When I first joined EHA in the early part of the year 2001 I thought I had found a small group of ardent atheists anxious to debate important philosophical, social, moral and political ideas in a manner which demonstrated the total irrelevance of God and religion. I imagined that all humanists were like-minded individuals with well formulated ideas on how the human race could function so much better without recourse to religion. And yet, on that first evening, religion was the topic of much heated discussion. At one point I addressed the chair, “Why do we need to talk about religion? Surely religion is irrelevant”. The discussion continued unabated.

In my first EHA Bulletin I read, “Living without Religion is exactly what humanism is”. Good, I thought, then let’s do just that. Let’s enjoy life without religion and simply drop the subject.

And yet religion continued to come into discussion at EHA meetings, even to the point of inviting religious speakers!! Humanist and atheist literature is full of articles dealing with religion, the absurdity of the stories on which religion is based, the failure of organised religions to provide credible moral leadership, the interference of religion in matters of education and politics. Most of the articles are highly critical; they take a wholly negative attitude to religious institutions and show a level of intolerance towards religious belief not unlike the intolerance which characterises the history of religion. Humanists seemed to have an unhealthy interest in religion and I wondered why they could not simply drop the subject.

The long history of religious intolerance, I thought, should have taught humanists to be in the vanguard of a toleration movement. I fondly imagined I was living in a country which had a better history of toleration than most. We are free to believe whatever we wish no matter how stupid that belief may be. There is no ‘religious police force’ in this country to threaten us with the dire consequences of apostasy and followers of any religious faith can normally express their views without any fear of physical abuse. Also, in general, a person’s religious views are considered to be a private matter and rarely affect job eligibility or promotion. Our naturally secular society is noticeably better at tolerating eccentric behaviour than in most other countries. We have learned to live and let live and simply to ignore the religious views expressed on radio religious programmes if they are different from our own. We humanists are simply indifferent to the absurd words of the sanctimonious fairy stories of religious practitioners. We are bemused and disappointed when overheated religious people violently oppose the inclusion of programme material which is contrary to their own faith. We consider their attitude is incompatible with the tradition of tolerance that is the hallmark of our society. Well, much of our society, much of the time.

And yet, we humanists often express attitudes that are very intolerant of religion? Why does it seem to be impossible for us to turn our backs on the subject. Surely, to treat religion with a cold indifference would be an acceptable form of tolerance. But despite all my musings, religion does not disappear from humanist discussions and writings. It is always a hot topic and, interestingly, humanists seem to know more about religion than the average church going, god-fearing citizen!

Religion, it seems, is so historically entrenched and so much a part of the psyche that it always infiltrates and intrudes into human affairs. It has profoundly shaped the lives of so many people and social institutions that, to ignore it, is perhaps to neglect an important dimension in the understanding of the human being - the very heart of humanist thinking. So perhaps I was wrong and, after all, religion is not irrelevant to the humanist.

To understand how religion might have contributed to human affairs in the past and how it might continue to do so into the foreseeable future we humanists may have to show some toleration of religion, in fact far more toleration than one religion does for another. But many of us consider it to be insincere to appear to be tolerant of religion. I often feel like that myself, because religion gets away with so much deception and passes off so much fancy as indisputable fact on the basis of a belief in the divine origin of scripture and a much vaunted personal punitive god who overlords the cosmos - it is not easy to be tolerant of religion. Also, tolerance is a two-edged word. While its immediate intent is to promote cooperative understanding it is also associated with endurance, it is a form of sufferance and the word even has an air of patronizing. To tolerate somebody else’s belief is to endure the stupidity of it. We want to be tolerant of differences of opinion and yet we want to be intolerant of stupidity. How can we be both?

Perhaps the solution is to plan to be selectively tolerant. Generally we tar all facets of religion with the same brush. Maybe a wiser approach would be for humanists to continue to be intolerant of just those aspects of religion which are patently bad for society but to more willing to openly praise those religious expressions and traditions which benefit society. There are plenty of the former: The divisive nature of religion, the practice of indoctrination, interference in political and educational matters, excessive claims of religion to be upholders of truth rather than seekers after it, extremist religious thuggery and so on. Much of our intolerance of these aspects of religion would be supported by many of my own religious acquaintances. Yet these things are at the heart of religious tradition.

We are also surely justified in being intolerant of religion as a breeding ground for so many of the fringe practices that exploit the frail human mind: The Branch Davidians and the massacre at Waco, Marshall Applewhite’s Heaven Gate suicides, reverend Sun Moon’s scams which pour millions of dollars into replacing American democracy with Unification Theocracy, the monumental scams of Rabbi Berg’s Kabala Centre and so on. Our intolerance may also stretch to all the other mumbo jumbo which feeds on the human mind’s remarkable wish to believe in miracles: Visions of holy virgins, weeping or bleeding statues, alien abductions, frenzied crowds “witnessing” miracle cures, claims of miraculous rescues from natural disasters. People can’t get enough of it and there are no end of clever religious tricksters ready to take advantage of the vulnerability of the human brain and the fragility of human emotions.

At the same time as criticising the absurdities of religion perhaps we should be ready to praise the numerous good traditions of religious institutions and the inspirational influence of religion. We can enjoy the sublime beauty of Mozart’s Requiem, Chartres Cathedral or Michelangelo’s Pieta despite their unique place at the very heart of Christian worship. We can marvel at the unbelievable beauty and fine craftsmanship to be found in ancient and modern mosques, manuscripts, and artefacts of the Moslem world. We can acknowledge the important part played by certain faith based organisations and dedicated personnel who care for people who have been sidelined by corrupt political systems. To me, to praise these aspects of religion is perfectly compatible with humanism. Religious inspiration may be at the heart of all such achievements but, in the final analysis, we humanists know that it is the indomitable human spirit that is the ultimate source … not God.

And so, even though I would like to think that humanism could develop without reference to religion, it is impossible. The world is full of religions, some moribund, some vigorous and others fragmented into dozens of curious sects. Whatever we do when studying the affairs of the human race at any time in history we encounter the polarities of religion - the tragedy and the joy of religion - the artistic creativity and the destructive cruelty of religion - the caring hand of the kindly pastor and the hateful message of the suicide bomber - the search for truth yet a reliance on the crutch of deception. We cannot avoid it and we cannot look forward to its demise. We live with it, we criticise it and, despite all the inconsistencies and absurdities of religious belief, we can only advance the cause of humanism with toleration - at least in a limited edition. Religion with all its faults is tied up with the inescapable problems of the human condition and cannot be ignored as we pursue our own humanist enlightenment.

A.C.

DISCUSSION

An animated discussion was joined, which involved most of those present in the audience. Mostly there was amplification on the lines of the talk. Further items were as follows:

An impression from the talk of a defensive stance. Serah Aluko, representing it emerged someone with an Islamic upbringing, thought that towards religions the talk implied an acceptance of the status quo instead of an attack.

Alpha. On the announcement of a talk on “The Alpha Factor” at the next meeting a new visitor intimated he had attended an Alpha Course, which was what Ealing Humanists had been urged to do 6 years ago. It was mentioned by me (R.C.) that Derek Hill, who had made this suggestion (never taken up), is currently being offered a chance as speaker with me at the meeting. There is doubtless something in alpha style of presentation for us to be aware of, whilst dismissing the content.

Keynote Address. I recalled that in January 2000 the president was unable to give his intend presentation because the remainder of the committee thought an annual custom was being subverted from being a true presentation of their joint views into a recital of Arthur Atkinson’s own opinion. Instead 4 speakers gave short talks to reflect other aspects which they had felt were important but were being neglected or opposed in the annual addresses. Last time Arthur and I both spoke.

Although slated as the Chairman’s Keynote Address, Tony said his talk today had not been offered as such. And I quoted from the address given to the Annual General Meeting a month ago as recorded in the Bulletin being circulated which constituted an admirable example of such a presentation for us to work to instead. (My only addition, I proffered, would be on having expectation of change in the future and contributing to it rather than being overtaken by it.)

R.C.

As does a political party, humanism must surely have goals. And in our particular brand of humanism, Ealing Humanism, we can strive to see our own distinctive contributions reflected in the way in which we approve some organisations and in the way we oppose (not merely tolerate) others. Between humanism and religious belief there are after all conflicting goals on serious issues. Cooperation, except to secure concessions, will confuse the public rather than sending them any clear signal.

There would be little to lose in a static situation where our message is expected to have little effect. Historically though we are in a situation of social change-within-a-single-lifetime which means that we can either contribute, in a meaningful, positive sense, to change: or be precluded by changes that we can recognise as retrogressive.

This seems to resonate with a remark made by Serah Aluko (see above). Keith Turner however, in his letter to the editor last month, spoke of being bored by talk of religion. Well, no doubt discussion of Toryism might bore a socialist and vice versa but studying our opponents’ beliefs is because we cannot afford to ignore them.

We do have to recognise though that in distinction to its objective message, Ealing Humanism must exhibit its ‘Ealingness’ or subjectivity and it is here that Mozart’s Requiem and the kindly hand of the caring pastor could definitely come in.