[back]
The following article is from the Secular Humanist Bulletin, Volume 21, Number 1 (Spring 2005).
Why religion? This question has puzzled philosophers for ages. A certain segment of the population has consistently rejected the necessity of religion and religious dogma and precepts and decided upon another path. That path begins with doubt rather than acceptance of religious tenets, and, for many of us, the inquiry ends as it starts, with the simple question “Why religion?” Why religion without proof? Why religion without need? Why religion when science and reason work more thoroughly and more consistently in solving human problems?
The history of belief would be incomplete without reference to the history of disbelief and the persecution of nonbelievers around the world. Questioning the existence or reality of gods or the truth of religious dogma has been getting philosophers in trouble for a long time. From Socrates through Tom Paine and Bertrand Russell, mere skepticism or full-blown disbelief have incurred the anger and hatred of religions far and wide. The philosophical bases for atheism and agnosticism are rich, however. Secular humanism, more recently, has added a positive, forward-looking philosophical basis for further judgment and thought. Skepticism and disbelief are not themselves systems of belief. Humanism, on top of atheism and agnosticism, is a positive system of belief, though not itself religious.
Atheism and agnosticism begin with doubt. The core of the scientific method, which begins with observation and which in the past few hundred years has given us multifold progress in all areas of human endeavor, is doubt. Observation leads to questioning, and questioning leads to experimentation, which leads again to further observation, until confidence in a theory replaces dogmatic belief or a complete vacuum of knowledge. The scientific method, which rejects dogma and replaces it with the tools of observation, induction, and common sense, has given prediction, control, and understanding of our environment—powerful forces of change and good. All of this begins with doubt.
From the knowledge gained in observing, for instance, the Doppler shift of the sound of a passing train and applying it to the Doppler shift of a speeding star, we can now say with near certainty that the universe is expanding at a certain rate. The beginning of what John Dewey called “the process of inquiry” is doubt. Scientists themselves are sometimes guilty of failing to properly suspend their beliefs and to assume a position of doubt, as with Newton’s belief in the existence of the “aether” (a proposed medium through which the light and heat from the sun, for example, were transmitted, a necessity under Newtonian physics). The Michelson-Morley experiments of the 1880s disproved the existence of an aether, and Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity indicated that Newtonian physics fails with velocities approaching the speed of light. An old dogma was overthrown by experiment, and a new theory of the world evolved.
Einsteinian relativity has been undergoing experimental tests ever since, and it is largely validated by continued experimentation. This is part of the process of doubt. We don’t accept relativity as dogma. We put it to the test, just as Michelson and Morley put the theory of the aether to the test. Science is the opposite of revealed truth. It is the process of discovery, moved forward by active doubt and facilitated by trust in the accuracy of our own direct observations of the universe.
Atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists engage in the scientific method. They eschew dogma. They do not accept that truth can be revealed. Indeed, the mysteries of the physical universe have come to be explored most fully, and understood best, when put to the test of the scientific method.
There are no sacred texts for us. There is only the ongoing test of further observation and continued doubt, leading eventually to some confidence in theories that are slowly and painstakingly verified. There are no prophets of atheism, agnosticism, or humanism, as the word of one observer is no better than the observations of another. We place trust in our own observations, even while we use the observations of others, tried and tested over time, as the bases for our reasonable beliefs about the world. What cannot be observed is not worthy of our inquiry, as the natural world is all that exists for the purposes of our everyday lives.
So what of values and morals or of the good life? In fact, there is disagreement about the exact nature of morality among us freethinkers. Some of us are utilitarians, measuring the good of an action based upon the happiness it produces (like John Stuart Mill). Others are neo-Kantians, accepting the categorical imperative as a basis for determining just action (like John Rawls). Some of us are emotivists, regarding moral behavior as emotionally driven and based. Others ignore metaphysical or ethical questions entirely, believing them to be as real as fairies or gods. But most of us try to do the right thing and are guided through cultural norms of ethics and morals quite independently of any religious upbringing. But there are no secular-humanist holy scriptures to give us guidance; rather, we rely on our own natural tendencies and the facilities of reason imbued in us by nature, which guide us well.
Because we inquire into everything, we are open to new discoveries, new theories, new notions of ethics and morality. We are open to the potential for a grounded, universal ethics as part of the natural world. We are not afraid of the possibility that no such grounding exists and that it may be up to us, each of us on his or her own, to discern the truth and to make decisions about how to accomplish the good. The consequences of our actions are immediate, and they do not involve the hereafter. Our own natural sympathies for our fellow men and women and our societally and self-imposed consciences can guide us in the right direction, even as we understand their fallibility. No god will save us if we fail, and each of us is fully responsible for his or her actions
We are not afraid of a universe without God. We move about this world by our own will, answerable personally for our own shortcomings, with no one to praise or blame but ourselves for each failure and each accomplishment. The path of doubt can lead to great joy, as we delight in the beauty of a world brought about by chance whose meaning is slowly discovered through the actions of our intellects and the passions of our natural drive to come to grips with a universe full of mystery. We don’t need religion to enjoy the world and its mysteries, and religion has not helped us understand the world better, so the inquiry ends as it began: why religion?
The fact that you are reading this is good evidence that you have asked yourself this question and answered it as most humanists have: religion is just not relevant on a day-to-day basis to you. But yet, it remains relevant and a hugely motivating influence in the lives of billions of people. Given the growth of strains of fundamentalism in every corner of the world, and the clash of cultures that is inevitably ensuing, how can secular humanism compete?
Will the future of secular humanism consist of simply providing support groups for lapsed theists, or will we enter the intellectual and cultural fray with a valid, competitive alternative and help to finally defeat fundamentalist ideologies and dogma? Will we help to save secular culture, to help create a new secular century in which fundamentalism and dogmatism come to be regarded as outdated, valueless, and even harmful, or will we be forever relegated to a small, chirping minority?
When I became the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism over a year ago, one of the first things that chairman and founder Paul Kurtz asked me to do was to read back issues of Free Inquiry starting with the first. I did that for weeks. I got up to speed with all the various programs and activities of the Council while reading articles by the top scholars in philosophy, sociology, science, history, and every other conceivable realm of human inquiry, all of whom had contributed to the pages of Free Inquiry their own splendid notes in the growing chorus of like-minded thinkers brave enough to call themselves secular humanists. It is a great history, and in the decades since, the Council for Secular Humanism has grown into probably the world’s leading organization promoting and defending secular humanism and the rights and views of secular humanists around the globe.
In volume 1, number 1, published in the spring of 1981, the editor’s note indicates, presciently: “The first issue of Free Inquiry is devoted primarily to a defense of democratic secular humanism. The Fundamentalist Right is gaining ground in the United States—which is symptomatic of the worldwide growth of fundamentalist and doctrinaire thinking—and its scapegoat is secular humanism.”
Since then, fundamentalists have seized the reins of power, and secular humanism is now a scapegoat for society’s problems for critics around the world. The clash of Christian and Muslim fundamentalists cultures now threatens world peace in a way the Cold War never did. The threat of mutually assured destruction helped to avert world war when the opposing systems were economic and political ideologies—capitalism and Marxist-Leninism. Now, with two fundamentalist religions facing each other down, each with its own vision of victory through an eschaton, it is the promise of destruction that moves them ever forward in a cycle of escalating violence rather than averting worldwide conflagration.
We face a marketplace of competing worldviews, of which secular humanism is but a portion, underfunded, little-heard, only slightly noticed but often blamed. It is time to ask the question: where does secular humanism go from here? It seems to me there are three main areas of concern for the future of secular humanism, and we as a movement, as a school of thought, and as a worldview, need to address each. These are: (1) political secularism; (2) secular ethical alternatives; (3) scientific naturalism and public policy.
It is up to the next generation of secular humanists to face these questions, to offer solutions to these problems and viable answers to these questions, in order to ensure the survival of secular humanism as a vibrant, relevant philosophical approach to a world without God.
This is a critical crossroads in history. Will the forces of fundamentalism and dogmatism finally undermine the values of the Enlightenment, or will we enjoy a new enlightenment? Can we help to convince the world that the path of reason, humanism, and science is more fruitful than dogma, fear, and mysticism? It depends largely on us, working together, with a clear and coherent vision of where we have been, and concerted action toward a more secular, more humanistic future.
Much of the progress of the twentieth century can be directly attributed to the rise of secular humanism and the influence of humanist ideals, even among people who do not view themselves as humanists. Yet, our aims and beliefs are maligned and poorly understood in the public square. The clamor of competing messages spouting fundamentalist ideologies and dogmatism threatens to drown out our voices.
Secular humanism offers an alternative to dogmatism. It looks to the power of reason over superstition—science over supernaturalism. Science and reason have given us the means of alleviating want from a world of dwindling resources. Still, in the current environment, science and reason are devalued. The lines between entertainment and education are being blurred by the mass media. While science gives us the means, secular humanism will help give us the will to apply new scientific means of bettering the human condition, to create a world free of want, of hatred, of dogmatism, and of fear of the unknown.
The Council for Secular Humanism, under the umbrella of the Center for Inquiry, is, we believe, the largest organization of its kind. Although we are growing, we are still relatively small. This culture war has too many fronts and too few foot soldiers and is straining our limited resources. The Council is here to fight every day for the rights of secular humanists. I believe reason will prevail, guided by our humanist passion and emotions and by a clear vision of where secular humanism fits in the lives of ordinary people.
David Koepsell is the executive director of 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