The Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard(1778 total words in this text) (7039 Reads) 
The Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard With Trust in Reason, with Compassion for Humankind --
Since 1974
The Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy has long been closely associated with
H.A.M. The Chaplaincy and H.A.M. are independent organizations with
separate Boards of Directors, but we each benefit from the synergies
created by our close ties. The Founding Humanist Chaplain at Harvard,
Tom Ferrick, remains H.A.M.'s Executive Director. The new Chaplain, Greg
Epstein, continues the Chaplaincy's support for Humanism on the Harvard
campus and beyond. The Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy now has a fantastic
new website: HarvardHumanist.org
"There is only
one world, the natural world, and only one truth about it; but this
world has a spiritual life in it which looks not to another world \
but to the beauty and perfection that this world suggests, approaches
and misses."
George Santayana |
 |
Humanist Heritage:
Humanism at Harvard began with
our 17th century founders' love of truth, learning and the Greek and
Latin classics. The tradition continued with seminal thinkers such as
Ralph Waldo Emerson, William James, and George Santayana as well as
advocates of pluralism, democracy, and science such as Professors George
Wald and E.O. Wilson.
The
Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard serves the entire Harvard community, and
especially the many students, faculty, and staff who identify with the
ideals of rational, secular, and democratic humanism. It appeals to the
skeptical inquirer and students of an agnostic or atheist
inclination.
Since 1974 when Tom Ferrick founded the chaplaincy, it has encouraged
more than a generation of students to consider themselves and humanity
in an earthly and evolutionary context.
"Harvard's Humanist Chaplaincy enriches student life as it
sustains a community of college freethinkers. It was great to have the
support of the humanist chaplain throughout these years."
Derek Araujo
The Chaplaincy Today:
During their first week on campus freshmen are
welcomed to the Chaplaincy open house where they meet the chaplain and
student leaders of the humanist community. Throughout the academic year
the Chaplaincy offers counseling for students and their families,
lectures and discussions on topics of humanist concern, and support for
humanist student groups.
Greg Epstein, the new Humanist Chaplain, follows in the footsteps of
Tom Ferrick who had long been an active member of the United Ministry,
the chaplains' corps at Harvard University with offices in Memorial
Church. Greg is available at all hours for counseling or just congenial
talk. He is available to perform weddings and memorial services for
Harvard community members and alumni. Greg also leads seminars and
maintains a library open to inquisitive students.
In 1996 the Chaplaincy achieved national attention when John L.
Loeb, a magnificent supporter of the University, started an endowment
for the Chaplaincy. Mr. Loeb explained his support for the Chaplaincy as
follows: "I've sort of been a humanist ... deeds, not creeds,
appeals to me. This a small step in having someone professors and
students can talk to."
"In the end, we will conserve only what we
love, we will love only what we understand, we
will understand only
what we are taught."
E.O. Wilson |
 |
Tomorrow:
The Chaplaincy seeks additional support to broaden its work.
Chaplaincy plans
include:
- Humanist Student Center. Currently the
humanist chaplain
works in a small office in the basement of Memorial Church at Harvard.
The Chaplaincy would like a
center that will support a range of student activities, including
counseling, seminars,
films, research, and social activities.
- Assistant Chaplains. With student
participation growing,
the Chaplaincy hope to engage assistant chaplains to support the work of
Greg Epstein.
- Internships. The Chaplaincy will offer
qualified graduate
students and recent graduates the opportunity to participate in the work
of the humanist
chaplain. Interns may become career chaplains at Harvard or other
schools.
- Pension for the Humanist Chaplain. Tom
Ferrick served as
humanist chaplain on a volunteer basis from 1974 through 1996 and was
paid a modest salary until his retirement in 2005. The Chaplaincy is
pleased to have found an excellent replacement in new Chaplain Greg
Epstein.
"The world thinks it must raise itself above
humanism, that it must look for a more profound spirituality. It has
taken a false road. Humanism in all its simplicity is the only genuine
spirituality. . . And humanism is the most precious result of
rational meditation upon our existence and that of the world."
Albert Schweitzer
On receiving the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1952 |
 |
The Important Details:
- In 1992 the Chaplaincy was organized as a Massachusetts non-profit
corporation.
It is managed by a board of directors consisting of Harvard alumni and
affiliates.
- The Chaplaincy is seeking both unrestricted gifts and gifts
dedicated to
particular purposes.
- Contributions to the Chaplaincy are deductible for federal income
tax and
federal unified (estate and gift) tax purposes.
For additional information please contact;
Greg Epstein
Humanist Chaplain
Office of the United Ministry
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 01238
(617) 495-5529
gepstein@hds.harvard.edu or visit their website HarvardHumanist.org
"It is my hope that a chaplaincy such as this
will one day serve
students on every campus in the country"
Thomas Ferrick
Here is the Partial Text of Harvard's Christopher Kirchhoff Debating
God's Existence ...
Debating The Existence of God
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Christopher Kirchhoff
Good evening.
In the Divinity School Library there is a book titled Who's who in
hell: a
handbook and international directory for humanists, freethinkers,
naturalists,
rationalists, and non-theists. In the hopes of being added to the next
edition,
I've taken the liberty of composing an entry for myself. It reads:
Christopher Kirchhoff -- In elementary school, asked Pastor too many
questions during children's sermon. During confirmation classes, failed
to fully
appreciate church doctrine. In college, twice argued against God's
existence,
even after house struck by lightening during summer of 1996. Also took
Moral
Reasoning 54 with Prof. Jay Harris and decided that all was
permitted.
At the risk of eternal damnation, Shankar and I are here to take
issue with
the idea that a belief in God is justified. From the very beginning, we
had a
suspicion that something about God, in my case, and the gods, in
Shankar's case,
was a bit fishy. Before we explain why, I would like to advise that you
to
fasten your seatbelt. The rhetorical ride from here on out might be a
bit rough.
Shankar and I do not observe the 11th commandment: thou shall not
question.
Instead, we treat religion with great suspicion, and often times moral
condemnation.
We are here this evening to argue that there is no rational
justification for
a belief in God. Many Christian seem to agree with us. Pastors, priests,
and
other clergy spend hours preaching about the virtues of believing on
faith, how
great it is, and what wonderful rewards await those who care the least
about
having reasons for their beliefs.
We hold that faith itself is immoral, and that theistic religions,
however
well meaning, are castles built on foundations of sand.
A benevolent God, it seems to us, is not only an implausible
construction in
logical terms, but also an unnecessary and insufficient explanation of
the
world. Instead, it seems that the notion of a benevolent creator who
intervenes
to, say, help the Israelites win battles, arose to fulfill the needs of
a
particular people at a certain time. The notion has hung on for reasons
easy to
understand. However, justifying God's existence in advanced scientific
society
is an arduous task.
We no longer consult Genesis for knowledge about natural history. Nor
do the
astronomers take advice from the Pope on whether or not the earth goes
round the
sun or vice-versa. And despite the efforts of thousands of promoters of
the
supernatural and the entire Fox TV network, miracles have all turned
either to
be bogus, unverified or to have less than miracles explanations. As a
result,
many Christian theologians have retreated from making claims about the
natural
world. Instead, they offer religion as a guide to living in it,
justifying God's
existence on believers' experience of God in their lives.
But this approach has also run into problems. Reasons for God-beliefs
have
been plainly elucidated. The single most robust indicator of one's
religious
belief, for example, is the religious belief of one's parents. Religious
fundamentalism correlates negatively with level of education, income,
and
scientific literacy, leading to the conclusion that fundamentalism is,
to some
degree, a product of ignorance. And psychologists have uncovered
mechanisms
underlying the propagation of religious belief, including the effects of
socialization, social support and coping structures, stereotyped
response
sequences, and fundamental motivators such as the fulfillment of
authoritarian
needs and the reduction of anxiety.
In the eyes of many, the social-scientific study of God-beliefs have
matured
to a point at which comprehensive explanations demonstrate no
distinction need
be made between religion and other types of human experience. Perhaps
the most
damaging evidence against the argument from religious experience comes
from the
human brain. Preoccupation with religious matters, mystic episodes, and
sensitivity to religious symbols, terms or icons has been linked to
activity
within the temporal lobe. In fact, spiritual experience can be
artificially
induced in atheists and theists alike by stimulating certain regions of
the
brain with electro-magnetic energy. If spiritual cognition can arise
from
artificial means, it seems implausible to attribute the experience of
God to an
external or divine source. Moreover, it has been found that personal
religious
history influences what people see and feel in their
electro-magnetically
induced God experiences. A Muslim raised in an Islamic society will
likely see
Allah; a Christian, Jesus; a Jew, Yahweh; and so forth. One would be
surprised
to hear of the Hindu god Shiva appearing to believers at
Chartres.
That religious experiences are contingent upon one's background is
particularly salient to this evening's debate. If religion is
historically
determined, religious experience cannot be uniquely authoritative.
Believers
claiming authority from their own religious experience would have to
grant the
same authority to others. This would quickly lead to a religious
relativism
within which mutually exclusive claims could not be resolved. Unless God
has
multiple personality disorder, it is hard to reconcile the diversity of
religious experience with a unique divinity.
In the face of all this, our opponents still hold on to a belief in
God.
Attempting to show how an all-loving, infinitely good creator would
allow
starvation and drought, the suffering of innocent children and infants,
and the
worst of human horrors, is not an easy task. Instead of spending our
time
attempting to square circles, Shankar and I hold that the idea of a
benevolent
creator is an unnecessary and woefully complicated idea, that it is much
simpler
and more reasonable to conclude that the universe is indifferent to
human
sufferings and human joys, that life on earth is indeed a mixture of the
two,
and that because arguments for a benevolent creator are incoherent,
illogical,
and implausible, belief in such a God is unjustified.
BURDEN OF PROOF
We would also like to say a word about the burden of proof. Take, for
example, a person asserting that aliens molested them. Because an alien
abductee
posits the existence of aliens, the burden of proof is clearly on them
to
provide credible evidence that aliens exist. Eyewitness testimony or
unverified
reports will not suffice. It is thus improper for the alien abductee to
justify
his or her abduction on the grounds that it cannot be proven that aliens
do not
exist. The logical possibility that aliens could exist is not sufficient
justification for the belief that anal probe-wielding little green men
run
around abducting humans.
Likewise, it is inappropriate for theists
to
justify a belief in God on the grounds that the nonexistence of God
cannot be
proven, because the logical possibility of God's existence does not
prove that a
belief in God is reasonable or sound. The burden of proof, and of
definition,
thus falls upon our opponents. To assert atheism, Shankar and I only
have to
show that Rich and La-ra have not presented sufficient evidence to
justify a
belief in God. And justifying that belief, in this day and age, is awful
difficult. |
