We need to talk about this – the Humanist approach
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe – one of the fathers of modern Humanism
No doubt about it, when it comes to religion it’s a complicated world. Arguably, things were always like this – but until the development of mass media most folk didn’t know (or care) much about the beliefs and spiritual practices of people from other parts of the world. The received wisdom was generally a healthy dose of dogma ground up into a stew of prejudice, all as interpreted by local clerics and reinforced by folklore and tradition. Until recently, none of this mattered to ordinary people. The religion and belief of others was something that didn’t generate much interest (with some obvious exceptions, like Northern Ireland) and the right for an individual to follow their own religious convictions has long been enshrined in the law. Now, traditional UK religions are losing their congregations while terrorist organisations perpetrate atrocities via homegrown Muslim fundamentalists, Osama bin Laden exhorts us to convert to Islam (but check the downside if you later change your mind) and in the US we see the rise of extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalism , the Christian Rapture, the seriously wacky endtime Christianity and various attempts to push the pseudo-science of creationism as a credible alternative to the real science of evolutionary development.
Musing over this, I spotted a story about Nepal Airlines sacrificing goats to ask for the intercession of a Hindu god to cure a persistent electrical problem on a Boeing 757. Another Hindu story popped up a few days later, this time concerning the claimed supernatural origin of an underwater ‘bridge’, a geological feature linking India and Sri Lanka and thought by devout Hindus to have been built by the Lord Ram and a workforce of monkeys. India has a vibrant and very vocal democratic tradition and the bridge story has been well debated in the press and in the blogosphere, but substantial sections of the Hindu community prefer the cultural tradition of the Lord Ram fable to any mundane scientific explanation. More recently, the BBC ran a piece about the problems faced by science teachers when discussing the theory of evolution. Apparently, a significant growth in the number of Muslim children in British schools is causing some teachers to avoid the topic, fearing confrontation with pupils who prefer the creationist teachings of the Qur’an.
Current policy is based on EU and international law and guarantees the basic freedoms that we hold to be a central part of a functioning democracy – but very few of us ponder much on deep religious and/or philosophical matters. We view the world through the prisms and filters of our own mix of perception and belief, generally settling for a compromise view that avoids difficult choices and offends the smallest number of people – especially people with religious belief.
Compromising means finding ‘neutral ground’, where beliefs and tenets are not in conflict, where we can concede things that are less important and collaborate in the production of a solution – for example, many Christians don’t defend the Old Testament as being the literal word of God, nor do moderate Muslims insist on strict Sharia law as set out in the Qur’an. Organised religion seems to be saying “We won’t criticise your beliefs and/or the historicity of your faith if you don’t criticise ours”. In terms of maintaining social harmony and minimising conflict, the pragmatism of tacit collusion is fine and dandy and is a cornerstone of religious tolerance – the only casualty is the truth.
As a Humanist, I don’t believe in saviours, prophets, god figures, or any of the panoply of supernatural entities so revered by world religion, and I want to get some clarity of thought on where we’re going with this sort of thing and what effect it will have on our system of religious tolerance. I’m concerned that our reluctance to publicly discuss these matters in an open and non-confrontational manner may be interpreted as passive assent to the acceptance of superstition instead of evidence-based proof and a retreat from the secular principles on which our society is based.
We are mistaken if we think that any new and more ecumenical approach will satisfy the aims and ambitions of religious fundamentalists of any persuasion. Instead, we urgently need public discussion on the view that religious belief (no matter how bizarre) is somehow immune from criticism, that it is acceptable for people to base their view of the world on ‘holy’ texts of doubtful authenticity and that it’s all OK because we mustn’t criticise another person’s faith.
Despite significant gaps in the spectrum of scientific knowledge, we know enough to explain most natural phenomena; including many ‘miracles’ and other ‘paranormal’ phenomena. Science based or factual explanations are more acceptable to folk with an open mind, because science is bound by the rigour of the data collection – analysis – hypothesis – testing – theory – peer review sequence, without articles of faith, without dogma and without spurious theories purporting to link proven scientific knowledge with divine intent.
The truth is there for anyone with the courage to ‘come out of the closet’ and question the rationale of allowing our democratic freedoms and our very existence to be decided on the basis of scripture of dubious provenance; not to mention the interpretations of clergy who are more concerned about extending the power of their respective organisations than in the physical welfare of the rest of mankind.
Perhaps I have this all wrong – maybe Sophocles’ was right that ‘the end excuses any evil’ – maybe the mainstream religions really are working for the common good and the ‘truth’ is a luxury that we can’t afford. I’m still concerned about it. Read Roger Darlington’s The Reason for Truth essay and let me know what you think.
Your thoughts on this? Click on the reply link below.