|
NOTES
|
A BRIEF PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Though born into a
Methodist household and reared a Christian, I
have not been religious (at least in the
conventional sense of the word) since my late
twenties. In the course of my
maturation, many events have influenced my
way of looking at the universe and mankind's
relationship to it. It is not that I
intentionally set out to defy religious
authority and tradition; quite the contrary,
as a young man I was unusually traditionalist
in my views, and I had been seeking ways to
reaffirm my faith. But as I learned
more and more about the universe in which I
found myself, I began to encounter
discomfiting conflicts between belief and
actual experience.
Ironically it was my
contact with fiercely religious
fundamentalist elements which first prompted
me to examine and question my own faith more
closely, and which ultimately led to my
disenthrallment from religious and mystical
belief altogether. But even though I no
longer believe in such things as gods,
devils, and afterlife, religion—from its
earliest roots in primitive superstition and
legend, through the ancient traditions of
Sumerian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Norse,
Hindu, and Hebrew polytheism, to its many
present-day manifestations—has
nevertheless remained a fascinating (if
somewhat peripheral) subject to me.
|
|
WHY AN ATHEIST HAS A RELIGION PAGE
In my early years, when I was religious, I
was taught that religion is an intimately personal matter
which respectable people do not discuss in the public sphere
outside the home and church. Having been quite
comfortable in my religious disbelief for the
better part of my life, I feel no particular
desire to convert others to my way of
thinking. However, I find there is substantial
reason to disseminate some perspective on
atheism from a purely informational
standpoint. The skeptic's view seems
strange to many, and people often
misunderstand and fear that which is strange
to them. We see the results of such
fear manifested in a variety of ways, from
hate propaganda equating disbelief with
immorality, extremist politics, or even devil worship, to laws
denying equal rights to those who refuse to
profess belief in a supernatural power.
By expressing my views on a
variety of subjects in a frank but (mostly)
non-confrontational spirit, I hope to
alleviate such fear-born-of-ignorance, and to
promote a degree of understanding between
believers and non-believers. For
example, someone who has never considered any
possibility but that morality must be
divinely inspired might find a plain-language
introduction to rational ethics truly
eye-opening. And perhaps those who
cannot understand others' contempt for their
beliefs need only be reminded of their own
negative feelings toward "false"
religions—i.e., religions other
than their own—for every
religion appears "false" to those
who devoutly believe in something else.
But more than painting a
clearer picture of our differences, I wish to
emphasize that as humans we, believers and
non-believers alike, have many values,
interests, problems, and objectives in
common. Granted, there are many on both
sides of the religion issue who have allowed
their humanity to be eaten away by fanaticism; these cannot be reached
by reason. But the rest of
us, if we are of good will, should be able to
agree to disagree on matters of personal
faith, and yet cooperate wholeheartedly in
areas of common human concern.
|
|
INTOLERANCE: A CASE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
A lifelong
advocate of religious freedom and tolerance,
I have no quarrel with those who practice
religion as a matter of personal belief and
conscience. However, those who insist
upon thrusting their own beliefs upon
everyone else, especially if they demand the
active participation of government in this
endeavor, are a matter of considerable
annoyance. The religious indoctrination
of children in public schools is particularly
troublesome, whether it takes the form of an
official school prayer (discriminating
against students whose beliefs are not in
accord with those of school authorities), the
posting of the scripture of one particular
religion (ostensibly to "promote
values," as if that one religion—or
even religion in general, for that
matter—had a monopoly on such things),
or the corruption of science and history
curricula (in the name of "cultural
diversity") by the spurious insertion of
material more suitable for a course in
comparative religion or even mythology.
People who
advocate such things are not interested in
religious freedom, but rather in religious
domination. It is not the general
advancement of all religious ideas and
philosophies which they seek, but the
imposition of one religion—their own,
naturally, whatever it might be—upon us
all. (I have yet to hear an evangelical
Christian seriously advocate Buddhist
meditation, the study of Jewish culture and
tradition, the observance of Muslim or pagan
holidays, the teaching of Hindu creation
myth, or the posting of the Humanist
Manifesto, in public schools. The grand
ideal of "cultural diversity," it
would appear, extends only as far as the
particular religious culture of those
advocating it, and to no other.)
Indeed, it is not a contest between belief
and disbelief, but between rabid
minority sects on one side and everyone else, both religious
and secular,
on the other.
Most Americans
would agree that each person should be free
to believe according to the dictates of his
own conscience. And it is natural for
each person to feel that his own creed is the
"right" one. However, any
attempt to force general compliance
with a particular creed, even in the earnest
belief that it is the right thing to do, goes
well beyond the guarantee of religious
liberty. It is indeed an assault upon
that principle, and therefore a matter of
concern to everyone who cherishes that liberty.
Although the fanatics' numbers are relatively
small, their voice is loud, and clever
political alliances have disproportionately
magnified their influence. As long as
the Internet remains open to all opinions,
we—believers and non-believers
alike—must continue to express that
concern, lest the voices of all eventually be
stilled by the strangling grip of fanatical
intolerance.
|
|
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HUMANISM
One description of humanism
which often comes to mind is the cultural
movement of the European Renaissance.
The humanist movement redirected intellectual
and academic inquiry, previously focused
almost exclusively upon studies of the Bible
and the works of Aristotle, and expanded it
to embrace new scientific discoveries, as
well as the rediscovery of the art,
literature, and history of the
"classical" civilizations of
ancient Greece and Rome.
As the term is used today,
humanism can be described as a philosophy
emphasizing the value and interests of human
beings, and a concern for their needs and
well being. Humanism supposes that
humans are responsible and accountable for
their own actions and the foreseeable
consequences thereof. It holds that we,
as responsible individuals, deserve both
credit for acts which benefit humanity, and
blame for those acts which are detrimental to
it. Humanism is opposed to determinism,
which supposes that human behavior is under
the domination of external forces, either of
good and evil, or of inevitable nature.
Humanism also opposes nihilism,
which supposes that "right" and
"wrong" should be defined according
to what is immediately gratifying to the
individual rather than beneficial to humanity as a
whole. And because humanism concerns
itself with humanity as a whole, it differs
as well from utilitarianism, whose
focus is limited to the happiness and well
being of a majority without concern for the legitimate
rights of individuals and minorities.
Humanism is not a
religion, but neither is it inherently
anti-religious. It does not oppose
religion, except in those areas where
religion displays clearly anti-human
tendencies, such as the denial of personal
responsibility, the promotion of tribalism,
the reliance upon superstition instead of
reason, and the stifling of honest
inquiry. Humanism is simply a rational
way of viewing humanity and its endeavors,
with the aim of enhancing the general quality
of life. It is also an instrument for
the formulation and maintenance of a workable
system of ethics, providing a strong but
flexible framework for a stable, progressive,
and prosperous society. In this sense
humanism and religion are similar, in that
both serve as media for the propagation of
moral values. The difference is that
humanism focuses its values on the reality of
human need and aspiration, adapting itself as
circumstances evolve, whereas religious
values are chained to ancient superstition,
myth, and taboo. In many respects the
values of humanism and religion are similar,
even identical; in others they are obviously
centuries and cultures apart.
Since the eighteenth
century humanism has become increasingly
associated with secularism. Yet it
originated among religious believers in an
age of pervasive religious belief, and it has
always had a strong following among the
religious intelligentsia. That's
because it is a tool. Like a hammer, a
screwdriver, or a computer, humanism will
work as well in the hands of a Methodist as
in the hands of an atheist. Like any
other tool, humanism doesn't care about the
personal beliefs of the person using it. As long as it
is employed with intelligence, skill, and a respect for the
workings of nature, the tool of humanism just does its job. While
humanism comes in both secular and religious
versions, the differences between them are
relatively minor, confined mainly to the
precepts of whether human value is naturally
derived or divinely inspired.
|
|
MAIN 
ISSUES 
LINKS 
RINGS 
