No, I am an atheist.
I used to believe, just like most other active atheists, that religion is redundant. But now I don’t think so. I think religion is necessary. I am not advocating any particular religion. Religion as in the system of morality based on God – is necessary. The world needs God.
Humanism is a doctrine that emphasizes a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason. It says that we can understand what is right and wrong using our own intelligence and base our living on true understanding of the world we are living in, with the aim of maximizing human welfare. It’s obviously rejection of religion in that religion is non-rational and thus outmoded by the current levels of human knowledge, following scientific developments. (Eg: There’s no God.)
The argument I hear from Humanists and other active atheists – which I also seconded until recently – is that morality implemented by religion does not reflect true moral development of people. Religious people are acting morally not because it is right, but because they fear God’s punishment – or because they want to go to the heaven, not hell. Fear and greed are the tools used to keep people under control. It is imposed morality. True morality is that where a person has a choice to act either ways, and s/he chooses to do the right thing because s/he wants to do the right thing.
Those are rational, fair points. I totally agree that true morality is that which comes through real understanding, and not that which is forced upon.
But the point is, all humans are not intelligent enough to understand true morality. Existence of various laws is a proof of it. If all humans understood what is right and what is wrong by philosophical development and self-realization, there should be no crimes in the world.
I am interested to know whether Humanism allows for the laws. Because the system of laws-and-punishments is the same as religion. Here also people are behaving well because there’s a fear of punishment. If the traffic police disappear for a day it will be interesting to see the chaos on roads – not to mention what would happen with regards to more serious crimes in absence of laws and punishments. So you see people are anyway being regulated through fear-and-punishment mechanism. What do these Humanist-atheists have to say about that?
I believe if it is okay to regulate the behavior of the masses through laws-and-punishments mechanism, it is okay – rather better – to let them be controlled by fear and greed of hell and heaven, directly coming from God. Why is it better? Because religion provides the “guilt mechanism”. When a religious person does something wrong out of temptation to do so, s/he at least feels that the wrong has been done. At least those religious people who truly believe in God have it clearly spelled out to them what is moral and immoral. Over time quite a few of them, I see, develop a comfort level with their God, and then do wrong, and then out of fear apologize to their God and go on living. But having some guilt is better than having no guilt.
Where there is no God, there is no guilt. In the realm of Godlessness, morality becomes a subjective thing. A religious person, upon causing harm to someone will apologize, or rationalize it, to his God – feeling some guilt. But a non-believer, upon breaking a traffic rule, won’t feel any guilt. S/he will feel regret only if caught and punished. Not otherwise.
Or for argument’s sake, let’s say religious people also don’t feel any guilt or regret and are the same as non-believers. Then too, the main fact remains: That both classes, after all, need to be regulated by force. Existence of laws means morality is imposed. And I don’t think laws are ever to become redundant. Where is the true morality based on rational understanding of the world then? And how is abolition of religion to bring about true rational and moral development in masses?
They are two separate things. When a person is truly philosophically and morally developed, s/he will automatically stop needing religion and God. I do not believe in religion/God. But I think bashing religion and God is such a stupid waste of time and energy! This philosophical development happens when a person has the inclination for it. If one is forcefully deprived of religion and God, one may rather become dysfunctional and spiritually crippled. Militant atheists are criminals, in a way.
Back to Humanism. The proponents of Humanism seem to assume the masses to be highly intelligent. Not only philosophically advanced, but also developed in psychology, sociology and spiritual matters, to be able to understand on their own as what is right and wrong with regard to maximizing human welfare. Of course, that sort of development is totally desirable. My own endeavor is the same. But the truth is, masses are not that intelligent. Only a fraction of population (1% maybe) is actually that advanced. So it seems to me that the doctrine of Humanism is a utopian ideal.
Religion provides a single moral center of gravity (which is essential for social order) which I doubt any other Godless system can achieve. Humanism is superior at an individual level. But at a mass level, I think, religion is the most appropriate system.
I have not talked about the evils of some religions (oppression and terrorism etc) which I am not unaware of. So please do not raise those points in the comments. To banish God on account of those evils is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--
Follow discussion on Facebook
I used to believe, just like most other active atheists, that religion is redundant. But now I don’t think so. I think religion is necessary. I am not advocating any particular religion. Religion as in the system of morality based on God – is necessary. The world needs God.
Humanism is a doctrine that emphasizes a person’s capacity for self-realization through reason. It says that we can understand what is right and wrong using our own intelligence and base our living on true understanding of the world we are living in, with the aim of maximizing human welfare. It’s obviously rejection of religion in that religion is non-rational and thus outmoded by the current levels of human knowledge, following scientific developments. (Eg: There’s no God.)
The argument I hear from Humanists and other active atheists – which I also seconded until recently – is that morality implemented by religion does not reflect true moral development of people. Religious people are acting morally not because it is right, but because they fear God’s punishment – or because they want to go to the heaven, not hell. Fear and greed are the tools used to keep people under control. It is imposed morality. True morality is that where a person has a choice to act either ways, and s/he chooses to do the right thing because s/he wants to do the right thing.
Those are rational, fair points. I totally agree that true morality is that which comes through real understanding, and not that which is forced upon.
But the point is, all humans are not intelligent enough to understand true morality. Existence of various laws is a proof of it. If all humans understood what is right and what is wrong by philosophical development and self-realization, there should be no crimes in the world.
I am interested to know whether Humanism allows for the laws. Because the system of laws-and-punishments is the same as religion. Here also people are behaving well because there’s a fear of punishment. If the traffic police disappear for a day it will be interesting to see the chaos on roads – not to mention what would happen with regards to more serious crimes in absence of laws and punishments. So you see people are anyway being regulated through fear-and-punishment mechanism. What do these Humanist-atheists have to say about that?
I believe if it is okay to regulate the behavior of the masses through laws-and-punishments mechanism, it is okay – rather better – to let them be controlled by fear and greed of hell and heaven, directly coming from God. Why is it better? Because religion provides the “guilt mechanism”. When a religious person does something wrong out of temptation to do so, s/he at least feels that the wrong has been done. At least those religious people who truly believe in God have it clearly spelled out to them what is moral and immoral. Over time quite a few of them, I see, develop a comfort level with their God, and then do wrong, and then out of fear apologize to their God and go on living. But having some guilt is better than having no guilt.
Where there is no God, there is no guilt. In the realm of Godlessness, morality becomes a subjective thing. A religious person, upon causing harm to someone will apologize, or rationalize it, to his God – feeling some guilt. But a non-believer, upon breaking a traffic rule, won’t feel any guilt. S/he will feel regret only if caught and punished. Not otherwise.
Or for argument’s sake, let’s say religious people also don’t feel any guilt or regret and are the same as non-believers. Then too, the main fact remains: That both classes, after all, need to be regulated by force. Existence of laws means morality is imposed. And I don’t think laws are ever to become redundant. Where is the true morality based on rational understanding of the world then? And how is abolition of religion to bring about true rational and moral development in masses?
They are two separate things. When a person is truly philosophically and morally developed, s/he will automatically stop needing religion and God. I do not believe in religion/God. But I think bashing religion and God is such a stupid waste of time and energy! This philosophical development happens when a person has the inclination for it. If one is forcefully deprived of religion and God, one may rather become dysfunctional and spiritually crippled. Militant atheists are criminals, in a way.
Back to Humanism. The proponents of Humanism seem to assume the masses to be highly intelligent. Not only philosophically advanced, but also developed in psychology, sociology and spiritual matters, to be able to understand on their own as what is right and wrong with regard to maximizing human welfare. Of course, that sort of development is totally desirable. My own endeavor is the same. But the truth is, masses are not that intelligent. Only a fraction of population (1% maybe) is actually that advanced. So it seems to me that the doctrine of Humanism is a utopian ideal.
Religion provides a single moral center of gravity (which is essential for social order) which I doubt any other Godless system can achieve. Humanism is superior at an individual level. But at a mass level, I think, religion is the most appropriate system.
I have not talked about the evils of some religions (oppression and terrorism etc) which I am not unaware of. So please do not raise those points in the comments. To banish God on account of those evils is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--
Follow discussion on Facebook
Banishing religion will never help and embracing religion completely will never work.It is the middle path which the state, society and individual has to choose for the materialistic and spiritual development of man.
ReplyDeleteI agree ppl are not that intelligent but the other aspect to it is that ppl dont tend to think if there are rigid laws...or if there is a defined mechanism of right n wrong.. so if v want to make them understand wats right or wrong, v shud atleast let them do that on their ownh... i.e. bring them out of that rigid frame of rules set by religion or society or watevr... cause oderwise this fear of god and hell n heaven makes one do which is not at all required to be done, neither in the logical sense nor in the religious sense..for example... sacrificing innocent animals in the name of religion... that evn if is written in the rule buk of God, I dont approve of it..
ReplyDeleteHmmm interesting post . I agree that militant athiest can be as bad as hardcore believers. But , I disagree that religion is more important. Most of morality preached by religion cause more harm than good. The reason why all humans are not intelligent enough to understand true morality is because they always turn to religion and are is easiely satisfied with it when some thing goes wrong . If people went beyond their religions , then they will be forced to use their own intelligence and expand their world view.
ReplyDelete