Posted by Hemant Mehta in This letter, sent to me from Center for Inquiry founder Paul Kurtz, is directed to R. Joseph Hoffmann, the man who wrote what I said amounted to a living obituary of Kurtz.
For background on this story, these posts may help.
A Response to R. Joseph Hoffmann: The Madhouse in Charenton
by Paul Kurtz
I am dismayed by Raymond Joseph Hoffmann’s uncharitable ad hominem attacks upon me. I had considered Joe a friend, and colleague, and I am deeply wounded by his scathing remarks about my personal integrity, scholarship, and my dedication to humanist ethical values — in theory as well as praxis.
I will not respond in kind to Joe by pointing out his personal and professional imperfections or moral transgressions. I will only say that I appreciate his virtues and especially his willingness to critically examine the claims of religion, at a time when most professors or religion run for cover, mouthing doublespeak whenever they are questioned about the divinity of alleged religious prophets. I appreciate Joe Hoffmann’s courage, in spite of his impetuous remarks, spat out to defame and sully my honor.
I have devoted my life to creating Centers for Inquiry. Our goal is to apply reason, science, and free inquiry in every area of human interest, and to defend secularism and humanist ethical values. Although limited in our financial resources, we have attempted to create secular centers as alternatives to religions. Although we have made progress, I will be the first to admit that we still have a long way to go.
We have of course focused at one time on the claims of the paranormal and have been eminently successful in providing scientific tests of these claims. Granted, public interest in the paranormal has declined. We also have critically examined claims of the Bible, including Joe’s interest in “The Jesus Project,” which many people consider rather quaint at the present time.
“Who cares,” most people say; only tweedy professors of religion with Oxford accents? We do care at the Center, I say, though the live issue today is “which Koran?” and the “historical Muhammad.” These are the topics that Prometheus Books deals with, and is perhaps a key intellectual issue today that needs the most clarification.
To my mind, another burning question for the Center for Inquiry should be how to develop “personal morality,” especially among unbelievers and secularists — and especially in view of Joe Hoffmann’s immoderate venting of his spleen on a former colleague and friend. I never said I was perfect; but that bad? Oh my!
I should add that as former president of Prometheus Books I arranged to publish six of Professor Hoffmann’s books — though Prometheus lost money on all of them, but one. Gratitude, who needs gratitude?
Joe: I still wish you well in your future career and bear no malice toward you. That may sound Christian, but I think that a prima facie general ethical principle that secular humanists should exemplify is a good will.
Most sincerely yours,
— Paul Kurtz
Maybe he should start his own blog and vent there. And perhaps start another organization.
Well, Danny, he could always come to our neck of the woods and start over with the CFI here.
dirty laundry
“…I think that a prima facie general ethical principle that secular humanists should exemplify is a good will.”
A principle worthy of someone who has accomplished so much and faced so many challenges. Let’s hope everyone involved can live up to it.
enough already. who cares is right.
Do you know what’s worse than organizational politics causing a mess? It is when both parties want to air it all out in front of people who really do not care.
It is a ‘he said, he said’ situation that people outside of the organization’s leadership probably will never be able to sort out. Stuff happens. People and organizations part ways. When one side says something about it, usually the side speaking up looks like they are taking cheap shots. When the other side feels compelled to defend themselves, it just makes them all look bad.
Move on.
The fact that he uses Christian as an epithet is another illustration as to why I don’t like this guy.
Hah! Honestly? The face saving going on here approaches vanity. I want to start forgetting all about these arrogant intellectuals.
OK, after saying what I have, I now feel compelled to comment (I know…hypocritical me…lol).
But, I have to echo what Tom has said about the christianity remark. And add to it.
How in the hell can you say the phrase “I still wish you well in your future career and bear no malice toward you” sounds christian? Just what is that implying? That non-chrisitans cannot wish someone well and bear no malice? The sentiment was fine without the ‘that may sound like christianity’ remark. In truth, the statement is one that anyone who cares about another person may say. No religion necessary to care about someone enough to wish them well, and bear no malice.
It just makes this whole confrontation look stupid and just shows why these kinds of things are best handled in private, between the parties involved rather than being aired out for all to see. I have a feeling that when all is said and done, both individuals will have negatively impacted the impression others have of them, and the organization ultimately will suffer for it because fo the factioning and ulginess that it is generating.
Larry, wishing well of your enemies sounds christian because it is christian – “love your enemies,” and “bless those that curse you.”
What evolutionary advantage does hoping the best for your enemies well have?
Matt…just because christians say it as part of their dogma, does not mean it is exclusively theirs. To be specific, Buddhists have thought the same thing, long before the NT said this. It is actually a humanist ideal…and one that decent people…no matter what dogma they have followed, have also espoused.
Or do you think love is also exclusively chrisitan? After all, they try to claim the corner on that as well.
Nope…just because something is a teaching or is mentioned in their holy book, does not make it, in fact, a chrisitan teaching or viewpoint.
And this is not about enemies…that is a word you are bringing into the conversation.
If I leave a work environment, and I wish my former co-workers well…even ones that have had contention with…that is not wishing my enemies well. That is wishing my former co-workers and those who are going to be carrying on the job I was working on well.
Again…you added the word enemies.
Portland ME Skepticism Examiner:
I might have called it something more like “a pompous way for one overeducated bookworm to call another a dick.”
June 5th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Larry, wishing well of your enemies sounds christian because it is christian – “love your enemies,” and “bless those that curse you.”
What evolutionary advantage does hoping the best for your enemies well have?
===
Potential mates generally prefer people who are not infused with anger. In other words, you breed more.
Next question?
Now as for Kurtz, etc., oh forget them. . . They are silly and I would rather be out looking for potential mates. (BTW, I thought Hoffman’s piece was great. It was perfectly in synch with my impressions from the days when I was involved with skepticism before I got burned out, in large part by Kurtz’s silliness.)
Unfortunately, no matter how long one has lived or how much one has accomplished, the tendency to snarkiness seems always with us.
Wish it weren’t so, but the evidence surrounds us.
M.