Sapient; thanks for asking!

I personally thought it was outstanding, but I am likely biased by the fact that I got to participate solely because I created a cheesey myspace group.

Some were critical of it on the james randi board, and I posted a counter opinion. Here's what I said, if anyone's interested:

*** post 1:

First, independent of the content / speakers / dinner caste system, I sincerely think Greg Epstein is outstanding.

He had 500 attendees as a first-time conference. He successfully mixed Nobel prize winners with people who’s claim to fame was starting a group on Myspace. He was forced to change venues more than once (How big was Tam 1? How many more big egos needed to be dealt with here!).

I think the conference went off nearly flawlessly (independent of the content). That's the best compliment I can give to the guy who ran the show.

The speakers ranged from incredibly boring and incomprehensible to engrossing and brilliant (most conferences are like this, though the extremes here were likely sharper).

Salman kicked major ass. He is a gentleman and a scholar. Hearing him tell a few Islam jokes was worth the trip alone. He was kind enough to shake my hand in the bathroom (I hope I got him post-wash), and then later pose for a picture even though he was in a hurry to leave. That said, reading from a book for 20 minutes sucks no matter what the book or who's doing the reading. Also, the church at Harvard Yard impressed the hell out of me. It’s an amazing piece of architecture. What’s wrong with building a headquarters like this to advance humanist thought?

The morning session was mostly boring with the exception of one outstanding speaker (the "do you understand" guy), though he went too long.

The panel thingies seemed hit and miss to me. I think we needed more focused questions or issues, and that the topics were too broad. But, the diversity of participants on the panels speaks volumes about Greg’s efforts to unite the entire community. I think he did an outstanding job of making it seem like the little people matter. I buy the above-posted explanation for the splitting of the people at dinner. I noticed tears and intense emotion in Greg’s eyes when he was hugging Tom Ferrick. The whole conference was built around uniting the young unknown skeptics with the grey haired eminent ones. It just cannot be the case that the split at dinner was designed.

The night speakers were moderately entertaining. However, too many of them each speaking too long made it annoying on balance. I thought Tom Ferrick’s talk was sincere, interesting and heart felt (the conference was also about honoring his 30 year career with Harvard, so I don’t think it was overkill).

I think Harvard is the wallet that says bad mother****er. To be aligned with this institution gives us the prominence that we need. If that requires tolerating speeches from rich white males, so be it. I thought the guy who gave 1 million was not at all snobbish (I think it’s a bold and interesting statement: humanism is the most worth charity in existence), and even if he was arrogant, I think his million earned him the right to 10 minutes of ass kissing. Money is a necessary evil for any cause.

In sum, for a first time deal, I give it 4 and ½ stars, and I hope my 15 minutes of fame here hasn’t biased my opinions, but I am definitely glad I attended this thing.

*** Post 2:

I think the theme of the conference-- new humanism-- is the idea that we should tolerate other people's beliefs. I think greg wanted to stir things up a bit / make things interesting within the skeptical community by offering an alternative to "in your face" atheism a la dawkins or harris.

In fact, there was a crisis when greg was "misquoted" in the new york times as calling dawkins and others "fundamentalist" / "militant" atheists.

This created a backlash among some skeptics who were offended by the term (I know one organization who boycotted the whole conference because of it).

It's why I stuck in the reference to being a p.r.i.c.k. atheist, which is I think the only comment I made that got anyone smiling.

FWIW, I tend to agree with the new humanism. I generally don't give a rats ass about what most other people believe unless it interferes with my rights.

If indeed our worldview is correct, it's apparent that just the logic of it is not enough to convince the vast majority of people that theism is irrational. So, I don't see the in your face approach as being all that productive in converting "joe six pack". I do think the in your face version is critical whenever people in power push religion on the masses (e.g., stem cell research or gay marriage).

So, I think there's a niche for the kinder and the rougher approaches to atheism. I personally would rather market skeptics as normal people who exist in large numbers, and then let the strength of our worldview be something that people stumble upon. It seems like the better strategy in most cases-- versus telling people they're stupid for their beliefs (like the school geek telling off the football jock; don't be surprised if you get punched!).

JMO!

Weak-willed, easily offended people, please don't read.

[FLAME]

In fact, I would like to apologize yet again because I want to thank 'the new humanism' for giving itself the type of connotation that the word has been used to get away from.

"Not believing in god is okay, but an ATHEIST???!!!"

Pretty soon, with the type of hypocrisy that exists at the forefront of humanism that famous quote will change to:

"An atheist is okay, but a HUMANIST???!!!"

In my subjective observations, humanists:

Preach tolerance unless there are no members of a certain type nearby.

Preach human values yet do very little for humanity. This may be wrong, but it is MY observation.

Preach secular values yet call themselves 'chaplains' when they are put into an office.

Preach about and label groups of people based upon their ideas of 'militancy' or 'fundamentalism' while declaring that ALL are welcome and tolerated.

Throw gala parties and money around for each other to spend on each other for each other while knowing that the money could go for intersubjective humane causes.

Openly say that they don't believe in god and then invite religious people to join them in human activities while bowing their heads and allowing religious influences in the formation of a doctrine.

and this one is just the friggin' STRAW:

USING THE PEOPLE THEY LABEL AS 'EXTREMISTS' TO FURTHER THEIR OWN AGENDA OF EXCLUSION.

You laugh at 'Joe six pack', but I would much prefer his company to the likes of any of you.

You are not humanists. You are barely even human in my eyes. Each and every one of you that continues to allow NAY enable willingly the behavior of these people is suspect.

You have sullied the name of every person that has even once used your label for themselves. To think that at one point, I wanted to willfully accept the label of 'humanist'. That thought now disgusts me.

[/FLAME OFF]

Any atheists offended by this should understand that this is meant for these alleged 'leaders' of humanism and not the people duped by the label's definition.

Ok, got some time

1) Interesting blog. I didn't realize the deal was that big. My reaction was sorta "cry me a river".

I don't know greg that well; my above posts were my reactions to my interactions with him. I still stand be em (jmo). I do know he was trying to stimulate some controversy by presenting an alternative to in your face atheism. Assuming now he indeed meant to call some "fundies," I still say, cry me a river.

2) I think churches do more than let believers be irriational together. They offer a brick and mortar sense of community. One key thing we lack-- imo-- is that sense of community, as heathens seem to be spread out in physical space far moreso than theists (can't walk a mile here without seeing many a church). I think there are many positive aspects to what churches do, and I think these positive aspects would exist even if the gods they worship do not.

3) I'm a small fish in this ocean. I was thrilled when I got the invite, and I was aware of the irony behind it all. That said, since people asked for my opinion, I offered it. One theme in my mind is that atheists need a better image. I don't think we do a good job marketing ourselves. We come across as bitter cynics without hope or happiness or a sense of humor. Once a theist labels you a cynic, it's easy to dismiss whatever you say (rightly or wrongly) by compartmentalizing the argument. These again are just my opinions; I claim to speak for no one but myself, and if people disagree, that's cool and the gang.

4) Following up on that, I really think atheists need to get better senses of humor. Laughter is good for humanity, and being able to joke about yourselves and others, I think, should be or is human nature (the point was made by rushdie that good humor is funny because it reveals some disturbing truth about reality; I think that's why he told the relatively tame jokes he did).

5) I think one can be tolerant of others beliefs even when you disagree with them and argue against them. Tolerance to me doesn't mean blind acceptance. It means, though, that others have the right to not share your world view (even if you think their world view is irrational).

If some people need an irrational security blanket to feel good, or get over the grief of a loved one dying, then I think they have the right to that blanket. This follows from my view that people should be free to do whatever they want; even things deemed stupid by others, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's right to be free.

6) I accept that my comments re joe sick pack could come across as arrogant, elite, etc. One of the better speakers at the conference made reference to this idea, and I agree with him. Let me explain-- if it still seems elite, so be it:

I've learned that a large segment of the population (both theist and non, though I suspect proportionately fewer heathens are in this category) do not use reason / logic / scientific rules of evidence as the basis for deciding what they believe.

Debating these people is an utter waste of time. It's like playing soccer without a ball. If one doesn't accept that logic should be the arbiter of arguments, then there's no reason debating.

As a side note, I suspect that IQ (or relative lack thereof) largely influences whether you will become the logic-type guy, or joe six pack. In fact, I am currently collecting lots of data exploring the relationship between IQ and race, and my next study is gonna look at IQ and religious belief (can an IQ test ID joe six pack?). So, I guess I am an elitist racist heathen sexist. I am a smoker too.

But the joe six pack reference to me represents the idea that you can't get blood from a turnip. Rational arguments won't work if people don't use reason to decide what they believe in. Fortunately, policy makers and people in power seem more amenable, on balance, to using reason, and so I think we can make our biggest gains by focusing short term on people other than joe 6p.

If anyone's still reading, or if DJ thinks I didn't address his points, feel free to reply.

q. what do you get when you cross an atheist with a JW?

a. someone who knocks on your door for no reason.

Now that's funny!

Absolutely, I think that it was more of an indictment against the Harvard Humanists because in my opinion, the philanthropist was DUPED into thinking that the money would go toward more admirable goals than building or buying a church.

Darth, a person like youself demands another label other than "atheist."  I'll also suggest "anti-theist."  Why?  Because to me, it seems plainly obvious you hate anything that looks/feels/sounds/acts/walks/talks like a theist, and, I'd wager, more specifically, a Christian.  This is the most irrational rant I've ever seen from you.

 It seems you want it to be true that humanists are appeasing, lilly livered, badmouthing, hypocritical almost-theists, so much that you're willing to be irrational to do so, because to believe otherwise would be too hard for you.

 For them to be on "your side" would just feel too unbearable for you so that you just gotta lump them on the "other side" with all your other enemies.

You're not ready to be tolerant of theists.  You're too hurt.  You havn't gotten your revenge yet, and untili then, anyone that stands up for theists is your enemy.

But know this:  you very well can be an atheist without being anti-theistic.  See them not just as theists, but as human beings.

 I respect you, Darth, which is why I tell you this.

 Peace.

Addendum:

The atheistvolunteers.org thing is awesome. My question is: If the label's connotation was going to be such a problem then why not have humanistvolunteers.org?

For me, the sick sad sorry part is that I'm the one that helped firefly with his 'spiritual humanist' label conversion. I'm wishing now that he'd kept the christian label.

[SARCASTIC  RESPONSE]Oh wait. I forgot. I hate theists. Why would I have good conversations with firefly for hours? Why would I respectfully discuss social issues with ministers?[/SARCASTIC RESPONSE]

Yeah. We've got some issues here, but I'm fairly confident that we'll be able to reach some sort of understanding. Either that or.... shit I don't know.

I want to comment on the label of anti-theist (sorry if this gets us too off topic, but it seems to be an issue at this point in the thread). It seems that this may just be a difference in how we define things, and it may be beneficial to discuss our differences with that label. I define anti-theist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." I think that is quoted from the Oxford English Dictionary, but I am not sure.

It is because of my love for my fellow humans, that I oppose the fettering of human minds by unprovable claims in absurd things. So I love theists and atheists, but I am opposed to holding absurd ideas as true, because when there is an absence of rational thought, people tend to do stupid things and hurt themselves and others (directly and indirectly, such as supporting unjust laws and voting for people who claim to have a certain belief while not being fit for the position).

So I accept the anti-theist label providing that the label is understood as a stance against a certain belief and not against individuals who hold that belief. But yes, like Darth, I do hate the absurdity that people use to fetter their minds and the minds of others. I think it is an act of compassion to take the time to address these absurd beliefs while not attacking the individual.

 Thanks for your excellent post, Mr. XC

How to correctly label, then, the difference between a word that means "a stance against a certain belief" and "a stance against the individuals who hold that belief"??   I'm having a hard time finding a more appropriate label than "anti-theist" as "anti" means against and "theist" means those who hold the belief of theism.  Perhaps "anti-theism" fits the "stance against a certain belief," and "anti-theist" fits the "stance against the individuals"/discompassion towards humans who hold a belief in god.

What the blogosphere has to say with regard to the conference:

http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2007/04/harvard-humanism-conference.html

Harvard University Gazette

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/04.26/09-humanist.html

humanist studies by Matt Cherry

However, Matt also went on to say:

So there is a good glittering generality with regard to the 'substantive agenda that we all share', but don't really have.

Since I'd get in trouble for reposting any of what was written on iidb, I'll just post the link to one attendees thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4387999#post4387999

Hemant's recap #1:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/04/23/the-new-humanism-conference-recap/

Rebecca's(one of my all-time favorite atheist females. I would bear her children.)

http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=516

And this which echoes my own indictments pre- and post- conference.

Apparently, the new humanism has still failed to address the concerns of the anti-religious. So, we are at an impasse.

Yet again, I must choose to remain outside of the 'group' much as the same way that I left christendom long ago. Am I better for it? I don't know. I do know that I am comfortable with non-religious atheists here at www.rationalresponders.com and will continue to speak out against religions which I view as harmful.

Interesting analogy. I was part of a group of friends that did just that with someone in 1993. It worked. Dude has been heroin free since. A chair, a tarp, some rope, and three days time AND a choice on his part to follow the treatment and get better. Methadone is fucking with natural selection(that may seem harsh, but I stand by my opinion on this matter.)

I think it would be a fine analogy except for the fact that I do not view religion as a drug. It is a communicable disease. Thus the analogy would read: "you don't cure a diseased person's disease without giving him another one?" and it falls to pieces.

This cry that religion is humanity's crutch or opiate offers no excuse for its superfluous nature. We have already proven sufficiently, in my opinion, that one does not need religion to be ethical(in fact, often the converse is true). We have already shown that religion actually does more harm than good in uber-religious societies.

This 'new humanism' has taken on the aspect of a mutated virus that is trying to infect those who have become immune to the other strains of mind viruses.

Thus my questioning analogy of:

If AIDS cured cancer then would you be for AIDS?

No problem, Tomcat. I know those hard weeks too well. I'll still be here.

I can't tell you how much I would like to see something, anything that will change my mind with regard to the people allegedly at the forefront of the new humanism. Judging from responses to me... I'm not in the majority concerning my 'issues'. lol. Either that or we have all sides scared of posting to us.

I'm not just looking for that 'one thing' in this exclusive medium either. I'm looking at the blogs and publications. Contrary to the way I've presented my thoughts, I am maintaining an open mind in the hope that I've missed something redemptive. (lol. religious word.)

I hope they hurry up or at least give us a teaser of what is to come.

[Edit: Damned quote tags] 

Speaking to the idea that Humanists are all talk about good works and no action, what are you smoking? Organized, philosophical Humanism started with the Ethical Culture Movement. Humanism and Secular Humanism came out of it, but they represent the same philosophy, which is why the international umbrella organization is called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Felix Adler founded Ethical Culture. Anyone who doubts the commitment of humanists to "deeds, not creeds" should check out the list of social reforms Adler worked for in his lifetime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Adler_%28Society_for_Ethical_Culture%29

The American Humanist Association was founded with the explicit mission to push social reforms. People like Corliss Lamont were civil rights activists. The AHA is situated in Washington DC and has been active for decades fighting politically for sexual equality, other civil liberties, good science education.

The Secular Coalition for America was started by Humanists and many of its member organizations are Humanist ones. It has a lobbyist - Lori Lipman Brown - who was part of a *gasp* a member of a Unitarian church.

In my local community, the Ethical Humanist Society of Philadelphia runs a summer daycamp for poor inner city kids, among other social service work. The Humanist Association here has a relationship with a secular charity which deals with foster and adoptive children. We discuss books and films on issues of social concern in order to foster awareness and inspire action on the part of individuals. How's that for putting words into action. Anyone who thinks Humanists don't take action to fullfill their values is too lazy to bother researching the reality.

Sorry if you can't deal with the subtlety and diversity among Humanists and you feel the need to lump us all together so that you can make us out to be hypocrites. But atheism by itself is nothing more than a negative statement. Any idiot can be an atheist. It takes devotion to hard critical thinking to be a rationalist. And it takes both that and deep concern for the needs of all people to be a Humanist.