On Humanism & Religious conformity

A Humanist group was formed recently in Singapore, and I had the privilege of attending their first meeting. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, thanks to the superb organization by the organizer (I will ask him if he wishes to be named, before I do so), and the great conversation we had amongst all who came.

Since all the participants got together via FB, we all did not know each other, nor did we know the organizer. We turned up at the café at the appointed time, and after 15 min, R, the organizer, was now where to be seen. All of us began wondering if that was the organiser’s introduction to us to agnosticism. Does R exist? That was our question, and we began to ask each other what evidence we each had for his existence, and we all discovered all each of us had was online communication – was that real? The waiter then came along, and he said R was real – they had met on an earlier day when R came to recce the place. Was the waiter a reliable witness? R did turn up in the end. But that was an interesting introduction to the concept of God and agnosticism.

I have been asked to comment on some of the tenets of Humanism, which I am very honored and happy to do so:

From http://www.meetup.com/Singapore-Humanism/pages/Humanism_and_its_aspirations/  , who in turn quotes the American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org)

 

Humanism and its aspirations

“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfilment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”

mathialee: I agree that supernaturalism is unnecessary for people to lead responsible and ethical lives for the good of humanity. I disagree with the word “progressive” though, because it labels/implies that those who disagree with Humanism are regressive – it’s a tad disrespectful for my liking.

“The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.”

Mathialee: Agreed. Applicable to most other religious philosophies as well.

“This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:”

“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.”

mathialee: I’ll agree with above, with a small but significant modification. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, rational analysis, AND PERHAPS MORE PROCESSES. I believe that if we exclude the possibility of gaining knowledge through other means from the very start, then by that very mindset, we will never learn anything from any other process. I also disagree that science is the BEST method – it is a good method, but BEST? The longer I am a scientist, the more I doubt the scientific method, as it is practised in real life (and question mark to the method, as idealised too).  Science is based on observation, logical and rational thought alone, but observation, logical and rational thought is not based on science alone.

“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.”

Mathialee : am amused by this statement because it contradicts the last. I don’t think science has, and can ever prove, whether or not evolutionary change is guided or unguided, neither can it prove that nature is or is not self-existing. I think the only scientific statement we can make is, there is no scientific evidence for or against these claims.

“Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.”

Mathialee: Agreed, completely.

“Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”

Mathialee: I feel uncomfortable with anyone / any philosophy dictating how I ought to find fulfilment in life, just because I identify/agree with certain tenets it purports.

“Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.”

Mathialee: See above comment again. I feel this statement might be discriminatory to people with Aspergers or any other personalities that do not enjoy social interaction. But for myself, yes I do aim to practise the above in my life.

“Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”

mathialee: Again, my discomfort at anyone telling me how I should be happy. I’m more comfortable with groups that say “be happy in your own way, but not at the expense of my happiness” That said, yeh, practising the above does make me happy.

“Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.”

mathialee: Agreed.

 

My personal discomfort with religion, or any other identity groups (race, nationality, sexual orientation, social class etc etc) stems from the demand for group members to conform, not to just the defining tenet/characteristic, but also a whole list of other unnecessary baggage. In some cases, this is an outright demand, in other cases, it is a stereotype everyone imposes. 

For eg. I’ll align myself with the defining tenet of Humanism, that humans can be good without bringing any god into the picture. Because I hate the idea that “being good” has to come together with “being religious” .But please don’t ask me to agree with every other tenet.

My discomfort has never really been whether or not God exists – I think I’m a rational agnostic and a faithful Jesus-dependant subjectivist.

Based on Christianity’s defining tenet , believing (unscientifically)  that God exists in the person of Jesus, I should call myself a Christian. But I am wary of doing so, because I don’t see why, just because Jesus is God, it means I should discriminate against homosexuals, Israel should bomb the shit out of Gaza, I should enjoy singing and speaking in language no one uses etc etc.  Neither do I believe that a Christian belief is necessary for a person to be good. The moment I identify myself as a Christian, people assume I am all these as well – which I am so not. So I’ll rather call myself a Jesus-dependant subjectivist.

In the same way, being malay and muslim is often lumped together, being gay and promiscuous is often lumped together, being feminist and independent is often lumped together. While these associations may be observed in an overwhelming percentage of members, demanding that members have to conform to the unnecessary stereotyped associations is an infringement of personal freedom of thought and autonomy.

 It’s as absurd as a Human Rights Activist saying “I’ll kill you if you don’t support Human Rights”