As a person that is proudly a secular humanist, I am all for the 3 D’s. I have discussed them before: Debate, Dialogue and Discussion. Humanism strives for them. Misconceptions abound when it comes to the “godless”, even from people who suddenly become “god-full” in their presence. Try and pick out who is a theist and who is an atheist from a busy city crowd and see what I mean. Most people continue their lives as if God does not exist anyway – or at the very least, very far removed that he might as well be absent, until Sunday, Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, etc.
God stays in his box until then.
I love to promote good and thorough understandings of any position: For example, whether I like religion or not, it is only fair that it be studied to the greatest extent. This means reading brilliant scholars like Karen Armstrong, Bart Ehrman, and Bruce Lawrence. That is, fair and “unbiased” views (as much as possible) of religion, instead of Yell-Me-Down preachers, dusting their ash-laden fingers from burning heathens. It is therefore not surprising that I know more about some people’s religions than they do. This is not something I am proud of because I would rather that people understand why it is they don’t eat pork, don’t drink, don’t go out at sunset, and so on.
A very good article, 10 Myths About Secular Humanism, was written by the CSH (Council for Secular Humanism). I would ask you all to read it. In it, Cherry and Matsumura state: “Diversity and dialogue [2 D's - TM] are essential to the process of learning and developing. Thus we value tolerance, pluralism, and open-mindedness as positive and beneficial qualities in society.”
It didn’t take very long to find a Yell-Me-Down, named David J. Stewart, who seems to continue to harbour myths even when faced with this myth-busting article. His essay, tantalisingly called Humanism is EVIL! (capitals and exclamation mark his), displays a severe misunderstanding of a document that deals directly with misundestanding. I urge you to read both documents before coming back to my assessment (so you can form your own opinion and assess my assessment!). I also want to know what reader’s thoughts are concerning this discrepancy.
Let us analyse the essay by Stewart.
1. Firstly, he defines humanism as: “An insane form of thinking that invades the human mind convincing it of it’s superiority over God and His Word”. He then repeats it, in the fashion of preachers. Repetition stays with you. It stays with you. It stays with you.
It is perhaps only fair to ask those are of the specific group for a definition, one as neutral as possible. If we all just started defining the group we oppose, I could define Chrisitianity as:
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Does it seem fair to use this as my definition of Christianity, when dealing with theologians? Humour aside, it is not fair. Webster’s dictionary defines Humanism as: “a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason” (emphasis mine). That seems a fair and accurate description.
2. Stewart thinks it stands for “it’s superiority over God and His Word” and “It is a very dangerous thing to re-create God in our own image”. Cherry and Matsumura state very clearly:
The idea that “humanists replace God with Man” seems to arise from a tendency among many Christians to assume that other religions and worldviews have a structure and content that parallels Christianity. So, since “Christians” worship Christ, humanists must worship humans. (emphasis mine)
Of course, Stewart is not interested in what Cherry & Matsumura say in the first place.
3. He then attempts to address some of the claims themselves – but does so to foster the brush of Othering, coating Satanists and Humanists in the same swipe. For example, he focuses on Cherry & Matsumura saying:
Humanists also emphasize the importance of self-determination – the right of individuals to control their own lives, so long as they do not harm others. Secular humanists, therefore, often promote causes where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice regarding sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia.
Then he replies: “Humanists openly PROMOTE a “Do-Your-Own-Thing” type mentality. Do you know that is exactly what the Church of Satan believes? They believe that you can do anything you want, just as long as no one else gets hurt”. Actually, reading the Nine Satanic Statements, from The Satanic Bible and Official Church of Satan website, I couldn’t find anything humanist. The Nine statements actually state:
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
This is something I would agree with and one most naturalists adere to. To consider ourselves as somehow above other animals (not animals, but other animals), is an entirely religious notion. Free-will also is fostered by the Judeo-Christian mindset: Buddhism for example harbours no qualms about man being soul-less. There is a fantastic grip of the mind, stretching forth from the backwaters of “holy” books that dig into most people’s minds, whispering: “You are special, you have a soul, you have free-will.” But, no, we aren’t and no, we don’t. I am a reductionist, materialist atheist. This entirely fits with the rejection of the supernatural when it comes to secular humanism.
Humans are all descended from the same ancestor as is every form of life on this planet. The evidence is out there and the veil of faith wills us to shut that out. The fingers from the pages of magical “holy” books tell people otherwise, but for no reason other than to feel ”special” or “unique”. But there is no reason to think humanity is the greatest thing to arise from this most beautiful planet. As Russell once quipped if the best that an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent god could conjure up, given billions of years, is humanity that can’t be much of a deity.
I don’t mean to slander humanity, only not to place ourselves on make-believe pedestals. Even if the ground beneath us is shaky, we can tell ourselves: It’s real! But to postulate a ground of angel-feathers is to take steps filled with danger, to fall through feathers and into burning fires of reality.
We are incredibe. But our power lies not in the worship of a deity, but in the submission to our humanity. Islam asks us to be slaves to god. It asks us for submission, too. That is rendered unto the faith, with no evidence at all. But our humanity, our pure virgin-like humaniy, lies quivering beneath the veil of faith. In our submission we set it free. We will find in our submission that we are not slaves to our humanity, but partners. We will find no domination but acceptance. Hands pressed together in supplication before an invisible deity can rather be extended to lift a fallen comrade, a bond formed not by faith, skin, or country but by humanity.
Because, as far as we know, we are all human. And we all trying to do the best we can to be happy. Instead of forcing our view of happiness, fostered by god or country – we should speak, discuss. We will only achieve the greatest accompishments through co-operation. Co-operation does not happen from behind the barrell of a gun, but next to an open-mind.
And in this light, I don’t see that occurring in Stewart’s essay.
4. Stewart focusses on another claim. Says Cherry & Matsumura:
Yes, it’s true that secular humanists don’t believe in a God or an afterlife…Secular humanists plead guilty as charged to these and many other claims that show the genuine and radical differences between humanism and revealed religion. In fact, we are proud of these differences, and want to see them publicized and debated.
Stewart replies:
Anyone who has faith in God should run as far away from secular humanism as they can. Frankenstein would be welcome in my home before I’d let Secular Humanism in the front door. The humanists openly admit that they DON’T believe in God, heaven, or hell. This is to their own demise. It is such atheistic godless-minded thinkers who are controlling the curriculum of the public school system in America. I am unalterably opposed to the heathen public school system. Humanism is of the devil because it denies Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Presumably he means Frankenstein’s monster and not Dr. Victor Frankenstein (both of whom are fictional characters, but um secular humanists are not). There are two options - as Jesus states in Matthew 12:30 “He who is not with me is against me.” Putting it bluntly: Either you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour or you are supporting Satan.
To recongise humanity “is of the devil”. If fostering discussion, promoting peace, seeking coherence in understanding from the unfathomable depths of incongruity in subjectivity, enabling compassion and respect, always without compromise but with knowledge of defending yourself and those you love to be viewed as deserving humans, “is of the devil” then my signature is in blood. Sign me up and I’ll be in the fires for attempting to promote humans as deserving of humanity.
I’m assuming that he includes other religions as well, because Islam ascribes no divinity to Jesus. Buddhism has no belief in souls or god. Hinduism recognises no other force save atman. The usual problem when speaking of your magical book, your magical doctrine, is to exclude all others as cheap imitation or lies of Satan.
It is strange how the humanists state, we want discussion, we want debate – but Stewart will send them to hell. If there is a hell, I hope Stewart has suncream.
5. Stewart focusses on the humanist notion that, so long as no one is hurt, they will not oppose an action (no one includes the individual themselves). We are pro-choice; we support the freedom of homosexuality; we support equality of the sexes; and so on. Stewart fines this appalling:
[A]bortion is murder and destroys a little babies’ life. Is this not hurting someone? The Humanists and Satanists speak out of both sides of their mouth. The Homosexual community doesn’t want the public to know the truth (the statistics) about their “freedom of choice” regarding Sodomy. There is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality. New York just opened the countries first exclusively homosexual high school…talk about discrimination. If someone started an ONLY white kids school, the public would go nuts. I guess being homosexual gives them special rights which allows for discrimination.
I loathe reading about “babies” being hurt in abortion. It is not a baby: it is either an embryo or a fetus. I will not go into the arguments supporting abortion or the choce there-in, for two reasons. 1. There are fantastic article written all over the web, from both sides by intelligent people. 2. My problem is not really abortion but choice. It is not that the debate: Either you must have the child (pro-life) or you must not (pro-death). The debate is: You have a choice or you do not. I will not stand for the removal of choice, especially when the grounds rest entirely within the bounds of ancient document.
I also find it funny that it always loud-mouthed men that shout for women to reject pro-choice. Perhaps if they silenced themselves, they would realise that women can choose. And this is the point: Give people choice. Of course, the difference here is one side views it as murder and the other does not. One views it as supporting first-degree murder and the other as choice.
Secondly, I have studied psychology for four years and I can tell you: there is no link betwee pedophilia and homosexuality. But don’t take my word, have a look at Dr. Herek PhD’s website. If you “google” the phrase “homosexuality and pedophilia”, all the first hits state: no link. I have provided my source, where is Stewarts? And, if not, is he qualified to make such a bold statement without any evidence? “Without any evidence”, the trademark of what constitutes faith. Therefore, I don’t expect someone like him to present evidence.
Thirdly, he speaks about an exclusively homosexual school in New York. The school, Harvey Milk High School, is an interesting basis for discussion. Perhaps someone reading this could provide a deeper insight into it. In an illuminating article, Michael Bronski gives a balanced view concerning HML. I do not want to digress to far, except to quote Bronski: “[HMS's] success rate … is far better than most of the city’s public schools … 95 percent of HMS seniors graduate [from high school], and 60 percent are accepted to colleges. HMS is also nondiscriminatory; created as a “hate-free space” for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students, the school accepts applications for admission from anyone.” Fantastic, I say. But Bronski states a number of fair claims against HMS, not based on religious or homophobic idiocy but on intelligent observations.
To focus back on Stewart: he says “exclusively” but that is not at all the case. It is not a school exclusively for homosexuals. Anyone can attend. The question is whether anyone other than homosexual kids wil want to (an entirely different point, once against resting on “choice”, which Stweart believes does not exist). This is very different from an “ONLY white kids school” – which is just blatantly racist and not that similar (in that it works by exclusion, but HMS attempts at least for inclusion).
6. Another quote that seems to really upset Stewart is: “liberal Christianity has been deeply influenced by humanism.” (Cherry & Matsumura) Remember I quoted Matthew above. Well, there was no need because Stewart himself says: “There is NO such animal as “liberal Christianity,” just as there is no such thing as “Christian rock” music. Either it’s Christian or it’s heathen.”
That’s right: Either is Christian or it’s heathen. But, I thought we were Satanic? Heathens could be Canannites, Muslims, and so on. It does not matter, I suppose, since everyone except Christians are heathen-breathing Satanists.
I will quote Stewart’s next line but I will not even comment except once:
It’s sickening to hear professed “Christians” speak of “Theistic Evolution.” The Bible teaches that God created the world as we know it in six days and then rested on the seventh. It is unbelief in God’s Word to teach or believe anything else.Most people are woefully ignorant of what it means to be a Christian (NO TRUE SCOTSMAN – TM). Even false religions such as godless Catholicism call themselves “Christians.” They are reprobates! I do not hate Catholics; on the contrary, I love them. I hate Catholicism because it is a damnable heresy totally out of line with the Bible. The Bible is God’s Word, listen to the Bible NOT the dope in Rome.
He calls them “godless”, he calls them “reprobates” then says he loves them. You will notice this illogical functioning of his supposed higher-order rationality (which, like his god, I don’t believe he has) from above. He states: “As Christians, we are to love all people of all races of all nations. However, we are to hate the damnable heresies and evils that destroy the same people.” Strangely, you could replace “Christians” with “humanist” and have almost exactly the same reasoning. We hate the evil that people do, naturally. But that does not mean we hate humanity. ”All races of all nations” – well, it is very humanist. I’m sure he would hate seeing this close comparison.
7. He states finally, after having a bash at how all secular humanists are immoral bastards, that:
Humanism is horribly evil because it DENIES God. Humanism is evil because it seeks answers WITHOUT God. Humanism is evil because it does NOT recognize the Bible as God’s Word. Humanism is wicked because it promotes the acceptance of homosexuality, witchcraft, abortion, assisted suicide, and every other evil act (as long as they think no one is being hurt). I got news for you Mr. and Ms. Humanist…babies get hurt when you suck their heads off, cut them into bit sizes pieces or burn them alive in acids. Someone is definitely getting hurt. To you it’s just “freedom of choice” regarding reproduction. Freedom of choice? For who? The child certainly has no choice.
“Burn them alive in acids”? I’m not sure. I don’t really care about finding out. But what interested me was: “Humanism is wicked because it promotes the acceptance of homosexuality, witchcraft, abortion, assisted suicide, and every other evil act (as long as they think no one is being hurt).” Notice, “humanism… promotes the acceptance of”:
-
Homosexuality (It’s freedom and choice)
-
Witchcraft (I don’t know what this means, but possibly esoteric nonsence, like astrology. This, too would be choice)
-
Abortion (choice)
-
Assissted suicide, i.e. euthanasia (choice)
Choice, choice, choice. Stewart will have no choice. But choice makes us human, our decision to come to a compromise or goal must be made together. This forceful rejection of other people’s personal choice, people you have never met, who will not harm you with their choice, appalls him. This state of mind fosters the need to peer into other people’s private lives. Yes, humanism respects privacy and choice.
Perhaps I have been too critical of Stewart. I hope not because I think I was being too soft. Yes, I have appeared to have focussed on a “silly” creationist Yell-Me-Down, ash-covered preacher. But my reason was this: The article I intended to focus on was Cherry & Matsumura’s Misconceptions. But reading Stewart showed that the misconceptions abound.
It won’t take one document, one critique and an assessment of that critique (a wasted word for Stewart’s garbage) to change anyone’s views. What I hope to show is the power than can come from pointing to Cherry & Matsumura’s document from behind a podium, deploring behind a microphone the work of Satan.
But this is not knowledge or an attempt at it. Stewart might think he has “brownie points” for reading a document released by the CSH – but he gets negative marking for screwing it up. This is not an attempt at intelligent criticism.
This is fear. Fear is a powerful linkage for humanity. The root-word for “relgion” comes from “ligare”, which means “to bind”. This is no mistake. Life is unpredictable and people are superstitious: Two spurious ingredients for furthering of religion and its discontents. Superstition is perfectly understandable from an evolutionary perspective, given how our brains are hardwired (to see faces, to ascribe spirits or gods, to believe in a soul from behind the eyes, etc.).
But fear is no longer needed. This is not fear of a chaotic world, but of one revealed in all its godless glory. Unfathomable depths of time penetrate our understanding of a cosmos in a universe, that might very likely be one of many (possibly infinte). What does 13.7 billions years even mean? A sneeze in the inhalation of the waking universe, such is humanity. Around us, that stars stretch as if awakening from a deep sleep flying out into depths we can not begin to imagine. Such is fear: the unknown, the unknowable and the unthinkable.
13.7 billion years is there. We can not run away from it. But it does not mean we can conceive it. In the crevices of this incomprehension lies the need for the straight, the narrow, the immediate, the now. We long to smoothe the course paper of reality, to drape it over the crude nature of our world. Veils upon veils, draped and drooping.
But we must revel in our origin. We are from this universe, we are in it. All of us. To attempt to understand why is beautiful, but not to answer it with force. We are conscious of our existence, perhaps the only force in the universe that can say: “I exist”. Yet, instead of relishing in others’ existences we attempt to control it. Instead of letting the motions of freedom run, we wall it off and drown our hopes. We are lucky to exist – it is our most precious commodity.
Why is it precious? Because we matter. All of us. To ourselves, to loved ones and hopefully to the world at large. You might not help every human being, but you can love some. You might not save every one of them, but you can calm a violent hand. Most of us will be forgotten, simply dying and drifting off into nothingness forever. In fact, even if you save a billion people’s lives, everything you did will amount to nothing. The universe will end, all life will cease. And it is because of that, not against it, that we need to radically assess our lives. It is precious because it is so short. Whether or not it “means” anything is pointless. It is ultimately pointless, but in the teeth of that knowledge we make it precious. And our ability to formulate precious lives our of doomed mortality is the greatest ability we have. But to scorn it with recourse to stupidity, intolerance and deliberate misconception is to waste it.
It is time we face the coarse reality around us, bow our heads before our humanity and journey forth accepting we are all beautifully human in our mistakes, in our accomplishments and somehow in our companionship.
