1. Nobody knows if there is a God or if there is life after death, so it is arrogant of Humanists to claim to know that there isn't.

Answer: No-one can claim certain knowledge in these matters, believers and non-believers alike. But both sides should base their claims on evidence and the standard procedures for deciding if an allegation is true. To say that a statement about God or the after-life is true because someone had a dream about it, for example, is contrary to the standard procedures for assessing such claims. If anyone said that dinosaurs still exist and later admitted that the only reason for saying so was a dream, the claim would be dismissed. Yet conventional religions are full of claims about gods, angels, predictions of the future and affirmations of conviction which are merely based on dreams. Ordinary standards of evidence and methods of testing allegations are cast aside. Humanists apply ordinary procedures to the claims of the religious and find those claims unsubstantiated.

2. Critics of religions have been trying for centuries to prove that religious belief is irrational, but they have never succeeded. There must be something strong and true at the core of religions which enables them to withstand such criticism.

Answer: Astrology still lingers on in our culture, even though the primitive cosmology on which it was based has been completely superseded by modern astronomy. We now know what the constellations are and so the foundations of astrology have collapsed. But horoscopes are still published in magazines, books, newspapers and television programmes. Similarly, the creation myths which are found in the main religions are now contested by a scientific account of the origins of human and other species, based on geology, evolutionary biology and the fossil record. The scientific account is based on evidence and rational procedures, but many people cling to the ancient creation myths instead. Religions are like astrology in that they too linger on after the grounds for belief have been dispelled. They are preserved by tradition, social power and a psychological attachment nurtured by family and school.

3. Humanism is only a negative creed. It offers nothing positive.

Answer: In most parts of the world today, Humanists live as a radical minority within cultures which are predominantly religious. In that situation it is inevitable that Humanists will often sound negative and critical as they try to assert their rights within a religious culture. But the essence of Humanism is a simple, positive creed which can be summed up in the phrase: One Life, One Earth, One Humanity. We each of us have only one short life and Humanism exhorts us to do our best, not just for ourselves in a greedy, selfish response to our mortality, but also for our family, friends and neighbours, and for all our fellow mortals. That is the starting point. The wider developments of the Humanist outlook can be seen in the books, articles, pamphlets and conference resolutions published by Humanist organisations.

4. Without religion there is a god-shaped hole in people's lives.

Answer: This statement is an expression of fear, disguised as a factual description. The fear of letting go of religion and of taking up a rational way of life is here disguised as a general comment about non-religious people. Many Humanists would say that dropping religion brought a feeling of relief or escape, not of loss. There is no god-shaped hole, any more than there is a Santa-shaped hole when one stops believing in Santa, or an astrology-shaped hole when one stops reading horoscopes. Of course, if one is an isolated sceptic in a society of conventional believers, then there is an emotional pressure to conform and the challenge to be faced is all the greater. Humanists come from all walks of life and take pleasure in a wide variety of interests and pursuits. They are an average cross-section of the population and there is no factual reason to suppose that they are happier or sadder than the rest. Many lead happy, successful, satisfying lives; some find life more of a struggle. In that respect Humanists are just normal people.

5. Live and let live. Why don't Humanists tolerate other beliefs, instead of criticising them or mocking them?

Answer: This question is based on a false antithesis, creating an 'either/or' where in fact a 'both/and' applies. Humanists support both toleration and criticism. Humanists believe in liberty and the open society. They do not hunger for the day when all other outlooks will be banned or driven from the public domain. In an open society all outlooks have freedom of expression, including both the religious and the non-religious. People should be free to follow whatever belief they choose. Humanists do support that principle and do tolerate other beliefs. By the same token, however, people should be free to criticise and mock other beliefs, provided that the criticism and mockery is not intended to stir up hatred or incite violence.

6. Science cannot explain everything, but Humanists put their faith in it. They believe in science, just as religious people believe in God.

Humanists do not 'believe' in science in the way that the religious believe in their God. Science has consistently supplied facts and explanations backed up by quantifiable, verifiable evidence. True scientists, and Humanists, do not claim that science can explain everything. The fact is quite the opposite. Only religion offers a 'complete' world view, beginning, middle and end, with an 'explanation' for everything, ie. a creator God responsible for all, never to be questioned. Science on the other hand opens itself up to investigation and exploration. Any scientific theory only holds true until it is proven inconsistent or incomplete, for example, Einstein's 'modifications' of Newton's laws.  I know that the laws of gravity hold me to the ground because it is a verifiable fact with scientific evidence to show how and why I stay on the ground. In that sense, I believe in science. I may choose to believe that I can walk unaided up a vertical wall. I may put my faith in that idea, but the experience of humanity is that it is unlikely to happen. Any claim that insulates itself from evidence or proof is without value. That is what separates the fanciful notions of religion from the explanations of science.

7. History, music, art and religion are all as valid as science; they simply differ in their methods and goals. So why does Humanism elevate science to a pre-eminent status?

Humanism does value history, music, art, literature, etc. Such activities are at the core of what makes life enjoyable and worthwhile. Many eminent practitioners in those fields have been Humanists. But you do not ask a musician to explain how electricity is generated, or how the Moon waxes and wanes, or what causes myopia. Nor do you ask an artist. Practitioners of the arts are not in the business of explanations. They use their imaginations to produce their own works and we enjoy their creations. But if we want an explanation of how or why a certain natural phenomenon occurs, then we ask a scientist. Science is the best way to understand the world that we inhabit, as far as natural processes are concerned. It also provides a basis for the creation of technologies which make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable. Humanists use the arts to enjoy life and they use science to explain it. However, religion is literary fiction masquerading as factual explanation, and so Humanists have no use for it.

8. Religion offers consolation to those in need: the bereaved, the lonely, the terminally ill, the unwanted, etc. Humanism offers nothing.

Generally, western religion/religious belief has at its core: (i) the worship of God and obedience to his laws; (ii) a glorious and eternal heaven as reward for worship and obedience in this life; and, (iii) eternal damnation and hellfire for failure to live up to those God-given strictures.  But does anyone live their life without “sin”? Even the most religious will not claim that for themselves, and will assert that the mass of the population are unrepentant “sinners”.  So, far from giving consolation to humankind, religion creates guilt, inhibition, depression and fear of the coming “judgement day”. In many cases bereavement is heightened by the belief that the dead loved one, if not a strict adherent, is destined for hellfire and damnation. Hardly “consolation”.  Freed from the yoke of a judgemental god, and comfortable with the sense that there is no “hereafter”, enlightened society can nurture the common good-will and sense of impartiality inherent in humankind.  Altruism is not religiously inspired; from ancient times acting virtuously has been held to be as good for the individual as for the benefiting society. Far from offering nothing, Humanism in this sense promotes a cooperative commonwealth, one that advances the interests of ourselves, family, friends and neighbours, and beyond that, of all humankind.

9. Religion has inspired great art for centuries. Humanists must be lacking in their artistic sensibilities.

Reply sent by Sean Flanagan:  "Having an interest in art, it occurs to me from watching televised art history that a lot of the so-called great artists relied on commissions from royalty or religious orders to survive, which partly explains why religious art exists, at least in such volume and by the most famous artists.  So an answer to the objection above may be that religion has monopolised, or even manipulated or misused, art in this way. Also the cliché that most artists die penniless is worth noting, because poverty, rather than conviction, may have driven artists to create religious works. To me art is a gift possessed in different measure by all of us prepared to give it a go. It is worth noting that Bob Ross www.bobross.com has arguably inspired more people (myself included) all over the world to paint than any of the so-called greats. You will not find his work in the corridors of the famous art galleries of the western world, but he can take anyone “by the hand” in 30 minutes to create something that will amaze themselves and others."

(The following objections are still work in progress. Please send suggested answers les.reid@btinternet.com)

10. Humanists have renounced religion, but they talk about nothing else.

11. Religion encourages people to be charitable, neighbourly and community-minded. Humanists should support it for that reason.

 

Objections to religion

There are many books, essays and articles which present the case against holding religious beliefs.  Voltaire, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Ludwig Feuerbach, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Thomas Henry Huxley, Robert Green Ingersoll, Friedrich Nietzsche, W. K. Clifford, Sigmund Freud, John Dewey, Chapman Cohen, Bertrand Russell, AJ Ayer, Antony Flew, Richard Dawkins, and Albert Einstein have all disputed the claims of religions from many different perspectives and on many different grounds.  See http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/history.html for a historical overview of writings against religion.

The earliest is probably "De Rerum Natura" by Lucretius, who was a follower of Epicurus and Democritus.  Lucretius argues against belief in life after death (before birth, you were nothing; after your death you will be nothing again) and promotes instead a materialist philosophy which states that everything is composed of atoms.  It follows that religious tales of supernatural events and supernatural deities are mere fictions.

David Hume wrote "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" and "The Natural History Of Religion" but dared not publish them in his lifetime.  They were published posthumously in 1779.  In these works Hume brings his keen intelligence to bear on the standard justifications for religious belief, including the Argument from Design, and finds the reasoning flawed.  Hume also argued against belief in miracles in "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding".

Julien Offray De LaMettrie (1709-1751) wrote in his book "Man A Machine" an atheistic depiction of life, explaning souls in purely material terms.

Although a deist himself, Tom Paine wrote in "The Age Of Reason", "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit".

In France, the Encyclopedists, a group of deists and atheists, assembled to write a secular Encyclopédie. The leader of the movement, Denis Diderot (1713-1784), was imprisoned for writing atheistic books. Also in this group were Jean D'Alembert (one of the founders of Positivism), and the Baron d'Holbach, who wrote books with titles such as "Christianity Unveiled" and "The Holy Disease".

John Stuart Mill, in his "Nature and Utility of Religion" 1874, argued against religious belief on the empirical grounds that throughout the world we see the suffering of the innocent, whether from disease, accident, disasters or the like.  Such suffering does not accord well with the belief that there is a kind and caring spirit in charge of the universe.  Instead, it is more rational to conclude that the world is indifferent to the fate of humanity and that no such spirit as god exists.

Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891) was the first militant atheist of Western civilization.  He was elected to the British parliament six times, and each time he could not take his seat there. The reason was because he was an atheist and therefore would not swear the oath of allegiance (which included a reference to God). Everyone in England knew of Bradlaugh and his fight and thus he brought the issue of atheism to the attention of the general public.

Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) is another important historical figure of free-thought in Victorian times. Criticizing religion's history and promoting rationalism, his lectures attracted large crowds and were widely published.  He wrote detailed and humorous critiques of the Bible, "Some Mistakes Of Moses" and "Some More Mistakes Of Moses".

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a famous mathematician, writer, and philosopher. He wrote many atheistic books like "Why I Am Not a Christian", "Sceptical Essays", and "Religion and Science".

In 1970 Paul Kurtz, Professor of Philosophy and President of the American Humanist Association, established the Prometheus Press, which is an important source of Humanist, freethinking and atheistic books. Prometheus have published the popular "Atheism: The Case Against God", by George Smith, and Dr. Gordon Stein's monumental "The Encyclopedia of Unbelief".

Satire

Many writers have expressed their objections to religion in the form of satire.  Because it mocks others' beliefs, satire has often caused offence and in some cases it has provoked violent outrage.  Humanists do not wish to be gratuitously offensive, but they do uphold the right to free speech, including ridicule.  Religious beliefs should be no more immune to satire than political beliefs.

Daft Proofs of God's Existence

Deity Satisfaction Survey

Faith-based policies.

Play-script 1.

Play-script 2.