by John Watts
Science lets us know what’s real. But letting others know, and advocating why this is important, isn’t always easy.
How do we best convince mankind that any belief can only be deduced from proven reality, not vice versa, reality from unproven belief? Since religion is thus irrationally entrenched, this in essence is the problem for humanists.
As man’s knowledge of the world grows at an accelerating rate, we have overwhelming humanist arguments to present; so, without necessarily adding anything new, let us be clear on the following. Even the best of believers cannot produce any real objective evidence for their beliefs, but when pressed they usually eventually admit that the existence of God is objectively unprovable. They then insist their subjective, imagined or mental experience is equally valid. This is refuted of course by the continual retreat of faith in the light of new knowledge. Galileo and Darwin and a host of rational seekers forced the faithful to discard certain subjective beliefs. The faith of each age therefore must reflect truth from the real world or die.
Ask them to define what they actually believe and you will be lucky to get an unequivocal reply, since that gives to easy a target; but you can usually tie them down, often to the survival of the soul after death. Here we are on strong ground from both traditional and new views. Firstly and obviously, Hell (exquisite torture for eternity) is not just unjust; it is infinitely unjust to sinners who exist for only a speck of eternity. How can they accept that? So if there is no Hell, can there be a Heaven? Only a little intellect shows that one requires the other. Secondly, every construct in our universe is born or evolves, lives a span, then dies: from the very small to the most complex. This is even the universe itself, we are now told. Mortality is assured for everything without exception; except man! How likely is that? Well, at least it should make them think.
Of course as man has created, lost and created again innumerable gods, to assist him to escape them is difficult. We are not playing on a level pitch. The slope against us is man’s very desire for simple answers, for guidance, for meaning. It is his fear of the unknown. All these are claimed to be simply supplied by a magic doctrine, derived from primitive times, but given enough credence by annexation of man’s best attributes, Morality and Beauty, to counter justified scepticism. Who cannot experience the emotional charge of Faure’s Requiem in one of our wondrous cathedrals? Few indoctrinated from the cradle will seek to leave this for rational truth that is implied to be a godless, and therefore wicked, cult.
Well, of course Morality and Beauty were created by, and so belong to, humanity and not God. There is no comparable art or beauty in the Bible or elsewhere in the Church which has not derived from man’s intellect. So let us make sure we proclaim this.
We need to consider everything to be effective advocates of rational enlightenment, so it is important to share and exchange views. We need also to bear in mind that success here is best achieved by a clear and positive presentation of our belief rather than negative criticism of the Church, however obvious the target. I think this ought to be the British Humanist Association’s prime objective.
I believe we can show how humanists have answers to all the fears that beset mankind, which religion claims only they provide. Does anyone feel there are any areas that Humanism cannot address successfully?
John Watts is a long retired financial adviser living in Somerset, an enthusiastic humanist, and a writer and poet keen to support humanist ideas.
Enjoyed the piece, thanks.
I find that, indeed, one of the most powerful tools we have is to try to tie people down to what they actually believe, and take the discussion from there. Often times, they don’t really know what they believe!
I think it is very important to stress the fact that we create the meaning in our lives. It is fundamental to distinguish the philosophy of nature (science) and the philosophy of value (it can be humanism in a broad view, just… Thinking for yourself).
The fact that the whole universe is natural and that we, not gods, have a conscious experience of it leads to the humanist view of life which is: The meaning of life is, for you, what you impose on it.
This is reality too, I think!
Beautiful article by the way, I’m just stressing the more constructive side of being an atheist, but it is real and natural as everything that exists.
Many of those who believe in an organized religion have never really thought about what it actually is. They are indoctrinated at an early age by those they love and trust implicitly, their parents. When one is raised in such an environment and associates only with those of a similar worldview, it is easy to become comfortable and complacent about the status quo and view those not of the group as “The Other.”
Those who do believe in religion and are intelligent enough to understand its
origins and flaws seem to fall into a certain category; those who are in the military or some other tightly knit organization that espouses the Christian ethic, (which implies a certain societal pressure to conform), those who were brought up to believe in religion from birth, and for various reasons, (the major ones being love and respect for their parents), decline to question the validity of their beliefs.
Intelligence, in and of itself, therefore, does not automatically provide the means to question, and ultimately, refute religion. That requires an inner determination to question authority and dogma regardless of the repercussions, until one is satisfied with the answer.
So for someone to take the step of questioning, then disavowing a particular religion requires strength of character, honesty, education and resiliency, because one does not become a humanist/atheist as a result of ignorance or apathy, one becomes a humanist out of a desire to discover the Truth, despite the obstacles thrown up in one’s path.
I too agree that we create the meaning in our lives, however humble those aspirations may be.
I also believe that innate human love and kindness does not require a God’s blessing to exist in us all. In fact, it could be successfully argued that it is religion, in large part, that separates us from each other.
This seems to be a nice summation of what secular humanism might be. However not a very accurate depiction of what many people of faith believe. Mr Watts seems to be basing his criticism of ‘religion’ on news accounts and hearsay of what we do. Rather than actually attending church on a regular basis.
I would say that all of the beliefs supposed by Mr Watts to be held by us all, are those beliefs held by fundamentalist Christian churches and biblical literalists. Thankfully we don’t all fit into that mold. I have no problem with any of the ‘humanist’ tenets he states (with the exception of his idea of hell – don’t know where he gets that one; perhaps it was invented by a man in some work of literature. And since the bible is the collected writings of many people, it would be logical to conclude there must be something beautiful there someplace) I believe in science and evolution etc., etc. as do many other people of faith. Faith and science aren’t mutually exclusive as both secular humanism AND fundamental Christianity would suggest.
I believe in the video Mr Fry suggests that our own compassion and humanity would lead us to do good works in the world; would help us make the world a better place. I’m not sure, based on past history, that either side of the fence has a very good track record in that regard.
However, the video doesn’t suggest that there is any motivation to do good in the world. You can do what makes you happy. Sorry, no. How can anyone be happy with all the unhappiness in the world. For example, it is supposed that by 2013 half the worlds population with not have access to clean drinking water. If the activities of industries in the world that can destroy whole ecosystems in the name of profit, how does that make you happy?
Sorry. Do what makes you happy, is just too simplistic.
Too much is made of proving the existence of God. Think more about a holy spirit that gives us the motivation to do the right thing for all humanity, rather just believing in science that is destroying the our planet to line the pockets of a few.
Mr Watts, please go to a church and support the humanitarian efforts there.
Steve
Hi Steve
Thank you for your interest
I do not criticise what religion does. I am claiming it is not truth because it is based on a belief not reached by a rational process , as I make clear. Both Humanists and Deists may agree on pursuing morality as obviously it is good for mankind.
Am I wrong then in my impression that the main difference between us now is the Deist’s insistence on an afterlife? If so then there is very little between our world views.
I am very interested, and hope you will advise me exactly what your belief here is?
John Watts
Greetings, I’m writing from across the pond in the USA after finding your site via Upworthy. I’m not familiar with all of the views of Humanism but one thing that I think the above piece seems to not address, except by reference to the music in a cathedral, is the very real experiences that religious faith can often bring to individuals. Whether it is a fantasy or hormones or meditation or whatever, there is very often a real, biological component to faith and religious experience. Sometimes that is negative, as in the case of an actual cult or someone who is delusional. But it is usually positive and the basis for life-affirming action. As Joseph Campbell said, one must find one’s ‘bliss’.
But my point is that applying reason to a religious experience and expecting truth of some scientific kind to explain it away does not further the goal of understanding between people. After all, such experiences are subjective and are usually outside the realm of reason.
Hi Bob
Thank you for your interest.
You posit the euphoria experienced by the religious convert. This is inevitable to a mind that embraces such an all embracing panacea to life’s puzzle.
I cannot see that it has relevance though, if it is intended to support religious belief in some way, because you are drawing reality from belief.
I maintain this is quite unacceptable to the rational mind, and it is the central plank of my argument.
If you can offer any further thoughts I would be interested to hear.