The
Positive Values of Atheism, Secularism and Secular Humanism*
1) The Values
2) Accentuating
the Positive
3) Confusing
Argument with Personality
1) The Values
The value of atheism, is that it states
quite clearly that its ideology does not accept the existence of any
supernatural entity. That solutions to problems have to be negotiated,
using intelligence, knowledge, rationality and good
judgment, without recourse to belief in myth and dogma.
"In theory I am an agnostic,
but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed,
practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's
truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant
and a hypocrite to call myself anything else." --H.P Lovecraft
The value of secularism is in its
necessary place in politics, social policy, government and
administration at local and national level. Ensuring Freedom for
Religion, Freedom from Religion within a state that does not
give privileges to religions is essential for peace and harmony
between people of different beliefs and cultures. It is IMO absolutely
central to peaceful human society. Secularism IMO stands with
democracy and liberal political ideologies in the formulation of
policies that maximise individual freedom and equality, consistent
with community and 'the common good'. (Secularism
in Politics)
The value of humanism is in helping
people to understand that morality is not the province of religion.
That morals and ethics are best understood as a function of
intelligent thought and judgement and democratic decision making - in
the light of knowledge, experience. It is the process by which
people learn to live together as a society in the interests of the
group in a state of reasonable harmony and co-operation.
These are the bedrock of secular
humanism - three sets of values together with the freedom of
information that is necessary for correct judgment, avoid the
stumbling blocks of superstition, sectarianism, oppression of
minorities and economic inequality if they are taken in isolation.
The aims and objectives of these
are to attain a further set of human personal, political and social
values List
*I use the term to differentiate myself
from the humanism that is little more than the 'agnostic
humanitarianism' that would be at home in a Unitarian Church or
Friends Meeting House.
2) Accentuate
the Positive..
One of the recurring themes in any
discussion of humanism, and particularly with people new to the
movement, is that 'Atheism is negative', and that what 'we' need to do
is to present humanism as a 'positive'. This in turn translates into
"we should not attack religion" because it is negative and
therefore 'counter productive'.
My atheism is far from negative.
In order to present and explain secular
humanism as 'a positive', it is essential to say what it is and why it
is necessary. To do this one has to explain
what it is about the status quo that is wrong.
If one campaigns for 'Shelter', one
highlights the problems of homelessness as well as advocating more
affordable housing, housing for single people
In campaigning for peace one
exposes the causes of conflict, as well as proposing conflict
resolution strategies.
In selling pain killers one
describes the aches and pains for which it is used.
So, in promoting humanism, one exposes
the evil effects of religion and advocates the alternatives - secular
humanism (atheism + secularism + humanism.)
Intelligent humanists must know this,
so why the antipathy to criticising and opposing the widespread ill
effects of religion?
There may well be personal,
family and psychological reasons why some humanists do not
want to be outspoken in criticising religion , but there are
also those who just prefer the soft option of promoting what they like
to call the 'positive humanism' the 'good without god' side of the
equation. Then there are those who are blind to the extent of the
problem. It is easy to see that this is possible in this
society, where 'religious beliefs', 'culture' and overt
criticism of superstition and sectarianism is still taboo, there
are millions of people who believe that religion is 'quite a good
thing on the whole'. It is as if the religions had nothing
to do with the malign effects that appear to some of us to be so
obvious.
For any rational assessment
the lesson of history must be that religion has been a curse on
mankind, from constant violence and killing of endless
religious wars; the Crusades; the Christian gold seeking
Conquistadors; the blood thirsty religions of the Incas and
Aztecs - the Catholic Inquisitions in Spain and
France - the Witch-hunting in Europe, Britain and America - the
pogroms, massacres and holocaust in Western Europe, Russia , the
Middle East, the Balkans and Africa, all fueled by centuries of
sectarian hatred and anti-Semitism - and the systematic
suppression of dissent; tyrannical regimes ruling with the collusion
of the dominant religions to their mutual advantage;
Even today, from religious beliefs, be
they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, even Buddhism, and their sects
and cults, come prejudice and discrimination, against women,
Jews, and gays; oppressive class ridden political policies; punitive
attitudes particularly to women and the poor; and political
activity that distorts democracy. They actively work against
UN health and population programmes in pursuit of dogma against
contraception, condom use and abortion, causing suffering and death
from starvation and HIV/AIDS. They still suppress dissent
wherever possible, and use their inherited privileges and
organisation to promote their beliefs and insist on
indoctrinating children to continue the process.
At every level of life from personal
dependency, guilt and fear, through its effects on family, community
and society, religions still mark their territory. Nationally and
internationally the religions cause violent conflict, directly or
indirectly. Their divisiveness prevents co-operation, and their
inflexibility prevents rational negotiated, evidence based settlement
of what are often disputes over land and resources.
Everywhere one looks one can see the
controlling hands of the religions. Their doctrines on marriage
and the family evolved specifically to perpetuate the view that women
are inferior. This is why they are so vehemently against same sex
partnerships, sex and parenthood outside of marriage and
divorce. Prior to secular marriage 'holy wedlock' was the
only way to have legitimate sex (at least for women) and children.
This kept a vice like grip on individuals and society, and ensured
that children learned this role model.
In the community, the churches used
as they still do today, people's communal needs, to make them reliant
on the church. Using their inherited privileges and advantages of
premises and paid activists they provide many services, but on a
sectarian basis. Thus excluding anyone wanting to opt out of the
religious community. This social glue kept and still keeps people
complaint unable and unwilling to oppose the church.
Perhaps the worst effect of religion
has been their attitudes to women, branding them as inferior and
relegating them to domesticity and dependency, the stereotypes of
temptress, whore, entertainer, handmaiden and carer has
done immense harm in producing an unbalanced male orientated society.
Worse has been the use of their once total control of education and
the exclusion of women from higher education, and consequently the
professions, government and administration. The effects of this
prejudice and discrimination against women is still very much in
evidence, even in most western European democracies. It is less than
80 years since women got the vote, and in Britain today, in
employment, childcare and carers rights, pension entitlement, the
Criminal Justice system and status and respect for their views,
representation and participation women still suffer substantial
disadvantage.
3)
Confusing Argument with Personality
An ideology, a set of ideas and values,
stands or falls on the quality and intellectual coherence of the ideas
and values themselves, and not on the qualities of those who support
or promote them.
They should not be judged by the
intelligence, education, personality or characteristics of the
proponents, but on their consistency, coherence, worth and
practicability.
Political ideologies such as Marxism,
socialism, fascism or liberalism ; religious beliefs such as
Christianity, Islam Spiritualism, or Paganism, or atheist
philosophies, secularism or humanism must be judged on their merits.
The characters and tactics of their proponents are but a distraction
and a diversion.
Examples of this can be seen by looking
at the people who support and have supported these
ideologies & values - the great figures whose names are
bandied about in the propaganda wars between them. There are
political, religious and philosophical figures - leaders, statesmen
and tyrants whose opinions are put forward to 'prove' the
veracity of ideas. These people share the entire range of human
characteristics. Every ideology has its intellectual 'giants; and
supporters who have outstanding talents, intellect, education, ability
etc..
One of the greatest fallacies that
leads us astray in considering the relative merits of ideas, is the
temptation to use the human attributes, and not just the relevant
expertise of the supporters of a cause, in judging the soundness and
value of that cause.
Examples in the area of politics are
characters as diverse as Karl Marx, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin,
Nelson Mandella and Adolph Hitler. In religion there are the saints,
clerics & icons of the religions, and individuals such as Erasmus,
Martin Luther, John & Charles Wesley & the Dali Lama. In the
realms of philosophy there has been a continuous stream of great
thinkers, Aristotle and Plato and their predecessors Greece and
Rome, the philosophers of the Middle Ages and the enlightenment, Lock,
Hulme and Descarte though the later figures such as Kant and Neitzer
to Bertrand Russell and John Paul Sartre to today's contenders who may
be considered 'great' in the future.
As can be seen from this, men (and I
will return to this) of the highest intellectual ability have and do
espouse ideologies as diverse as communism and Nazism; fanatical
religious sects and cults, spiritualism and the more benign
manifestations of belief; and philosophical ideas such as
supernaturalism, existentialism, dialectical materialism, modern
rationalism (empiricism) and humanism.
There are many examples of people who
have at different times of their lives used their individual abilities
to espouse totally contradictory views, such as Malcolm Muggeridge and
Annie Bessant. There appear to be few of these people, probably
because they are not remembered because their very inconsistency has
prevented subsequent proponents of an ideology from using them in
support of their cause.
It must be glaringly obvious from the
above that almost all of the 'great figures', leaders and thinkers
that we know of were men. This simply reflects the way women were
systematically excluded from public life and relegated to domesticity
and servicing the needs of men.
It must also be obvious by now, at the
beginning of the 21st Century, even to the most hidebound misogynist,
that women are not inferior to men in any way, least of all
intellectually. So where did these ideas of female inferiority, and
intellectual weakness come from, and how did they attain such
universal acceptance, and how was it accompllised?
Partly no doubt from the legacy of the
early advantages of physical strength and the disadvantages of
childbearing and child care but more because of the deliberate
exclusion of women from almost all areas of public life and decision
making by excluding them from education by the desire of men to
continue to assert their superiority. This was accomplished by the
collusion of the male dominated, monotheistic religions with the
other male elites - government and military. The role of religion was
clear, Christianity, Islam and Judaism and other religions sects and
cults, asserted their control through their control of education. They
owned and controlled the institutions, decided who was taught, what
they were taught (and not taught) and by whom they were taught. And as
in many countries today, since all the jobs and decision making is
done by people so schooled in the controlling ethos, it becomes a self
perpetuating system.
A system in which women were totally
excluded not only from education, but through that, from the
professions, administration and government. And we still have
substantial remnants of these systems today, in the West, the Old
World - Asia, the Middle East and South America and in the developing
world. And where religion is strongest, so is the suppression of
women's rights.
In the annals of our own infant
secularist movement, we have a prime example of the main themes of
this paper - the cult of personality on ideology, on feminism,
socialism secularism and......... superstition.
Anne Bessant, was a woman of
intelligence and education, young and attractive, from a wealthy
middle class devoutly religious family, she was feted for the
diversity of her interests, intellect, education, effectiveness &
achievements in the fields in which she was active. She influenced and
was influenced by many of the prominent men of the progressive
movements, Sir Edwin Lutchens, G.B Shaw, Willian Morris, Gandi, and
Charles Bradlaugh, and was frenetically active in the early emergence
of Left/Liberal politics and secularism in Britain and India.
She was one of the few women to
achieve iconic status in the newly emerging world of secularism,
women's rights, and the improvement in working conditions for men and
women workers of the 19th & 20th Century. She
lent her talents, intellect and drive to further women's rights
- to be educated, to vote, to have control over their own
fertility with contraception and abortion and she campaigned for
rights for both men and women workers, in the coal mines which
employed women and children, the East End Matchgirls and Trade
Unionists.
In later life however she took up
Theosophy and spiritualism and devoted her talents and enthusiasm with
equal fervour to indulging her belief in that particular expression of
superstition. She took on all manner of weird beliefs and promoted
charlatans and tricksters.
So what does this have to say about
Annie Bessant? What does it say about human talent and intelligence?
What does it say about Education? And what does it say about ideology?
It says that Annie Bessant was an
intelligent woman of her time, in a particular social strata. Earlier
she would not have been able to do what she did because of greater
social restrictions and lack of education or opportunity. Much later
she would not have had the advantage of the 'novelty' of being a women
active in public life, and would most likely have been told to 'sit
down and shut up' and been denigrated as a 'lippy lefty
feminist' with all the renewed confidence of modern sexism born
of media prejudice against feminism.
It says about human talent, that it is
infinitely variable, but is only of value relative to what one does
with it. Education, intellect, talent and ambition do not of
themselves confirm or deny the veracity of a set of ideas and values.
Education (depending upon how you
define it) is not just a value in itself, but a tool that can be used,
like human attributes for a range of purposes - good or bad, and only
in conjunction with other attributes and human judgements.
On ideology and Values, it says that
they are not dependent on the education or human characteristics of
those who support or oppose them.
-------------------------------------Top