself a source of tension, because many skeptics were indifferent to secular humanism.

Later when the "New Atheism" came along, a source of tension was that they advocated a more hardline approach than the softer approach that Kurtz preferred. I think this eventually led to the split between him and CFI, because the new management at CFI drew quite a bit from the New Atheism.

Yet again, there is no question that skeptical groups might not have existed at all if Kurtz didn't exist. CSICOP was founded in the 70s, JREF and the Skeptics Society were founded in the 90s.

While we are at it, what do you think are the futures of the skeptic and secular humanist movements that Kurtz were involved in organizing and shaping?

 

[blutoski]

It is well-known that Paul Kurtz was instrumental in founding the modern skeptic and secular humanist movements. That was in itself a source of tension, because many skeptics were indifferent to secular humanism.

And vice-versa, but I don't think that was as big a source of tension as his leadership style, atheism vs skepticism or political ideology within skepticism or even disputes over specific action plans.

The decision to 'merge' CSH, CSER, CSMMH and SCICOP under CFI as one entity, seemed to be an effort to reduce administrative cost, complexity and redundancies, rather than any forced ideology.

I would argue that over time, skeptical organizations have expanded their scope, and CFI was part of this trend toward 'everythingology'.

Later when the "New Atheism" came along, a source of tension was that they advocated a more hardline approach than the softer approach that Kurtz preferred. I think this eventually led to the split between him and CFI, because the new management at CFI drew quite a bit from the New Atheism.

My impression is that this is not really what happened. There was an ordinary power struggle, and the 'story' was that there was a dispute over approach. Kurtz was a very hostile anti-religious person. Read his old editorials.

Yet again, there is no question that skeptical groups might not have existed at all if Kurtz didn't exist. CSICOP was founded in the 70s, JREF and the Skeptics Society were founded in the 90s.

Kurtz was instrumental, but his desire to control all of skepticism probably negatively impacted effectiveness.

My feeling is that without Kurtz, there would still have been skeptical organizations, but it's impossible to speculate much about an alternate reality.

While we are at it, what do you think are the futures of the skeptic and secular humanist movements that Kurtz were involved in organizing and shaping?

They are the best funded, capitalized, organized, "connected" and possibly also the best managed, so appear here to stay. I think the question is otherwise too open for me to really contribute much more.

 

[Humes fork]

The decision to 'merge' CSH, CSER, CSMMH and SCICOP under CFI as one entity, seemed to be an effort to reduce administrative cost, complexity and redundancies, rather than any forced ideology.

From what I know, the merge was largely opposed from within CSICOP.

I would argue that over time, skeptical organizations have expanded their scope, and CFI was part of this trend toward 'everythingology'.

CSH is a secular humanist group, which is quite distinct from CSI/CSICOP. Kurtz from what I understand wanted a big movement with those two groups (and philosophies) as one entity.

My impression is that this is not really what happened. There was an ordinary power struggle, and the 'story' was that there was a dispute over approach. Kurtz was a very hostile anti-religious person. Read his old editorials.

I'll admit I haven't read any of his old editorials. But I know that he was very strongly opposed to the Blasphemy Day organized by CFI after he left, and was "particularly offended" by the cartoon that won their contest. This is the cartoon in question.

Kurtz was instrumental, but his desire to control all of skepticism probably negatively impacted effectiveness.

He pretty much failed at any control though, because JREF and Skeptics Society were set up as independent groups.

They are the best funded, capitalized, organized, "connected" and possibly also the best managed, so appear here to stay. I think the question is otherwise too open for me to really contribute much more.

What I mean is, will they influence society, which is their expressed desire? Or will they remain the center of an obscure, cranky subculture to eventually fade away?

 

[blutoski]

From what I know, the merge was largely opposed from within CSICOP.

Yes, for varying reasons. It wasn't just philosophical. A big complaint was that all the money raised for CSICOP would suddenly be accessible by CSH. CSICOP people felt that was fraud.

CSH is a secular humanist group, which is quite distinct from CSI/CSICOP. Kurtz from what I understand wanted a big movement with those two groups (and philosophies) as one entity.

Yes, but that wasn't a special problem. It was right up there with atheism advocacy, political lobbying &c. Lots of scope debates.

I'll admit I haven't read any of his old editorials. But I know that he was very strongly opposed to the Blasphemy Day organized by CFI after he left, and was "particularly offended" by the cartoon that won their contest. This is the cartoon in question.

Absolutely. But not because he was soft on religion. It was because it was their idea without his consent, so he was instantly against it. When he insulted religious people for 40 years, it was obviously the greatest idea ever. This was just an invented wedge topic in a power struggle.

He pretty much failed at any control though, because JREF and Skeptics Society were set up as independent groups.

Yes, that's why he found growing internal opposition. His vision of One Organization was not going to happen, and his attempts to push the issue was just too unproductive.

What I mean is, will they influence society, which is their expressed desire? Or will they remain the center of an obscure, cranky subculture to eventually fade away?

In the USA, I think they are in the best position to do so out of the Big Five (CFI, JREF, Skeptics Society, Bay Area Skeptics, NESS).

This is just my opinion, but it's based on internal experience running a CSICOP affiliate, and external experience with my MBA-Nonprofits education.

My feeling is that in general, these organizations have expanded and their mandates too much, disengaged their mandates from measurable outcomes, and this makes it difficult to answer questions about their prospects for 'success'.

 

[Wolfman]

Kurtz was divisive, and insisted on personal control over everything. Some years ago, a group of Chinese scientists tried to start a skeptical organization, and planned a conference to promote it (the conference was held, but the organization ultimately failed to get gov't approval). I was involved with their efforts, and when they contacted CSI, they asked me to serve as an intermediary to communicate with Paul Kurtz.

One of the very first conditions that Paul put on cooperating with them was that they could not cooperate with or form partnerships with any other skeptical organizations, then or in the future; and he tried to push for actual control over the organization, by trying to insist that everything they did should be approved by CSI first (this latter was nixed because as a domestic Chinese organization, foreign leadership or control was forbidden).

When I met him at the conference, I found him to be arrogant and overbearing, insisting that only he knew the 'correct' path for skepticism; he viewed those who disagreed with him not just as having different opinions, but as opponents and enemies. Based on that experience, I have no problem concluding that many of the difficulties and schisms involving CSI and other skeptical organizations were primarily of Kurtz's doing.

So what is his 'legacy'? Yes, he was instrumental in starting the skeptical movement, but there were many others, and it would have happened without him. His greatest legacy, in my mind, is a very negative one -- many years of infighting and power struggles that significantly hampered that same movement, mostly because of his own insistence on having control over everything, and viewing all opposing opinions as threats. For a man who championed skepticism, he seems to have been remarkably intolerant of anyone questioning him.

 

[blutoski]

Kurtz was divisive, and insisted on personal control over everything. Some years ago, a group of Chinese scientists tried to start a skeptical organization, and planned a conference to promote it (the conference was held, but the organization ultimately failed to get gov't approval). I was involved with their efforts, and when they contacted CSI, they asked me to serve as an intermediary to communicate with Paul Kurtz.

One of the very first conditions that Paul put on cooperating with them was that they could not cooperate with or form partnerships with any other skeptical organizations, then or in the future; and he tried to push for actual control over the organization, by trying to insist that everything they did should be approved by CSI first (this latter was nixed because as a domestic Chinese organization, foreign leadership or control was forbidden).

This was his policy of non-cooperation. I'm not sure exactly when it was enacted (it was never put on paper, but passed verbally) but it was in full force in 1993.

I think the long-term plan was to aggressively shift member acquisition resources to younger demographics and build local organizations with the CFI On Campus chapters. As individuals got involved on campus, they'd 'learn' that local groups are misguided, stupid, and should be shunned. After graduation, they would happily form a new CFI chapter, and this would simultaneously expand CFI's footprint and choke out the local independent organizations' most common recruitment source.

As a result, independent skeptical organizations considered CFI to be the skeptical version of the Borg.

The strategic advantage is real, and I think it was effective. I think the noticeable and irreversible success of this plan and its terrible PR led to the decision to lift the cooperation ban about six years ago. CFI people can confirm the date - I could be off by a year, it could have been 2009.

 

[blutoski]

When I met him at the conference, I found him to be arrogant and overbearing, insisting that only he knew the 'correct' path for skepticism; he viewed those who disagreed with him not just as having different opinions, but as opponents and enemies. Based on that experience, I have no problem concluding that many of the difficulties and schisms involving CSI and other skeptical organizations were primarily of Kurtz's doing.

My theory is that some of it was inevitable even without Kurtz.
There remain schisms that have nothing to do with his leadership style and they may be irreconcilable because all participants believe they are the 'true skeptics' in the fracas.

 

[Wolfman]

My theory is that some of it was inevitable even without Kurtz.
There remain schisms that have nothing to do with his leadership style and they may be irreconcilable because all participants believe they are the 'true skeptics' in the fracas.

Having met and communicated with quite a variety of skeptic 'leaders', I'd have to disagree. While there are certainly personality conflicts and big egos, none of them have remotely the same "you can't cooperate with anyone else" mentality that Kurtz had. Quite the opposite, most of them encourage interaction and cooperation with different people and organizations. They may disagree with or dislike others...but I haven't heard any of them say, "If you want our help, you are not allowed to cooperate or communicate with anyone else."

 

[Humes fork]

Kurtz was divisive, and insisted on personal control over everything. Some years ago, a group of Chinese scientists tried to start a skeptical organization, and planned a conference to promote it (the conference was held, but the organization ultimately failed to get gov't approval). I was involved with their efforts, and when they contacted CSI, they asked me to serve as an intermediary to communicate with Paul Kurtz.

One of the very first conditions that Paul put on cooperating with them was that they could not cooperate with or form partnerships with any other skeptical organizations, then or in the future; and he tried to push for actual control over the organization, by trying to insist that everything they did should be approved by CSI first (this latter was nixed because as a domestic Chinese organization, foreign leadership or control was forbidden).

When I met him at the conference, I found him to be arrogant and overbearing, insisting that only he knew the 'correct' path for skepticism; he viewed those who disagreed with him not just as having different opinions, but as opponents and enemies. Based on that experience, I have no problem concluding that many of the difficulties and schisms involving CSI and other skeptical organizations were primarily of Kurtz's doing.

So what is his 'legacy'? Yes, he was instrumental in starting the skeptical movement, but there were many others, and it would have happened without him. His greatest legacy, in my mind, is a very negative one -- many years of infighting and power struggles that significantly hampered that same movement, mostly because of his own insistence on having control over everything, and viewing all opposing opinions as threats. For a man who championed skepticism, he seems to have been remarkably intolerant of anyone questioning him.

You seem to have some familiarity with Kurtz. A related question: Do you know why he left the American Humanist Association to form his own such group?

 

[Humes fork]

Yes, for varying reasons. It wasn't just philosophical. A big complaint was that all the money raised for CSICOP would suddenly be accessible by CSH. CSICOP people felt that was fraud.

Oh I see. Did CSICOP have it much easier getting donations than CSH?

Yes, but that wasn't a special problem. It was right up there with atheism advocacy, political lobbying &c. Lots of scope debates.

Perhaps I'm missing something. My source on this is Steven Novella, who writes that Kurtz's attempt at bundling skepticism and secular humanism was a source of tension between him and local groups.

Absolutely. But not because he was soft on religion. It was because it was their idea without his consent, so he was instantly against it. When he insulted religious people for 40 years, it was obviously the greatest idea ever. This was just an invented wedge topic in a power struggle.

He must have changed. In his "neo-humanist" manifesto, he warned about the dangers of "zealous atheism".

In the USA, I think they are in the best position to do so out of the Big Five (CFI, JREF, Skeptics Society, Bay Area Skeptics, NESS).

Hmm, I didn't know there were five big groups. And are NESS really active anymore, apart from the SGU? Their site is not updated anymore, and seems rather dormant.

My feeling is that in general, these organizations have expanded and their mandates too much, disengaged their mandates from measurable outcomes, and this makes it difficult to answer questions about their prospects for 'success'.

How have their mandates expanded?

 

[blutoski]

Having met and communicated with quite a variety of skeptic 'leaders', I'd have to disagree. While there are certainly personality conflicts and big egos, none of them have remotely the same "you can't cooperate with anyone else" mentality that Kurtz had. Quite the opposite, most of them encourage interaction and cooperation with different people and organizations. They may disagree with or dislike others...but I haven't heard any of them say, "If you want our help, you are not allowed to cooperate or communicate with anyone else."

We might be talking past each other a bit... what I mean is that even without Kurtz, there's still plenty for skeptics to schism about, such as political differences and how they affected project selection, funding, and public outreach.

Shermer's a good example of a schismatic who left over political differences with the rest of the board, not just Kurtz. I suspect the divisive issue for his defection was school vouchers.

 

[Humes fork]

We might be talking past each other a bit... what I mean is that even without Kurtz, there's still plenty for skeptics to schism about, such as political differences and how they affected project selection, funding, and public outreach.

Shermer's a good example of a schismatic who left over political differences with the rest of the board, not just Kurtz. I suspect the divisive issue for his defection was school vouchers.

Wait, did CSICOP have an official stance on school vouchers?

 

[blutoski]

Oh I see. Did CSICOP have it much easier getting donations than CSH?

I don't know exact numbers, but the ratio I heard in the 1990s was 100:1. CSICOP had all the big names like Carl Sagan, and the sales pitch was that money would be spent investigating the paranormal.

Perhaps I'm missing something. My source on this is Steven Novella, who writes that Kurtz's attempt at bundling skepticism and secular humanism was a source of tension between him and local groups.

It may depend on what he meant by local groups. The relationship went through stages. Originally many skeptical groups were offered membership in CSICOP only, and they leapt at the opportunity. After two legal fiascos (Bay Area Skeptics, James Randi) Kurtz wanted to eat his cake and have it too: he wanted the local chapters to become independent 'affiliates' to protect the parent organization, yet he expected them to contribute money to his Secular Humanist projects. I don't think it was particularly about philosophy so much as a bad value proposition.

He must have changed. In his "neo-humanist" manifesto, he warned about the dangers of "zealous atheism".

Do you mean the 1973 HMII? I don't think he ever really changed. He just didn't live up to the ideal he put on paper.

Hmm, I didn't know there were five big groups. And are NESS really active anymore, apart from the SGU? Their site is not updated anymore, and seems rather dormant.

I'm considering SGU to be essentially the main NESS operation at this point.

How have their mandates expanded?

I think this has been a gradual process from strictly paranormal investigation, to the current state of "everythingology" + social justice.

 

[blutoski]

Wait, did CSICOP have an official stance on school vouchers?

No, CFI did ([and still does]). So, when CSICOP funds were absorbed by CFI and suddenly started being applied to push social and political causes, Conservative and Libertarian members of CSICOP found themselves in a very different organization than they had joined.

Vouchers is just one topic, there are plenty of others; the role of government regulation as a means to protect the public from fraud or unsafe products, for example.

 

[thines]

Kurtz could also be a bit deceitful. In the mid 1990s he organized what was billed as a skeptical program in NYC. The morning session was devoted to skeptical presentations on various topics. As I recall, I even gave a little talk. Then there was a lunch and, we all thought, the afternoon would be devoted to more talks. It wasn't. It turned into a high pressure fund raiser. When several people objected that the event had not been promoted as a fund raiser, Kurtz had one of the worst public temper tantrums I've ever seen. He accused those in attendance who objected or wouldn't contribute of being enemies of the truth, of helping the downfall of western civilization and the like. It wasn't pleasant. At all.

 

[Humes fork]

Kurtz could also be a bit deceitful. In the mid 1990s he organized what was billed as a skeptical program in NYC. The morning session was devoted to skeptical presentations on various topics. As I recall, I even gave a little talk. Then there was a lunch and, we all thought, the afternoon would be devoted to more talks. It wasn't. It turned into a high pressure fund raiser. When several people objected that the event had not been promoted as a fund raiser, Kurtz had one of the worst public temper tantrums I've ever seen. He accused those in attendance who objected or wouldn't contribute of being enemies of the truth, of helping the downfall of western civilization and the like. It wasn't pleasant. At all.

Oh my *********** lake monster...