©2002 Ed Buckner, Council for Secular Humanism, www.secularhumanism.org
The underlying false assumption this time is obvious to most secular humanists but often is genuinely a mystery to Christians (or other religious people). They somehow miss that it is good “news” that human beings have no known reason to fear retribution from a prickly, insecure god, no reason to debase themselves by begging for life or favors, no reason to warp their lives and personalities based on delusions. The allegedly good news of Christian dogma is that man is inevitably wicked and weak, hopeless unless he gets help from the very creator who made him so worthless to start with. And supposedly the only way that creator could sort things out was by giving Himself (or “His Son”; or “One Third of His Indivisibleness”) up to the kind of pain and suffering routinely permitted by that god for humans. The big carrot thus offered is supposed to be eternal life, though (according to Christian dogma) that endless life will be one without choices or free will. Evil exists in this life, remember, only because that is necessary so that we can have free will. Even if all this can be twisted into appearing to make any sense at all, it is hard to see how it constitutes good news.
Ironically, the claim Christians often make most vigorously—that without their God, we humans cannot be moral—is the one most easily applied to them and their religion. Religion, including Christianity, directly fosters immorality, and that is among the best reasons for actively opposing it, for spending our time and money to educate everyone we can. If their religion is true, immorality as I would define it is inevitable. The opposite conclusions we and they reach come from different starting points. Christian morality is based on pleasing or satisfying the whimsical capricious God of the Bible, with only secondary importance for “doing unto others as you would yourself” and “loving your neighbor.” Without a god, morality must be based directly on the good of human beings. Determining what that good is can certainly be difficult at times and the interests of different humans can conflict, so unequal power can and does interfere with morality. But basing rules on God’s directives helps only if there really is a god and if all the humans involved get the same message. Without such common understanding and with humans considered as infinitely inferior, it becomes easy to justify war, persecution, torture, and genocide. History demonstrates beyond any doubt that no moral consensus based on divine edicts is possible, even if somehow one can be convinced that there is a rule-issuing deity.
So, we may conclude—I do—that individual rights are important enough and all knowledge, including our own, is uncertain enough that using force to change minds is unwarranted. It seems reasonable to go even further and avoid invasions of people’s homes and privacy when it comes to their religious opinions and most religiously based behavior. But we should not stand respectfully to one side when a theist wants to proclaim what he is sure is the Truth, especially if he wants to do so in the public square, and even more particularly if he wants government support of any kind for his preferences.
It is immoral not to confront dangerous foolishness pretending to be absolute and all encompassing wisdom.
Copyright notice: The copyright for the contents of this web site rests with the Council for Secular Humanism. You may download and read the documents. Without permission, you may not alter this information, repost it, or sell it. If you use a document, you are encouraged to make a donation to the Council for Secular Humanism.
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription