Paul Kurtz's writings about Secular Humanism represent just about the best that man's intellect could propose regarding the good life in the context of the 20th Century. Guess what? The context for what's thinkable and doable is rapidly changing in the 21st Century.

Secular Humanism's main weakness -- its fatalism about human mortality -- seems hopelessly feckless in light of what advanced thinkers are foreseeing as the radical rejuvenation and life extension offered by medicine circa 2030 and beyond. Anyone who doubts this apparently hasn't been paying much attention to the science news lately, or else hasn't been thinking about its deeper implications. Neo-Luddites take this scenario seriously, hence their efforts to stop or "relinquish" progress in biotech, nanotech and artificial intelligence.

Because of this failure of nerve and imagination, Kurtz cannot effectively counter Nihilism, a pessimistic, heretical interpretation of Secular Humanist premises. The prospect of conquering aging and death through human efforts offers the best hope of defeating Nihilism (not to mention supernaturalistic belief systems) and making a modified Secular Humanism, with the proffered name of Transhumanism, the working creed of a civilized and livable world.

Kurtz has collected in this one volume a kind of time capsule of what Secular Humanism had to offer in biomedically primitive times. Though I don't understand what he was trying to show by recounting his friend's deathbed conversion to Catholicism, for that just reinforces religious stereotypes about Atheism/Humanism being an unsustainable way to live. If you want to know what will replace Secular Humanism, look up the significant body of Transhumanist philosophy on the Web.

While I may not always agree with everything Paul Kurtz may say (as a secular humanist), I do believe Embracing the Power of Humanism is a valuable tool in showing those who profess to have "spiritual/religious beliefs" that those who do Not, i.e. Mr Kurtz, can be equally as humane and thoughtful. Compassionate and wise. That it is the actions that speak louder than words.

It saddens me that those I know, who are non-religious, atheists, agnostics etc are so often thought of or looked upon as being "lesser than". "Inferior" The book helps build a bridge rather than a wall, which we really need these days. Helps to show that it is ones brain and actions that one should be "judged" on.

If you are a religious person I challenge you to learn sometning new and enlightening. Buy the book and become enlightended.

As much as I tend to disagree with Paul Kurtz on more abstract philosophical issues, I found myself unable to tear away from EMBRACING THE POWER OF HUMANISM, which compiles some of the most inspiring parts of his other books. Kurtz successfully conveys the sheer wonder, power, and exuberance of the humanistic outlook. Although I do not feel I learned anything especially new, I came away feeling unusually energized - a feeling which still persists, long after the book is back on the shelf.

In a time when objectivism has stolen the word "reason" and postmodernists declare that Reason and Science are "patriarchal" or "authoritarian" by their very nature. This book is an "Island of sanity in a sea of nonsense"(Isaac Asimov). Authors: Richard Rorty, Paul Kurtz, Ann Druyan(Carl Sagan's wife), Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, John Passmore, Adolf Grunbaum, Karl Popper, George A. Wells, Edward O. Wilson, Thelma Levine, Elena Bonner and many more. This book is for any humanist/rationalist who wants to be able to defend themselves against postmodernist rhetoric.

I really enjoyed reading this book, although I didn't completely agree with all the philosophy presented within. There is something to the argument that there are other forms of understanding other than rationalistic forms of thought, and that science can never be completely objective, and also that our society has become too centralised and that is due in part to rationalistic and inhuman economic models (making people commodities and "numbers"). But at this point in time, nothing better than rationalistic thinking has ever been presented, people critique science but offer nothing equal to replace it. Besides all that, postmodernism is fluff, a bunch of ivory tower intellectuals talking to themselves in a language only they can understand. But that's just my opinion, read the book and form your own opinions, it will get you started on thinking about one of the most important debates in modern philosophy.

Paul Kurtz, professor of philosophy, publisher of Prometheus Books, and editor of Free Inquiry, wrote this volume in the early 1980s, when the Moral Majority were on a war path against the "religion" of Secular Humanism. Though many of his articles are redundant, Kurtz's book being a compilation, his rebuttal of much of the Religious Right's paranoia is as refreshing today as it was then. If the Secular Humanists were such a power block, it would stand to reason that such organizations would have far more than a few thousand members each. What the Falwells of the world are reacting to, lumped together under the S.H. bogeyman, is the influence of a broader humanism, which is attractive to many religionists who see little contradiction with their beliefs. The clock can't be turned back.

No, not "The Matrix" Hollywood brought us, but the cultural matrix: where traditional logic and abstract thought have a tendency to breakdown. Life is like that. As James would remind us, this is not a "block universe" (what non-philosopher/non-scientist ever thought it was?) and so our ideas often end up bursting under the pressure of more and more experience. How is logic to cope with this? Dewey is not a magician, but in this book he sets out (in rather abstruce, brier-patch prose) to give us a radical new tool kit. If you enjoy seriously thinking about thinking, this book is for you. Bring your coffee, though. Dewey's writing style is rather soporific; and weighing in at over 500 pages, this tome can even knockout the most experienced philosophical heavyweight. That said, I encourage you to shuck your gloves and take a swing!

Recognized as a leader the "secular humanist" movement, Paul Kurtz writes with his usual conviction on the evils of "religion and the paranormal." Happily for the reader, he manages to write nearly one-hundred pages of text before launching into his standard critique of hard-line, literally-interpreted theism.

That critique consumes nearly another 400 pages. It is useful for readers who are unaware of the fallacies in fundamentalist religion and paranormalism. In all likelihood, however, they will not be reading the book.

Unfortunately for those of us who might have benefited from Paul's intelligence, he is unable to look beyond his self-imposed blinders. Though acknowledging it briefly, he mainly refuses to accept the distinction between fundamentalist and other forms of religious experience. For him, it seems, all that takes the name "religion" is the same: superstitious and irrational.

As a result, his critique ends up tarring subjects that are far beyond his reach and apparent understanding. His treatment of mysticism, for example, dismisses the entire subject by highlighting its extremes.

The result is a misdirected attempt to dismiss all forms of religious experience and expression by knocking down the straw men of extremes. Had Mr. Kurtz limited his conclusions to those supported by his data --- as he asks "religionists" to do --- he would have written a useful book for those who feel the need to beat a dead, or dying, horse.

As it is, however, he continues to do damage to the name of Humanism with his own form of fundamentalism. Faced with a stark choice between a vision of a cold and empty universe, and a universe of possibilities of hope, who can blame "the masses" for saying "If that's humanism, you can keep it!"

Contrary to what one reviewer (below) has said, ther are no eyewitnesses to Christ. The gospels were all written from 50 to 90 years after the purported death of Christ and St Paul, whose letters are the oldest documents in the NT, likewise did not know Christ and in any event offers little or no detail about the events of the life of Christ.

I spent last weekend reading Dr. Kurtz's book, with a very different impression from that of "infaithreborn". Contrary to that reviewer's conclusions below, Kurtz does not focus merely on "fundamentalist" Christians, but on all those who ignore empirical evidence and logic in constructing a supernatural worldview. "Infaithreborn" and others who defend 'nonfundamentalist' Christianity and mysticism should make clearer assertions of what, in fact, they DO believe. Kurtz does not claim that the scientific method has left the world without mysteries, only that it is the best tool we have for dispelling ignorance. In this he joins Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, although he is more forthright in his consideration of the possible origins of the Moses and Jesus and Mormon (Joseph Smith) myths. An insightful, courageous contribution to the field of the objective study of religious behavior.

It's just another "I hate religion" book. This book is seething with "I feel guilty and I refuse to believe its my conscience given to me by God"...

Paul Kurtz's "The Ethics of Humanism" is an excellent book showing an alternative to the mind- rape known as religion. In such chapters as "The Common Moral Decenies" and "Excelsior, The Ethics of Excellence" Kurtz provides an excllent defense of Humanistic principles and shows that life can indeed have a positive affirmative outlook. Indeed, to champion the Promethean ideal of living an automonus ethical life, is lost today in the world bombarded by theism, and Kurtz I feel does a nice job of trying to be Pro-humanist instead of anti-theist. I refrain from giving the book 5 stars because at times I feel Kurtz is a bit too technical in explaining his arguments and at times the book can be a little tedious. However, do not let these minor criticisms stop you from reading, in my opinion, one of the most influental books of contemporary ethical philosophy that I've ever read. This book will leave you with a feeling of an affarmation for the joys of life, an apprecation for autonomus ethical principles and a solid foundation on which you can life a life of principle and purpose without a belief in god. Purchase this book not only for yourself, but also for those who have been trapped in the delusion known as religion.

As in his other book 'In Defense of Secular Humanism', Paul Kurtz explains that one need not be tied to religion to be ethical (or even moral). I agree with the previous reviewer who stated that the wirting can get a bit technical at times, but I don't think that it slows the pace at all. The technicality of some of the arguments is necessary, as Kurtz is using reason and logic to explain issues that are usually debated with emotional rhetoric or repititious dogma. You may have some friends who are teetering in their lockstep devotion to religion... so buy this book and give 'em a shove. They'll thank you.

Kurtz coined the word "eupraxophy" to distinguish Secular Humanism from belief systems usually considered "religions." Eupraxophy accepts the best ethical principles of historical philosophies and religions, but disentangles them from the superstitions of theism (e.g., Christianity), while combining them with the pursuit of rigorous philosophical and scientific inquiry, which is missing in Eastern ethical systems like Confucianism and Buddhism.

Critics have complained that "eupraxophy" is hard to pronounce, and in his later writings Kurtz has been spelling it with an extra "s," as in "eupraxsophy." But I don't see why its pronounciation with the original spelling is any harder than pronouncing "saxophone." This book is a significant contribution to our understanding and classification of worldviews, though it could benefit from a discussion of more recent eupraxophies like Objectivism and Transhumanism.

You think this book is harsh on theists? Attend a conference where Kurtz is speaking. I guarantee you'll find Eupraxophy a pleasant and considerate view against theism! Kurtz tends to verge on believer -- believing there is no god, instead of simply not believing in one. This is a thin line, but many non-theists find themselves stepping over it inadvertently. This book is pretty centered and deals more in line with reasonable assumptions, though not exactly. There is a good deal of philosophical and religious history that I found quite interesting. Kurtz and I are like-minded when he avoids absolutism, but he can be very ornery sometimes. Theists beware: you will probably either not understand these concepts, or just get really, really angry.

Living Without Religion is a book that sincerely made me look at a lot of misbeliefs I was raised to believe as a child. A lot of people think that if human beings do not believe in some phantom deity to keep us in line, society will drift into anarchy and chaos. This simply is not true (Look at Western Europe & Australia today!). You really can live a great life without religion,Which many people do, and Paul Kurtz explains exactly how to do so.

This book was not what I had expected. Having recently embraced atheism I was looking for personal guidance: how is it possible to live a meaningful life without God? What are morals based on without God? etc. This book, though, is not written to answer these questions for the individual, rather, it answers the more general question, "Can society live without religion?" Although it wasn't what I had hoped for, I think it succeeds fairly well for what it attempts. It vaguely makes reference to the questions I had but mostly focuses on the needs and effects of a secular society, covering a wide range of areas such as politics, government, education, secular institutions, etc. Not much depth but a worthwhile read for people interested in how a secular society might work and what would be necessary to bring it about.

Paul Kurtz is a prolific writer and apologist for the cause of what is usually called secular humanism. In this book he addresses two questions that seem to have nearly equal importance to him: (1) Is it possible to live a good life without religion? (2) Should secular humanism be called a religion? His answer to the first is an emphatic Yes. He chooses the term Eupraxophy -- from the Greek roots for "good," "practice," and "wisdom" -- to name an approach to life that comprises these elements: a cosmic theory based on the best available science; a method of testing all claims to truth based on rationality and a "positive" skepticism; an ethical stance founded in the "common moral decencies" (Kurtz detailed his approach to humanist ethics in another book, "Forbidden Fruit"); and finally, commitment to a set of political ideas derived from these things. Kurtz enthusiastically paints an attractive picture of a committed, engaged life founded in human rationality. His argument in this area is flawed only by his frequent digressions into religion-bashing. He seems compelled to not only paint a positive picture of Eupraxophy, but at the same time to denigrate the theistic approach to life. I found these negative passages intrusive. The second question (what is a religion and should humanism be called one?) is perhaps important to Kurtz, to other leaders of the humanist movement, and to their opponents in the religious right who would like to bring their critics under the same legal constraints that bind them. However, this question has little interest to the general reader looking for models of how to live well, and I wish Kurtz had reserved it to a different forum.

This booklet combines a 1933 document with one from 1973. They affirm a materialistic or naturalistic world view, which they call Humanism. This is not to be confused with Renaissance Humanism, which was theistic and often Christian. Their brand of Humanism is Secular Humanism or atheism: The universe is all there is; life evolved for no reason; ethics are dependent on culture alone; there is no life after death; and humans can bring about a better world by realizing the above points and using their abilities for world peace and cooperation.

As a statement of Western atheism, it is clear and to the point. As a world view it is plagued by internal inconsistencies and numerous disconnections with objective reality--too many to cover properly here. Let me just indicate a few philosophical problems. The documents' premise that the universe has always existed is extremely difficult to defend given Big Bang cosmology, which points to an absolute origination. Unless everything came from nothing without a cause, this implies a Creator. Second, the documents claim that morality is relative to cultures and not absolute, yet they also go on to affirm various moral imperatives that they claim should obtain cross-culturally and absolutely, such as the need for world peace, the importance of rational inquiry, and so on. This is logically inconsistent. For a solid critique of the world view of naturalism, see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, 3rd edition, chapter four, "The Silence of Finite Space" and chapter five, "Zero Point: Nihilism." His thesis is that naturalism logically leads to Nihilism, which is unlivable and incongruous with our deeper intuitions about life and meaning. I agree.

The same folks have just recently put out Humanist Manifesto 2000, also written by Paul Kurtz.

The Humanists represented in all the above reject postmodernism, which dispenses with normative notions of rationality and the concept of objective truth. In this sense, the documents are modernist, and attempt to hold the line against the nihilism of postmodernist. For a discussion of this see my book, Truth Decay (InterVarsity Press, 2000), chapter two.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary, Denver, Colorado, USA, Email: Doug.Groothuis@densem.edu

This package presents a generally helpful array of methods to approaching your inner self - the true you. In the company of Norman Vincent Peele, I find it supplementary, but still worthy for the price. Enjoy!