Secular humanism is fast becoming one of the most popular idealogical fads of this age. An increasing unrest is brewing within the world’s intellectual elite as religion and atheism go head to head. As we stand at this crossroads, it is important to take a moment and reflect upon what this trend means to a modern society. In this article I aim to examine the current conflict between atheism and theism, and how this is dividing the opposing parties towards an increasing fundamentalism. Secondly, I also wish to introduce the life philosophy of Secular Humanism, an alternative value system that allows for spirituality and intellectual skepticism to co-exist.
Teleological thought processes seem to dominate human thought, as we attempt to look beyond what is in front of us and seek some deeper meaning or absolute truth about the world. ‘Stronger’ religions gain footholds among the populace which then snowball and spread like contagion throughout the minds of the world. In this context, a strong religion is one that 1) seems plausible to the agent, 2) appeals to human nature and 3) easily passed between people. Weak religions, by way of contrast, could be likened to cults; ideas that appeal to a small group of deluded individuals and involve overly complex ritualistic ceremonies (reducing its appeal through a lack of understanding). Thus religion as we know it is a natural emergent outcome of this process; easily communicable between individuals and groups alike, regardless of nationality or ethnicity and fiercely infectious and appealing to the inner human need for explaining the unknown.
Spirituality is undoubtedly an intrinsically human characteristic, dating back to the birth of civilisation. Therefore, it seems illogical to try and deny that which comes as second nature. It can be argued, however, that religion in its most pure and authentic form is becoming increasingly scarce. The core principles of religion are not to blame. Rather, spirituality is a human trait that should be protected at all costs. It is the distortion of religion by those in power that creates problems. The Dark Ages in medieval Europe is a prime example of such corruption. During this period of cultural and intellectual stagnation, religion came to be recognised as a source of power and control over a populace. Tapping into and exploiting the human ’soft-spot’ for spirituality not only changed the way in which religion was taught, but created a fusion of church and state. Fortunately this has been revised in most (I use this word with emphasis due to the presence of Middle Eastern governments based on a interpretation of religion) modern constitutions and a separation of church and state is recognised as not only fair/just, but also the ethical and morally correct thing to do.
In more recent times, the rising rate of education and promotion of scientific principles has culminated in an emerging trend towards strong atheism; that is, explicitly declared, proud atheism with individuals actively asserting their disbelief in god(s) and general rejection of traditional religious ritual. Strong atheism has been spearheaded (most prominently) by the biologist Richard Dawkins and philosopher Daniel Dennet, two very vocal advocates of disbelief. While their methods and tone could be construed as (ironically) verging on the fundamentalist, it has been argued that such a strong stance is necessary in order to counter the matching (and disturbing) rise in fundamentalist religiosity. I propose that it is no coincidence that this increase (particularly radical Islamic groups) is occurring in third world countries that lag behind the Western world. Original religious teachings are becoming distorted as the evil power of theism is once again realised and abused by those in authority.
Aethism is finally becoming ‘fashionable’ (for lack of a better word). While the concept has existed since ancient Greece (indeed, Aristotle was executed for his disbelief in the Greek gods), those who spoke out against it were met with unflinching retribution. This is where we really get to the crux of the issue with religion; the way in which it can be corrupted to play out the delusions of a powerful few, and the way in which its teachings are often taken literally. Adding to the problem is religion’s unwavering stance against criticism and introspection. This is where modern society comes in, with its rising distaste for those which do not have the courage to look inward and accept the possibility of error. The education system (to a degree) promotes a healthy skepticism and questioning attitude which is finally causing a critical mass of doubters to turn around and challenge the monopoly that religion has held over our minds for so long.
There are those of us who seem to have been born with a natural deference to atheism, while others sit in the middle content to hold some belief but doubting the minor details, and finally the fundamentalists who are indoctrinated at an early age. It is to this middle group that this article appeals. Secular Humanism is not only a collection of ideas and philosophical stances, but rather matches the ability of religion to provide a framework upon which to guide conduct. Some of us seem to require such structure within our belief systems, as it seems to be human nature to hold a cynical attitude towards the behaviour of others and our own capacities for self control.
Secular Humanism was founded in 1980 by Paul Kurtz, with the original declaration undergoing several revisions and now supported by a plethora of leading intellectuals and scientists. It is an amalgamation of all things ’science’ and intellectual; a guide to living created by smart people, for smart people who want the structure and organisation of a religion, but also desire the freedom to criticise, revise and generally act in an inquisitive manner.
Ten main principles form the basis of the Humanist declaration. None are unexpected, having been selected for their universality and applicability with a scientific ethos in mind. Secular Humanism promotes ideals of;
- Free inquiry
- Separation of church and state
- The ideal of freedom
- Ethics based on critical intelligence
- Moral education
- Religious skepticism
- Reason
- Science and technology
- Evolution
- Education
All are self explanatory, therefore I will not go into the finer details. Suffice to say, the nub of the proposition is that humans should have the fundamental right to choose the course of their lives. Children should not be ‘born’ into a religion; essentially, every person is born an implicit atheist (they have no knowledge of religion therefore cannot make an informed choice regarding their affiliation). Equally important principles of Humanism are the freedom to critically evaluate and also empowering the individual to make their own moral decisions.
Predictably, the first counter-blow from religion comes in the form of a cynical attack; “People are incapable of making their own moral choices, religion is needed in order for people to behave morally”. This argument equates religion itself with morality, which is simply not true. Religious advocates should be gracious enough to exert the same level of faith to their fellow humans that they do to a faceless, silent god.
Certainly, there are those in society who do lack the level of freedom required of adopting the Secular Humanist position. This lack of freedom predisposes them to commit crimes, ruminate over inappropriate thoughts and otherwise act in malicious ways towards society. Whether due to biological malformations or environmental upbringing (or a combination of both) such individuals simply cannot be held responsible (in the sense that they are free to chose the course of their actions) for the crimes they commit, therefore they should not be granted such freedom in the first place.
I am not advocating a policy of preemptive incarceration, but rather a change in mindset from lumping such people together in institutions (and arguably increasing the problem through intense exposure to other like-minded individuals for long periods of time) to re-educating them and assisting them to live a harmonious life.
But is this so called ‘rise of the atheists’ without its share of doom and gloom? We must tread carefully, or risk an increasing divide of the intellectually ‘rich and poor’. Those that can adopt the Humanist position freely and without reservation must ensure and respect the freedom of those who do not wish to participate. Human diversity, even when it results in the negative, is worth preserving at all costs. Without it, there would be no critical opinion, no discussion and a stagnation of society. Opposition breeds improvement, and Secular Humanism is only too willing to hear and learn from the criticisms that the disgruntled have to offer. The days of fundamentalist religions are numbered. Secular Humanism is at the forefront of this war, empowering society to question and challenging it to grow into maturity.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
18 October, 2007 at 4:48 pm
the scôp
Interesting article; well reasoned, indeed.
Reminded me of some of the ideas in this article by a fellow named Neil Postman (Chair of the Department of Culture and Communication at New York University):
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3631
18 October, 2007 at 7:51 pm
vulcanis
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read my article and provide feedback.
Secondly, very interesting article you recommended! I have extracted some excerpts that I found particularly thought provoking.
“He also wished to show that for all of communism’s contempt for the narratives of traditional religions, it relied nonetheless on faith and dogma. It certainly had its own conception of blasphemy and heresy, and practiced a grotesque and brutal method of excommunication.”
So true. The principles behind communism are, in my opinion, worthwhile to consider if the divide between rich and poor is to be abolished. It was brilliant how Neil made the analogy to religion; blind faith in the authority and aversion to criticism.
“I use the word narrative as a synonym for “god,” with a small “g.” I know it is risky to do so, not only because the word “god,” having an aura of sacredness, is not to be used lightly, but also because it calls to mind a fixed figure or image.”
In my article I purposely make use of the lower case ‘g’, not as a blatant show of disrespect, but rather as a sign of my skeptical attitude and unwillingness to attach such status to a concept in which I have no belief. It is comforting to know that I am not alone in this practice!
“Moreover, the science-god has no answer to the question, “Why are we here?” and, to the question, “What moral instructions do you give us?”, the science-god maintains silence. It places itself at the service of both the beneficent and the cruel, and its grand moral impartiality, if not indifference, makes it, in the end, no god at all.”
I do disagree with this point. Science gives us the best morals of all; the upholding of ethical principles and accountability (not to mention free-will and responsibility). Religion, by contrast, acts as a crutch, robbing the individual of their freedom through a requirement of an unquestioning, ’simon says’ attitude.
18 October, 2007 at 9:03 pm
mjackson75
If I can add my two cents here, I enjoyed the article too. What struck me was Postman’s focus on “meaning.” He referenced the meaning different “gods” were supposed to add to our lives. Personally, I think this search for external meaning is malicious. I say that because people end up looking to outside circumstances, whether technology, career, family, or God to give meaning to their lives. To me, this debilitates people.
I do think that each person’s life has meaning, or should, for that person. In other words, we get meaning to our lives through our external actions which stem from our internal values. If I want to be happy, I need to do what truly makes me feel good about myself…this is not drugs, those don’t help one to feel good about oneself. Instead, I value doing good for others, therefore, when I do good, I gain meaning in my life.
19 October, 2007 at 6:28 am
vulcanis
I challenge that life has to have ‘meaning’ in order to be worthwhile. At least in the sense that meaning is most often used; a purpose or single directive with distinctly religious overtones.
Life has to have meaning in the sense that we (building on the post by mjackson75) can look within ourselves, follow our dreams and grow into a better person. This does not equate to a single ‘meaning of life’ that is so often thrown around.
I guess I just have issues with people desiring ‘meaning’ to their lives. Perhaps its the choice of word, a more suitable term should be used, such as ‘making your life worthwhile’ or worthy. Even that introduces a type of elevation above others who are deemed to lead a life that is ‘not worthy’. Even so, this choice of word can deal with the presence of drug users, criminals etc who do not value their lives enough to grow from their experiences, instead choosing to live a life of excess and excessive stimulation.
19 October, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Dennis Quine
Vulcanis:
A nice article that pretty well summarizes the position of the secular humanists (e.g.; Dr Kurtz’ school), in his books and as promoted in The Humanist magazine. Let me take an opposing view to provoke some discussion.
The tenents of SH as you summarize them are largely intellectual: “Reason”, “Free Inquiry”, etc. The appeal of religion is almost totally emotional. That is why rational arguments against religious belief (e.g., Dawkin’s recent book, Hutchen’s book, and Dennet’s somewhat earlier tome) do not convince the believers. The SH approach (”let us reason together”) simply isn’t even in the same ballpark with the emotional religious majority in society. The approach of science and rationalism is to try to arrive at truths about existence based on un-emotional reasoning and collection of data about the world. The approach of religious conversion is to suppress reason and appeal directly to human feelings.
Those who enjoy a strong faith in Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, and any of a number of minor faiths (I exclude Buddhism and Zen as they are not faith-based as I understand them) did not arrive there by reason or argument, but by an act of faith, or early indoctrination before they had developed any independent reasoning capability. Thus trying to argue people out of their beliefs using “facts” about the world is a losing proposition: “facts” as understood in the scientific method are explicitly ignored or superceeded in making an act of religious commitment. And with the belief comes the metaphysics of God and what he wants us to do as translated for mere human ears by the leaders of the religious organization.
Whatever its perceived merits as a vehicle for human betterment, SH is a minority view today, and in some places (like the Islamic Middle East) is on the run, with little chance of gaining adherents. Even in the US, it seems not to be making much headway. Most people are more comfortable with a simple set of beliefs, including the one that “God is in his heaven and rules the world”. It is more comforting than the “descent from great apes starting 10 million years ago” story.
So to be provoking: I think SH is on the decline, and a hundred years from now will be but a footnote in history. (Of course, with its decline goes most of the social agenda of the Enlightment). There may be a few enclaves left in out-of-the way places like New Zealand, but Europe will be Moslem, and North and South America will be more staunchly Christian (or maybe nuevo-communist) to counter it. Faith is the way of the future (and the past).
Maybe the SH-ers can start a colony on Mars(?)
Take care,
DHQ
20 October, 2007 at 9:16 am
vulcanis
Hello again DHQ,
Wow, do you really think faith is the way of the future?? I had thought that it would be the other way around (equating science with social maturity and religion with immaturity). I always believed there was an inverse relationship between religion and knowledge, such that as technological prowess and scientific knowledge increased, religious faith decreased.
I think there are two possible futures; one in which science dominates, and one where there is an amalgamation of science and religion (spirituality). Humans seem to have a fundamental requirement for the spiritual, therefore it should not be suppressed but rather overhauled to fit in with the advancements in human knowledge (it is simply embarrassing to take biblical teachings as truth in today’s scientific world).
You are right in saying that the two approaches to life are juxtaposed against one another. There is this dichotomy that stereotypes religion as emotional and science as rational/logical. Both appeal to two distinct groups of people. If either one wins the fight for intellectual dominance (as opposed to the combination of the two that should occur) I’m sure we will continue to see minority groups maintaining their original faith despite strong opposition.
I am intending to write an article on the origins of religion soon, so that should clear up my thoughts on the topic. However, I believe religion is so appealing due to an emotional immaturity; people fear death and need a coping mechanism. They also crave meaning and higher authority in life. Religious followers should trust their autonomy and independence as human beings rather than using ancient teachings as a clear cut method for living their lives. Indeed, we run the danger of creating a rising level of fundamentalism on both sides, as it is human nature to defend the indefensible in the face of criticism. The psychological concept of cognitive dissonance may help to explain this extremism we are seeing in recent times (which I hope to explore further in my next article).
Basically, it is my hypothesis that cognitive dissonance works to ensure the survival of fundamentalist positions due to the active filtering of contradictory evidence in an attempt to reduce internal hypocrisy. People like to be right!
DHQ, I think we will be finding in the future that extremism will venture into the cosmos (once the technology is available) as people attempt to escape criticism towards their views. Perhaps we will have purely atheist nations vs religious – an intellectual and ideological divide rather than racial or cultural.
20 October, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Thanks for your thougts. Nice web page you run with a good selection of interesting issues, and opportunities for participants to blow off steam.
Re the future: I did want to be a little provocative in the remarks above; I’m not personnally sure any more what I believe about the human future. We seem to be living hung between two worlds: the older historical world dominated by faith, power politics, and a lot of ignorance about how the world really works, and the potential of a more pleasant and rational future. That thought is not original with me, of course.
But I am more pessimistic than ever that “humanity” can actually make that transition. Some of that is inevitable as one ages (I’m 66), but I do know I have undergone a personal transformation in views since my early years (in the 1950s and 60s) when I was very optimistic about the human future and the ultimate conquest of science and the demise of religion.
My early views were influenced by a lot of science fiction that portrayed humanity conquering the galaxy and usually had these stalwart, intelligent (white) guys (few wowen) leading the cause. I remain hopeful (as do you) that somehow the program of the Enlightenment can survive the onslaught of irrationalism both from within and outside our culture, but the issue does seem to be in doubt.
It is amazing how resiliant religious views are in the face of a global economic environment that is fueled by scientific and technological knowledge. Here in the U.S. we are experiencing the arguments between Presidential candidates about who is most devout, and I keep thinking: ‘what does that have to do with any of the problems the country and our friends around the world are facing’? But it is a reflection of what a lot of people (at least in this country) think is important in a leader: better to be devout than to have given any thought to crucial issues facing our future. I think it is fair to say that no acknowledged athiest or agnostic could be elected President in the U.S.
I agree, that people can partition their worldviews and live with two completely contrasting perspectives inside one head. One of the men who mentored me several decades ago had a PhD in math (he actually studied under Frege in graduate school), and had gradually become an applied mathematician and space systems engineer in his career. But he was also a devout Jew who traveled every year to Israel for his vacation. I never approached him about how he combined the two parts of his beliefs in one skull.
It appears, then, that a faith-based religion is not necessarily antithethical to a scientific world-view. The scientific worldview is used at work, the religious worldview governs personal life and activities. The two programs are seldom running in the head at the same time (the cognitive discontinuity you refer to). This is consistent with the perspective promoted by Stephen J. Gould before his death regarding the two “magisteria” and how they could fit together, each dealing with different aspects of one’s life. Dawkins thought that was all total nonsense, of course. In his view there is no place at all for faith in one’s personal metaphysics.
But that does not change my pessimism about the vast majority around the world who seem to have the faith (in something) without the science to compliment it. Maybe my views are due to a sampling error, but from where I sit, SH has not made the inroads and progress in the past decades that I had thought (hoped) it would. I still pick up The Humanist on the newsstands every month, but I am increasingly afraid it is not the wave of the future.
Maybe the Botzmann Brains will be more sensible when they take over things (more likely they will all be insane).
Cheers,
DHQ
20 October, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Sorry to clutter up your web page, but I meant to mention regarding your original essay:
An author by the name of Corliss Lamont wrote a book “The Philosophy of Humanism” (original 1949) which is actually available as a download from his web page (probably costs a few bucks) I think his views are very consistent with Paul Kurtz’ Secular Humanism, and predated them by a couple of decades. I first ran across him decades ago in college. So the general themes of Humanism are at least 50 years old, probably older, dating back to the writers and philosophers of the Enlightenment. Some of us agree (with you) that it is the most reasonable perspective to have on the universe and human life in it. I just am concerned it may be in retreat around the globe as religious irrationalisms continue to be promoted.
Hang tough,
DHQ
20 October, 2007 at 5:59 pm
vulcanis
Thanks for the links DHQ, I will have a look at that book.
I must admit I am surprised at your age! Maybe I am just young and foolish (I am 22) and my ideas are overly optimistic due to inexperience. The strange thing is that I have grown more tolerant and less cynical about humanity as I have aged when it seems that the opposite is true of you!
Previously I hated religion with a passion; I have never believed it even as a child, however now I think that maybe I am missing out on something special (although I would never become a traditional theist, Buddhism is probably the closest to a ’set’ religion that I would be interested in).
I would be very interested in your thoughts regarding American religiosity. Fortunately I will be travelling to the US in December so I might get to see this first hand. I currently live in the UK (with Australia as my homeland) so I haven’t been exposed to much fundamentalism. I only ever hear about American extremism second hand.
Don’t worry about cluttering up the page! I’m glad the website is working as I intended it to.
21 October, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Optimism and Pessimism
Well, you are surprised I’m an “old geezer” (not quite yet I hope), and I’m surprised you are so young, given the insight in your essays posted here. But it really doesn’t matter: the issues we are confronting are perennial, independent of age. We first encounter them in philosophy and in self-questioning (”who am I”) when young, and then have to find a way to make a living and raise a family. So our attention shifts to more practical questions (”how can I get a job, or get a raise”). Then in later years, the same nagging questions arise again, because we never resolved them in those earlier years.
Having had another 40 years of experience doesn’t mean you have made any significant progress on those basic issues that have been with us since the time of the Greeks. And you have forgotten most of the stuff you read in college, so have to go back and resurrect some of those older texts to see why their ideas still remain with you.
Re: Optimism and Pessimism
I think there is a age-related factor here. Older people tend to get gradually discouraged (even if their personal life situation is going well)because they do not have the energy to fight the battles any more. So when they look at what they wanted to achieve and what they have achieved, there is always a sense of having not quite done enough.
To be pessimistic or optimistic about something requires that we compare where we wanted to be (or what we wanted to see happen in society) with what we observe around us. Given that we have very little control over the way of the world, all we can control is our attitude to things. I guess it is just biochemistry whether you see the glass as half full (the optimist) or half empty (the pessimist).
So it is good that you are optimistic about the prospects of Secular Humanism eventually sweeping the world. We need people to go fight the good fight. Unfortunately there are a few of us curmudgeonly cynics who just can’t get over the fact that the glass is still half empty, and that the water in the glass is still evaporating. So years from now (I fear) it will be three-fourths of the way empty.
Anyway, write an essay on something else that I can “curmudgeon” about.
Thanks,
DHQ