Religion vs. Humanism
Tony Akkermans
First let us take a brief look at what religion is all about. How did it come to gain such a strong
position in human affairs? The answer
must be fear and ignorance.
When humans first took to their feet some 1.5 million years ago they
had little understanding of the natural world around them. Full of fear of the unknown, their fragile
situation left them wide open to all forms of superstition. Over time this was taken advantage of by
self-appointed priests, the second oldest profession and the first deluders of
mankind.
Rather than pursue explanations by investigation, trial and error these
leaders invented answers and then presented them as god-given fact. Many belief systems were thus created all
over the world and because most of them offered considerable advantages to the
inventors, non-confirmity was suppressed by dire threats of hellfire, and if
that didn’t work there was always the rack and the stake.
This primitive heritage has proved extremely difficult to shake
off. It seems superstition springs
eternal in the human breast. It could
be argued that superstition has infiltrated the genes and mankind is stuck with
it. Richard Dawkins calls it a virus of
the mind. It is as if the species Man
has a schizoid nature - his feet
implanted on the earth but his imaginative head soaring toward a heaven of
magical reality.
Although it is often said that modern man is civilized the facts show
otherwise. It is not long since there
were witch hunts and people were hanged for blasphemy. More recently there was the genocide of the
Jews in WWII and more recently the religious wars in Bosnia, Africa and
Northern Ireland. And whilst brutality
of action is still common place it is no surprise that primitive thought is not
far behind.
Religion’s most powerful tool is the promise of eternal life. Homo religious invents religious
symbols, which he worships to save him from facing the finality of his
death. He devises paradise fictions to
provide comfort and support. Man
deceived himself about his ultimate destiny so as not to be tormented by the
contemplation of it. But because of its
improbability this belief can only be skin deep. When ill, people pray but soon run to the best doctors that money
can buy; mere humans but more effective, it appears, than the god of their
dreams. In their despair they cling to
notions that no rational person would entertain for a second. That in a Universe made up of billions of
galaxies and trillions of planets and infinite space there is a god who has
sent his son to be crucified on this tiny speck earth in order to save the
human race. That he has chosen this
moment conveniently at the fringes of documented history so that the facts are
incapable of verification. That this
god controls every little drama that befalls mankind but in such a way that it
is impossible to tell it apart from complete randomness. He is all good but allows thousands to be
killed in earthquakes; he is all-powerful but allows dictators to kill millions
of innocent people in the most barbaric fashion. This the religious call free will but as usual they haven’t
thought things through. Either God was
in agreement with Hitler and he acted at God’s behest, in which case God is
wicked or God disapproved but could not stop him, in which case Hitler was
mightier than God.
The free will claim in defence of God will not do because the millions
of free will actions by people combined add up to the conduct of society. It is the collective free will of people
that determines the course of events and it leaves no room for an
interventionist supreme being. When
humans die they are somehow able to carry on just as they were, even though all
their atoms have been scattered to the winds.
It is all in the soul we are told.
This mysterious entity that manages to keep us going just as well
without a body; all functions and faculties in tact. One might ask why bother
with a body in the first place? Much
simpler to be born, live and die as souls.
Easier for women to give birth and easier to explain what is to become
of missionaries that have been had for breakfast by the natives. As Albert Einstein said: “An individual who
should survive his physical death is beyond my comprehension; such notions are
for the years or absurd egoism of feeble minds”.
The question must be asked: is this contorted self-serving scenario a
credible, scientific proposition or does it sound like the ultimate exercise in
wishful thinking? What is the
alternative? Let’s take a look at
Humanism.
Humanism is not a doctrine but an attitude to life. Because Humanists
believe that this is the only life we can expect to have we had better make the
best of it, both individually and collectively. Humanists are rationalists because they regard human reason as
the best guide we have in facing life’s problems. In their social outlook Humanists are secularist because they
want to free society from the stranglehold that religious beliefs still have on
it, whether it be collective worship in British State schools or depriving
women of education in Afghanistan.
Humanists are freethinkers because they refuse to handover their minds
to any church or cult but remain free to think things through for
themselves. Humanists hold that every
responsible human being should be free to make his or her own choices and live
their own life style as long as they do not violate the freedom of others.
This is the Golden Rule: “do as you would be done by”. Unlike believers Humanists see no virtue in
faith, blind obedience, unworldliness, chastity or pointless self denial. Humanism stands for the open mind in an open
society. A believer is a bird in a
cage; a Humanist is an eagle, parting the clouds with tireless wing.
In summary:
- Humanism rejects religion in the sense
of belief in and worship of a superior being.
- It is not merely agnosticism or atheism
but an attempt to develop a positive life stance as a viable alternative to
organised religion.
- It believes strongly in individual rights,
especially freedom of thought and expression.
- It bases its life stance on the
principle of science, reason, understanding, love and compassion.
- It derives its morality from an
understanding of our nature as social beings who like to co-operate with one
another and show sympathy and compassion for our fellow creatures.
- For Humanists the afterlife is what you
leave behind in other people.
One of the most persistent accusations levied against Humanism is its
supposed lack of moral guidance. It is
overlooked that it is human society that has created systems of morality and it
is religious man who, with uncalled for humility, has attributed their
authorship to God. The Golden Rule already described is as good as anything
religion has to offer and the proof of it can be found in the virtual absence
of Humanists from prison whilst most of the country’s notorious villains,
including Myra Hindley and Peter Sutcliffe were and still are committed
Christians. Believers can ask God’s forgiveness and wipe the slate clean so
that they can start sinning all over again. Humanists do not stand before God
but before man and must account for their actions in this world.
However, before concluding it should be emphasised that Humanists have
a few reservations about people practising religion as individuals. If their
faith offers them personal comfort, then all is well and good. But organised
religion is a different matter. Religion becomes a menace when religious
leaders such as Popes and Ayatollahs, given credence by sheer numbers, are able
to restrict personal freedoms far beyond the spheres of their own religions
such as women’s right to determine what happens to their own bodies and to
dictate to authors under pain of death what they can or cannot write. The Taliban
religious dictatorship in Afghanistan is a recent example of the unacceptable
face of religion. Closer to home we have the established position of the Church
of England and compulsory worship in state schools.
We still seem to be facing the same old conflict within the human
psyche: science versus doctrinaire religion; the empirical world of
inter-subjective verification versus the world of fantasy; knowledge of fact
versus romantic superstition. Which do you think is the right attitude for
modern man?.
An honest
admission that many things are as yet unclear but that the human race should be
chipping away steadily and enthusiastically at the boundaries of knowledge,
using science as the only tool; or should we continue to accept the writings of
ancient tribes as the basis on which to build our modern society simply on the
assertion that these edicts are God’s word and are unchangeable.
- Courtesy ‘Rationalist Voice (May-June, 2001)