I was interested to read an article in the Guardian saying that:
The British Humanist Association has launched a campaign to encourage non-believers and the seriously lapsed to tick the "no religion" box on the 2011 census with the aim of challenging religious privilege in Britain.
The BHA says it is time for people who never go to church or who never think about religion to 'fess up: " ... what people do not realise is that by ticking the 'Christian' box rather than the 'no religion' box – which would more accurately reflect their identity – they have contributed to data used to justify an increase in the number of 'faith' schools, the public funding of religious groups, keeping Bishops in the House of Lords as of right, and the continuation of compulsory worship in schools." Yes you fickle and lazy lot, the humanists blame you for all that.I am please - the truth will set you free and all that. It is better for everyone to be free and honest about their religious beliefs, although I suppose many people see themselves as culturally part of a religious group - so they like the ethic of love being the highest value, and loving their neighbour, and being a Good Samaritan, but they don't believe in God.
I am bored of hearing headlines about the BHA attacking religion though. I'm guessing they do lots of positive good stuff - can we hear some of that instead? I think Christians and Humanists have much in common in terms of building a better world.
44 comments:
I just wonder why Humanists and Atheists feel the need to be so militant? What is the insecurity in their own beliefs of identity which makes them feel that they need to actively campaign against others sincerely held beliefs.
If this is a free country, where the precious freedoms were fought for over hundreds of years and most recently in two world wars, why do they feel the need to proscribe religion - they very fact that we can all, freely profess a religion is down to the sacrifices made then.
Perhaps some Christian counseling would help them!
Hi Lesley,
I'd agree that much of the BHA's time is directed towards opposing religious privilege. Here are some links from the BHA site that perhaps put their work in perspective.
Ethics and Science. Perhaps this expresses the view most generally:
"We base our responses on the humanist principles that individuals should have the right to live by own personal values and the freedom to make decisions about their own lives, as long as these do not result in harm to others."
"We do recognise, however, that there are values that are not shared by everyone. Humanists do not share the attitudes to “interfering with nature” or “playing God” or the same definitions of personhood held by some religious believers. We respect the rights of those holding religious beliefs about the sanctity of life and the limits of medical intervention not to participate in some procedures, but we do not believe that the beliefs of the religious, when they are based on supernatural arguments, should be imposed on others."
Human Rights.
Equalities.
Sex and Relationships Education.
Humanist 'Chaplaincy'
This is an open request - if anyone finds anything objectionable on the BHA site please raise it for discussion.
Hi UK Viewer,
"I just wonder why Humanists and Atheists feel the need to be so militant?"
Because...
Religion and schools
Scouts and Guides.
Public Service Reform.
Faith Schools.
You'll find this pretty tame, not particularly militant. But you might also bear in mind that religious organisations currently officially discriminate on grounds of gender and sexual orientation.
On the bus campaign, here's an explanation...which contains this link - the 'militancy' is simply a response to a lot of the religious bias and privilege. Don't forget, your brand of religion isn't the only one. And even good old CoE bares its teeth when it doesn't like a book, play, film or TV programme; or comes out with ridiculous comments about secularism. All religions are pretty quick to interfere in the affairs of consenting adults.
I guess one reason we come across as militant sometimes is that we tend to argue on two fronts at the same time. As well as this agenda for freedom and equal rights in various spheres we also like to include our disagreement with particular religious claims. I know I do this - see post on porn where I not only disagree with the conflating of some sex activities with abuse and harm but also have a more general dig at religion generally.
But I think a similar frame of mind occurs with religious people too. Quite often 'good works' are not simply performed for what they are, good acts for the benefit of other humans, but are often done 'in the name of God'. Religious organisations often play the twin role doing good while spreading the word of God. And when objections are made about some of the media and arts that don't suite religion's own view they are not only criticised on pragmatic human grounds but also because they are blasphemous or offend God in some way, the latter of which many of us don't give a flying fig about. God might be the centre of your world, and perhaps that is clouding your bias.
...
"why do they feel the need to proscribe religion" - They don't. This is a misconception. As is the common religious view on secularism.
Which highlights another bias. We atheists are regularly told we don't understand religion or the religious, but many of us do spend time on religious blogs, both finding out what is at the core of belief, and of course disagreeing on points we disagree on. That appears not to be the case for many religious people who have their mind made up about Humanism, atheism and secularism. But thank you, and Lesley, for asking.
"Perhaps some Christian counseling would help them!" - It might help some religious people more, such as those within the church that discriminate on grounds of gender and sexual orientation.
"the very fact that we can all, freely profess a religion is down to the sacrifices made then." - First, surely you're not assuming all those sacrifices where made by religious people only? Second, religions can be oppressive when they want to be - even in more subtle ways than actual physical oppression, such as using religious privilege and vilifying those that don't agree with one's particular outlook on sex.
Perhaps you don't realise how militant religion appears to those that don't subscribe to it.
I suppose it's a function of becoming an activist in the public sphere. The loudest Christian voices are the strident ones because many of the others just get on with trying to lead Christian lives.
Same with atheists and humanists. They just don't have religion, apart from that they lead as peaceful and productive lives as the rest of us just without a sense of God in their lives.
It's only the ones who have something to prove to God-knows-who-and-why who shout so loud.
And I dare say the 2 groups of belligerent Christians and belligerent Humanists feed off each other in a strange kind of co-dependency.
I can only recommend James Alison again who tries to show Christians a way of breaking out of that self-centered mould:
http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng01.html
Contemplation and Monotheism: On the Indispensability of Irrelevance.
Found a report by Christian Research International the other day who said that in street interviews this year 63% of people said they were Christian (only 49% of under 34s thought that though. 29% said "no religion" (40% with under 35s)
Church attendance was interesting. 9% said they attnded once a week, 14% at least once a month and 29% at least once a year.
45% say they believe in God, 19% don't know and 33% don't believe.
The fact is that many UK citizens consider themselves to be culturally Christian.
Another study (The Faith of Generation Y) by Sylvia Collins-Nayo et al said:
Around half of British adults describe themselves as Chsitian but have a 'light touch' approach to religious engagement - they implicitly rely on a church-going minority to keep the beliefs and practices of the Christian faith alive so that when they require religion to deal with certain situations in life they have a traditionto which they can turn,
Whether churchgoers or not, the majority of Britons expect to have the option of a Christian ceremony to mark a birth, death or marriage and would be deeply offended if this was denied them.
Church Mouse has an interesting post on the bus campaign today.
We invented humanism. The atheists nicked the term off us in a very successful ploy to make people believe that Christians have a lesser regard for humans than they do. What is needed is the birth of a new and confidant Christian humanism which could work together with non-religious humanists and humanists from other religions. The British Humanist association are not humanists as a true humanist would never lessen the dignity of another human being. A true humanist would encourage all that it is good and human in a human belief system, wether the belief system has a divine element or not.
MadPriests,
Yes, just as Anglicans nicked the whole idea of Christianity from Roman Catholicism and improved it, so Humanists have done similar.
Anglicans got rid of the Pope, Humanists got rid of God. Result!
And, to a great extent Humanists go back to basics and ask what it is to be human, rather than what would it be like to someone's plaything.
If you want to be a better Christian, simply become a Humanist of the sort who follows the example of Jesus as a wise mortal man.
The first Christian humanists were Roman Catholic. But, my point is that humanism is a philosophical system that can be followed with or without a belief in God. Although a humanist can attack the non-creative, human-harming aspects of religion and, of course, secularism, they cannot attack that which is good. A humanist atheist must believe that religion was invented by human beings. But they should delight in the good that came out of that creativity whilst, rightly, attacking the bad. For a humanist atheist to dismiss everything religious is no different to that bad bit of Christian theology that sees everything of the earth as sinful. If positive thinking humanists got together and turned their back on negative thinking, false humanists, like yourself, Ron and negative thinking religionists like, for example, Nazir-Ali, then together we could campaign for a world that delights in the good in humanity and educates humanity away from that which is destructive in us.
Hi MP,
"The British Humanist association are not humanists as a true humanist would never lessen the dignity of another human being."
You mean like religious people stigmatize those that take part in sexual behaviours they don't like themselves? Have you missed the last few posts? Or perhaps the way religions continue homophobic and sexist practices? Being a Christian and lessening dignity are mutually exclusive.
"A true humanist would encourage all that it is good and human in a human belief system, wether the belief system has a divine element or not." - That is the very nature of Humanism. try looking on the Humanist site. It supports freedom of belief. Secularism in this context is merely the opposition to religious privilege.
"they cannot attack that which is good" - They don't.
"A humanist atheist must believe that religion was invented by human beings." - Yes.
"But they should delight in the good that came out of that creativity whilst, rightly, attacking the bad." - Yes.
"For a humanist atheist to dismiss everything religious..." - I don't know they do. Some atheists, like Hitchins, see that the bad outweighs the good, so that on balance it is bad. But I don't think he objects to any genuine good that is performed.
...
"If positive thinking humanists got together and turned their back on negative thinking, false humanists, like yourself, Ron..." - That's a very negative view you have there! The problem you have of course is who gets to say what's negative. My views may be negative from your perspective, but that may be because I'm objecting to some views held by some believers. I see the opposing views I hold as positive.
For example, in the context of recent posts, I have a positive view of sexual behaviour such as prostitution and porn, when carried out in safe and equitable conditions. I hold what I think is the positive view of letting people get on with their sexual behaviours, where they don't do harm to others. Some believers demonise these activities out of hand by the association of all porn and prostitution with bad porn and bad prostitution, which I find a negative view of human behaviour. In the same context my view of such believers is quite positive, while finding this particular aspect of their views negative, while they may see the blanket opposition to these sexual behaviours as positive.
I don't think I've ever objected to the positive work done by religious people. I think I've made that clear in many discussions with Lesley. I certainly see Lesley, and other believers here, in a very positive light, even if I disagree with them on some specific points. I certainly have a positive view of their intentions, with regard to, say, helping those that suffer from bad porn or prostitution.
On more the more general point of actual belief in God I do see negative elements to it, the degree to which I view it as negative being in some vague proportion to what I see as behaviour that goes from non-humanistic to inhuman, from the antiquated association of sex discrimination with doctrine, to the outrageous inhuman activities of some fundamentalists. My view in this regard is that the nature of faith and affirmation of faith is a construct which is just right for sustaining fundamentalist views. The fact that this doesn't always occur is testament to the many reasonable 'humanist' believers who don't let it, rather than a characteristic of faith.
But besides the behavioural aspect of belief I also find it unconvincing. I can appreciate the basic hypothesis that there may be some sort of agency behind everything. But from that point on, as with all related philosophy and the limited reach of science, we have to say we don't know. How, from this basic limited speculation, can we conclude anything else relating to human behaviour and human morals? Wishful thinking helps - or, if you prefer a more positive spin, 'hope', but that hope is a long stretch.
At the same time I acknowledge what Lesley has taken pains to point out, that many believers are stuck with belief - it is just how they see or experience the world. That's fair enough. We are all evolved humans, and given my understanding of evolution I can hardly object, or impose moral implications on believers that have been left that way by evolution, any more than I can attribute merit to those of us who don't have such belief.
So, my positive view of all humans, believers or not, is not inconsistent with my negative view of some of the things some humans claim.
Oh shit, I fell for it.
You're just a twat, aren't you, Ron?
Hi Jonathan,
I don't think Ron deserved that. Is there any chance of toning down the personal insults?
He deserves it. He's a wind up merchant. All his comments are personal insults wrapped up in troll speak. He doesn't engage with other people. He just spits out the same old cliches like the concern troll that he is.
I should have seen it to begin with and not tried to have an intelligent, common ground seeking, conversation with him. I mean, it's not like I don't get pestered by his type over at my blog.
Lesley,
No offense taken, whether if was intended or not. So, if it was intended, it was wasted on me. Maybe it helped MP. Anyway, after all I bang on about believers taking offense I can hardly take to heart myself.
MP,
Trolling: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
The specific elements I'd draw your attention to are: extraneous, off-topic. My comments are hardly extraneous, since I make a point of answering specific points, either from Lesley in her main post, or from other contributors - even quoting them to make sure my point is linked to the point I'm addressing. If you think any of my comments are off-topic, other than responding to the comments of others that are straying off-topic, point them out.
As to 'inflammatory', and 'the intent of provoking emotional response', well yes. Most subjects Lesley chooses are emotional, and since I have an opinion on them I comment. Sometimes my response is driven emotionally, and I'll admit to being sarcastic. But sometimes the contributor begs for scorn: We invented humanism., The atheists nicked the term off us in a very successful ploy to make people believe that Christians have a lesser regard for humans than they do.
He just spits out the same old cliches - Yes, I have to keep correcting the same old misrepresentations of humanism and secularism.
"I should have seen it to begin with and not tried to have an intelligent, common ground seeking, conversation with him." - Actually I didn't think you were trying to have an intelligent conversation. I thought you were just bitchin about the BHA. But rather than complain I addressed each of your points.
If anyone goes to the trouble of making some points, and I happen to disagree, and respond to those points, I don't see how you think that is trolling.
If any remarks could be considered as trolling in this post, it's yours.
Now, instead of winging, you could come back on the points I made to correct your misconceptions about the BHA and Humanism. You could also try to respond intelligently to my explanation as to why I think your point about negativity is misplaced. "You're just a twat", though making me giggle like a schoolgirl, and as succinct as it was, didn't really address those points. I'd still be interested in what you have to say.
I guess I want it to feel safe here for all-comers, and particularly those who challenge me.
I imagine that I too have fixed presuppositions and use cliches. The only way of challenging them is to engage with others who are different to me, and the only way of not being irritated by other people's presuppositions is to hang out with folks who think like I do. So I go for being irritated.
But Of Course I Could Be Wrong :)
This isn't an argument. It is contradiction.
Ron is like a child who thinks repeating the same accusation back at his opponent is clever.
And yes, Ron. You have an opinion. In fact, that appears to be all you have. Did you get it out of a Christmas cracker? And you certainly don't seem to have the intellect to do anything with it other than to say it over and over again.
Boring!
Well, there's being challenged and being challenged. Being challenged by people like Ron is like being challenged by a telephone answering machine. I'll send over some of the intelligent atheists from my blog. You will find them both challenging and rather lovely.
MP, Or, you could just address the points.
Shalom, all, shalom. And salaam too.
And the first humanists we know of were Babylonian, then the Jews, a couple of odd ancient Romans, and a couple of odd ancient Greeks.
Now that that's done, and bearing in mind I am an activist with a particular interest in defending Cartheginians from ancient Romam agitprop slurs, maybe we can find a point or two of mutual coexistance?
Man, it's annoying when the atheists act better than the Christians.
Gurdur, could you just act like a shit for once in your life, please, so we don't look so bad?
Oh, even by your standards of phoney niceness, Tim, that was yuk.
Jonathan, if I were you, I'd keep quiet right now. I don't think you have any lessons in behaviour to give to anyone else on this thread, Christian, atheist, humanist or whatever.
Goodbye nicey Tim.
Hello real Tim.
And don't lecture me. At least I don't think my daughter is some sort of evil freak.
Look, I'm sorry. But I put forward good suggestions for how real humanists could come together and all I get is self righteous pomposity off Gurdur and Tim who had obviously not read my comments. And Lesley should have got in earlier and picked up on Ron's deliberate trollishness and not stood up for him.
Hi MadPriest,
Please read this carefully, as a favour to me. If you take a look at my blog, you'll see that in actual fact I'm quite in accord with your suggestions. You might like to read me before condemning me. I read your blog often. And you're always very welcome to a serious discussion on my blog, and I'll even suppress my sense of humour for it.
Mow, as for my comment here; I was MAKING A JOKE. It's called by the Americans, "Let's lighten up, dude". The atmosphere in here was bad.
MadPriest, OK, fine, you've probably had some bad experiences with atheists. And I've had bad experiences with Christians. Who gives a stuff? Let's try working a wee bit together.
Lesley wasn't sticking up for Ron; she was sticking up for her ideals and her principles.
I'm not sure why you think I was being patronizing, but that wasn't my intention. And when I flame, trust me, I effing really flame; it's kinda really bloody obvious when I start going for someone's throat, so if it's not obvious, then the likelihood is I am not going for your throat in any way. Get me? And BTW, I am the same in real life. Nothing I say online I wouldn't say face-to-face; in fact, ironically, I am politer online than f2f.
I can see why you take Ron amiss. I won't blame you, but you're getting over-heated about it, and that won't do you no good.
As for Tim Chesterton, you went waaaaay over a line there, but you seem to acknowledge that already.
Just from glancing, I reckon you got shit going down in life which is bugging the fuck outta you, and I know how that bloody feels.
But all 4 of us here -- you, Ron, Tim Chesterton, me -- all 4 of us are types who are pretty bloody genuine and pretty bloody upfront.
Fine, me and Ron are annoying atheist arseholes. The world needs annoying arseholes to make everyone else look good.
But take a deeper look at people; we're all pretty bloody genuine folks, the 4 of us plus Lesley, so handle it on that basis, since the world is short on genuine people.
I'll make a bloody blog post for you on my blog (I was going to anyway, long-planned), but in the bloody meantime, fine, you're under stress, but ffs, don't lash out at everyone. That's what you're doing; lashing all around without rhyme nor reason.
This ain't patronizing, this is me before I thwack. This is what I really think, as equal to bloody equal.
By the way, my real name is Tim too, so I kinda get both barrels of your shotgun blast, even if accidentally.
Now, ffs, give others a chance, and don't jump to conclusions. We may be annoying but we're not real bastards.
For anyone not entirely distracted and still interested in Humanist views, there's this review of Jennifer Hancock's book, A Humanist Approach to Happiness. I haven't read it, so can't speak for it, but I noted this in Dale's review, which I thought might appeal here:
"Look in vain for arguments against religious belief or ways to deal with the evangelical schoolteacher." - So, no atheist evangelising :-[
And this:
"Jen never tries to speak universally. She speaks for herself, clearly and informally, thinking out loud about decision making, simplicity, honesty, body ethics, sex, vibrators, relationships, addiction, self-image, pooping, death, and more." - One or two favourites in there too I guess.
There's also a link to this article, which explains some particular points that apply to some humanist/atheists, and sentiments I certainly go along with.
Gosh, been away all day and lots of comments here!
MP, thanks for the apology. I'll reflect on how I handle comments.
Too tired to think too hard about Humanism. I am with MP that a positive humanism would be great. I think there are Anglicans who are humanists who lose their belief in God but not their humanist desires, but they have no desire to bash religion. The little I have seen of the BHA suggests that it is perpetually negative. Someone said today 'don't rage against the darkness, light a candle'. This is my challenge to Atheist Humanists, and make a difference....
"The little I have seen of the BHA suggests that it is perpetually negative."
Can you give examples?
Well try this
An alternative way of reporting could be 'Fantastic news - the church is becoming more accepting of women and the BHA wishes to support this (from here )
When I hear the word 'humanist' I imagine someone who is joining with others and working for the good of all. I think you can have Christian humanists and atheist humanists - I don't think religion matters that much in this context. So my expectation of the BHA is headlines to do with the betterment of humanity and I get confused about the seeming negativity and pops at religion..
Hi Lesley,
Could I ask you to read the comment above, in which I covered the relativism of postive and negative perspectives.
Don't you think this is all that is happening, and that what you are seeing of the BHA is its view of religious privilege, which perhaps you are perceiving as negative, when Humanists see it as a positive step towards equality?
On the BHA site you'll find stuff like this:
"The British Humanist Association is the national charity supporting and representing people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Our vision is of a world without religious privilege or discrimination. We promote Humanism, campaign for an open society and a secular state, and work with others of different beliefs for the common good. Humanists are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves, individually and together." - That all seems quite positive to me. The BHA site is mostly positive Humanism.
But, if you look at your current campaign against the Anglican Covenant and your dislike for conservative opinions on women and gay bishops, don't you think that campaign can be considered negative by the conservatives? I'm not saying it is, because I don't think it is. I'm just saying, try thinking about the BHA campaigns against religious privilege in the same light.
Consider also the very negative view of ALL porn and prostitution, as held by many religious people.
Consider also the very negative view of atheism held by many religious people.
It's all about perspective.
Hi Ron,
Yes I can see what you are saying and it all seems very reasonable. However, it feels to me that the BHA has set itself in a zero-sum game with the church and other religions. I would expect headlines from the BHA commending quests from the church that also meet some of the values of the BHA, but I fail to see them, like the example I give from the Mouse's blog, where it feels like deliberate misreporting. Do you see where I am coming from?
Yes, but I don't see anything from religious groups commending Humanist. Plenty of inter-faith back slapping, but also plenty of comments about the nihilism of meaningless atheism.
So my point is we always appear negative to those we don't agree with. Humanists are saying we can do without faith, which is obviously negative to those of faith. The religious say we can't get by without God, which obviously seems negative to Humanists. So I don't think the negativity angle is one that works.
I'm not sure about that - in one of my villages the humanists and Christians work together very well and appreciate each other. Likewise on the Heathen Hub. I think Christians are happy to commend good things from anyone...
And likewise humanists, as you've pointed out. But the BHA is specifically dedicated to Humanism, and opposing religious privilege. I don't see the ABC calling for outreach with the BHA.
Do you see the difference between personal interaction between fellow humans and organisations that have an agenda?
I suppose I misunderstood the agenda - I read the word 'humanist' and imagined something a bit loftier. Of all the difficulties and problems that exist in Britain, surely religious privilege is tiny? I don't imagine that many people wake up in the morning overcome by that oppression?
That sounds like you're trivialising it to the point that we shouldn't care about it - is that negativity?
Do you feel that all art should be so trivialised because it doesn't solve problems of poverty or abuse in Britain today? The BHA isn't an organisation aimed at solving these specific problems. There are plenty of charities for that. So I don't think the point of triviality stands.
If it comes to that I could make the same point about most aspects of religion. I don't see much that is lofty in all the religious paraphernalia that is a bishops privilege - how could the money be spent on helping the poor? And lets not get started in the whole of the RC church and the total irrelevance of most of what it is - theatre. I don't see anything lofty in praying, in which an awful lot of time appears to be wasted in wishful thinking. I don't see anything lofty in glorifying what appears to be a fiction.
Do you see that it's a matter of perspective?
Maybe you don't get the strength of feeling involved because atheists and humanists don't usually make a song and dance about being offended. Maybe you don't see that what is labelled militant New Atheism is just the other side of the coin - where you see purpose in glorifying God, we don't, and we object to that being the default expectation that we have to appease, when so often the atheist view is not only not considered, but vilified.
Mmmm... I think when I read 'humanist' I mean someone concerned with the welfare of all humans, so I would expect the BHA to be principally interested in things like the Millennium Goals.. Why not call yourself the British Atheist Society?
Because 'humanist' is an old established label. It represents the focus on human values, derived from an entirely human perspective, without any outside supernatural agency required. Given the dominance of religion throughout the history of known cultures it seems an appropriately distinctive and appropriate name. But 'atheist' is simply the philosophical position of not believing in gods or any kind. So, you can be a Humanist atheist, a Communist atheist, and even a Christian atheist if you follow Jesus as an inspirational mortal.
Also note, not to be confused with:
BHA
BHA
BHA
Definitely not to be confused with:
BHA
Humanist was originally a Christian label - they are Atheist humanists, some of us are still Christian humanists, see wiki.
Hi Alan,
Not sure if you thought I was claiming 'humanism' as having a Humanist origin. I wasn't.
And I agree that there can be a variety of humanisms, including Christian ones. In fact I don't think there'd be any merit whatsoever in Christianity if there wasn't a humanist element to it.
The general term Humanism, as used by the BHA, is predominantly about those who follow a humanist ethic, but without supernatural belief, and so the term is appropriate. And although Humanism may be predominantly associated with atheism now, it needn't be, as it can encompass agnosticism, and even deism, in the sense that it's a matter of getting with life from a human perspective irrespective of there being or having been some creator or agency of some kind - which we all know, is an unknown.
I'm curious as to why there's this persistent claim to humanism - as in MP's "We invented humanism", which simply isn't true. I think Gurder put paid to that claim. And I don't see Christians being keen to make false claims to inventing torture, burning of witches, and other atrocities.
Not that it matters who 'invented' it, as a term or a concept.
Post a Comment