Comments on: Atheism a trap for Humanism? http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html Just another WordPress weblog Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:33:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Vir Narain http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html/comment-page-1#comment-9 Vir Narain Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:53:05 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html#comment-9 My article, as reproduced, left out a crucial quote from Sir Hermann Bondi; perhaps that led to its being so widely misinterpreted. The point one tried to make was that Humanists, qua Humanists, need not get involved in a debate on the existence or non-existence of God - except that it is necessary to reject the concept of a rewarding-and-punishing God (a RAP God) since it is incompatible with Humanist values. I describe myself as an atheist, but do not prescribe it for others. Nor do I find it necessary to condemn those who have other views. Considering the sharpening debate about atheism it seems necessary to remind ourselves as humanists (it is perhaps different for those who are committed to atheism as such) of the advice given by Sir Hermann Bondi in 2002. He said: "I think in this country we are too impressed by the concept of God. Many religions, like Buddhism and Confucianism, don't have a God at all. On the other hand, Communism in its heyday had a 'sacred text' which were the writings of Marx and Lenin, and you justified an argument by referring to these writings. So it seems to me that the important thing is not the concept of God - indeed we cannot quarrel with an undefined God, for how can we disagree with a concept that is undefined. No, what makes a religion is a "revelation". And it is the belief in a revealed truth that is the source of religious problems - that the Koran is the word of God, or the Holy Bible is the judge of everything. So in arguments with Christians, when you come to the word God you have already lost the battle. You must stress the revelation, that's where the real disagreement lies, because if you are driven to a position where you have to deny the existence of an undefined quantity you are in a logical absurdity." As Bondi said, in the fight against dogmatic religions the right target to attack is revelation. And the point about 'logical absurdity' cannot be brushed aside. Vir Narain My article, as reproduced, left out a crucial quote from Sir Hermann Bondi; perhaps that led to its being so widely misinterpreted. The point one tried to make was that Humanists, qua Humanists, need not get involved in a debate on the existence or non-existence of God – except that it is necessary to reject the concept of a rewarding-and-punishing God (a RAP God) since it is incompatible with Humanist values. I describe myself as an atheist, but do not prescribe it for others. Nor do I find it necessary to condemn those who have other views.

Considering the sharpening debate about atheism it seems necessary to
remind ourselves as humanists (it is perhaps different for those who
are committed to atheism as such) of the advice given by Sir Hermann
Bondi in 2002. He said: “I think in this country we are too impressed
by the concept of God. Many religions, like Buddhism and Confucianism,
don’t have a God at all. On the other hand, Communism in its heyday
had a ‘sacred text’ which were the writings of Marx and Lenin, and you
justified an argument by referring to these writings. So it seems to
me that the important thing is not the concept of God – indeed we
cannot quarrel with an undefined God, for how can we disagree with a
concept that is undefined. No, what makes a religion is a
“revelation”. And it is the belief in a revealed truth that is the
source of religious problems – that the Koran is the word of God, or
the Holy Bible is the judge of everything. So in arguments with
Christians, when you come to the word God you have already lost the
battle. You must stress the revelation, that’s where the real
disagreement lies, because if you are driven to a position where you
have to deny the existence of an undefined quantity you are in a
logical absurdity.”

As Bondi said, in the fight against dogmatic religions the right
target to attack is revelation. And the point about ‘logical
absurdity’ cannot be brushed aside.

Vir Narain

]]> By: iHumanism » Blog Archive » Atheism a trap for Humanism - Update http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html/comment-page-1#comment-7 iHumanism » Blog Archive » Atheism a trap for Humanism - Update Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:44:55 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html#comment-7 [...] Here is my letter. Which is the text of my post on this issue. [...] [...] Here is my letter. Which is the text of my post on this issue. [...]

]]> By: Jennifer Hancock http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html/comment-page-1#comment-8 Jennifer Hancock Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:47:53 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html#comment-8 I think the thing to remember here is that while Humanism is not theistic in its approach and concerns, which makes it effectively atheist as you point out, the real problem is that the organized Humanist movement does not share the same agenda as the organized atheist movement. The humanist movement is concerned with spreading a philosophy and value system. And this is worthwhile. The atheist movement, depending on the organization, is concerned with securing equal rights for the non-religious, and providing socializing opportunities for atheists to get together - or at least that is the stated agenda of most atheist groups. I have spoken in front of different atheist groups and while some are humanists, some aren't. The point is, while there is a portion of the different agenda's that overlaps, the entire atheist agenda does not overlap with the humanist agenda and vice versa. Where you see that it must be the Humanists who are divisive, from my perspective, I would say actually, the problem lies with atheists being upset that some Humanists actually want to promote Humanism for a change, which is quite a different thing from promoting atheism. From my perspective both agenda's need to be worked on equally. But that means that both need to be worked on and it isn't a betrayal of Atheism to focus on Humanism exclusively. Someone has to. Both approaches are needed and help us move forward collectively. I think the thing to remember here is that while Humanism is not theistic in its approach and concerns, which makes it effectively atheist as you point out, the real problem is that the organized Humanist movement does not share the same agenda as the organized atheist movement.

The humanist movement is concerned with spreading a philosophy and value system. And this is worthwhile. The atheist movement, depending on the organization, is concerned with securing equal rights for the non-religious, and providing socializing opportunities for atheists to get together – or at least that is the stated agenda of most atheist groups.

I have spoken in front of different atheist groups and while some are humanists, some aren’t.

The point is, while there is a portion of the different agenda’s that overlaps, the entire atheist agenda does not overlap with the humanist agenda and vice versa.

Where you see that it must be the Humanists who are divisive, from my perspective, I would say actually, the problem lies with atheists being upset that some Humanists actually want to promote Humanism for a change, which is quite a different thing from promoting atheism.

From my perspective both agenda’s need to be worked on equally. But that means that both need to be worked on and it isn’t a betrayal of Atheism to focus on Humanism exclusively. Someone has to. Both approaches are needed and help us move forward collectively.

]]>