AtheismPoliticsMemesMindMattersStringRandomInteractFeedbackLinksDebateHome |
If Humanism is supposed to be the answer do we really understand what the question is? We, as a species, are very good at asking questions, but very poor at deciding which questions deserve answering. Why is the sky blue? A very commonly asked question, it should be on God's FAQ page. But the answer is so dull that it is not very satisfying. I have read and heard the answer many times and its total lack of significance probably explains why I couldn't give a good answer. There isn't a good answer. There is a full scientific explanation and it is dull, uninspiring. The truth often is dull and it does not matter, if the ultimate truth of the universe was as dull as West Bromwich on a wet Wednesday in November it would not matter, truth simply is. Whether we like it or not, whether we understand it or not, whether we ignore it or not; truth is. That is all truth does, it simply exists, with us or without us. Religion is about finding answers that feel important and significant. Science is about finding out the truth, whether it is exciting or dull, whether it is easy to understand or as counterintuitive as DOS. That is probably the biggest distinction between the two worlds. To the religious an idea must feel right to be true, to a scientist an idea must be true to feel right. Humanism to me seems to be a religion for those people who need to have the feel-right factor of the religiously inspired without the complication of belief in anything that could be proved or suspected to be wrong. Humanism need not be atheistic. Atheism need not be humanistic. From the moment I became an atheist I knew that I had turned my back on religion as much as I had turned my back on the notion of God. In the many years since that time I have idly speculated about religion and thought about designing one to my own taste, but I have never been serious. I let my brain have a lot of leeway to plot anything it wants to, but I also make sure my actions are governed by my sense of morality. I knew that religion was immoral, it was systematic deception. Whether it is self deception or mass deception was a minor matter of degree, just as the punishment for one murder or a million would be very similar. I don't feel any need to rush out and shout about the virtues of Humanism. I am not sure that is has any. It seems to have the best features of most religions without the need for a belief in the supernatural but I am not convinced that there is any need for any kind of religion, even this non-malignant strain. I don't buy the idea that the world would be a better place with fewer religions, I believe it would be best with none. Humanism does not seem to answer the problem of who we are and how we got here. Science clearly states that we have grown. We have not arisen spontaneously from something inert we have evolved from animals, we are still animals and we probably will always remain animals. There never has been any firm and fast dividing line between rational adult man capable of attempting to understand anything and feeling everything, and the inert lesser animals. Reality is a continuum of increasing complexity allowing us to reach our current level of sentience. It is very far from clear to me whether human cells have rights like I have, whether embryos do, whether babies do, whether criminals do. I cannot see where the line can be drawn and held. Biology does not give us an answer. There is no line, only a shading from inert to sentient. What do we value about each other? It has nothing to do with having so many pairs of chromosomes or anything else physical that distinguishes us from our chimpanzee cousins. We value sentience. We can see that those who died in the gas chambers of Nazi Germany were just as capable of thinking and feeling as ourselves, unless blinded by dogma we empathize with them. But can we really draw the line just with our species and be Humanists? To me the answer is no. I respect the gradual nature of sentience. I do not value a human embryo over an adult chimpanzee, one has a high degree of sentience, the other has not. To exist in a world in which the biological imperative to reproduce is so strong without a clear sense of morality is to lay yourself open to be exploited by selfish genes. If allowed to all life will reproduce until it meets a checking pressure. If we get silly and start treating every injured sparrow or unwanted human foetus as full of a (God-given or otherwise) absolute right to life then we will be swamped. Britain is a nation of animal lovers, many of them are quite crazy, treating injured hedgehogs and unwanted kittens in exactly the same way as doctors treat premature babies, as if they have absolute rights to live and deserve to be cared for whatever the cost may be. Just imagine if that infinite care idea were to be spread to its logical but absurd end, the world would be knee deep in animals on life support machines or everybody would be bankrupt, or both. That way madness lies. Rights, whether for animals or anything else, including us, supposedly above the level of animal, cannot be absolute. Deifying our species, our Kingdom (the Animal Kingdom) or even sentience cannot be entirely rational. Count me out of Humanism.
|
© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett. |
mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited |