|
American
Humanist Association Annual Meeting San Jose,
California June 4, 2010, Humanist Universal Values: Can We Realistically Hope to Live in a Humanist
Civilization? (The Code for Global Ethics) by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, Emeritus professor, University of Montreal Ph.D. Stanford University Former president of the North American Economics and Finance Ass'n Author of the book “The Code for Global
Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, 2010 [Prometheus Books, ISBN: 978-1616141721] "When
plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat
(1801-1850), French economist "The
Bible is a manual of bad morals [which] has a powerful influence on our culture and even our way of
life...It is a catalog
of cruelty and of what's worst in human nature. Without the Bible, we
would be different and probably better people.” Jose Saramago,
1998 Nobel Prize for Literature winner "The National Government will regard it as its
first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and
cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our
nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our
national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." Adolph
Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation, Berlin,
February 1, 1933 “Certain
hierarchs of the Catholic Church in Latin America used prayer as an
anesthesia to put the people to sleep. When they cannot dominate us with law,
then comes prayer, and when they can’t humiliate or dominate us with
prayer, then comes the gun.” Evo Morales,
President of Bolivia, July 13, 2009 “I
think that on balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. With or
without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but
for good people to do evil—that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg, 1979 Nobel Laureate in Physics Let me begin on
an optimistic note. Last January (2010), a group of Atomic Scientists pushed
back the 1947 symbolic “Doomsday” clock that shows how close
mankind is to self-annihilation to six minutes before midnight, from five
minutes before. They cited a "new era of cooperation is a change in
the U.S. government's orientation toward international affairs brought about
in part by the election of (U.S.
President Barack) Obama." They even hinted that "global warming is
more of a threat now than nuclear war." We’ll see if such a renewed confidence is
justified or not. There are many
other reasons to be less optimistic, however, if not squarely pessimistic, as
to the direction that human affairs are taking. My main message here is
simple: Humanity needs a new worldview,—a new moral code— a new objective standard of right and wrong, because the prevailing sectarian religion-based worldview
leads to divisiveness and destruction. And that better worldview is the
universal humanist worldview, both to comprehend our global problems and to
solve them. My topic can
be divided into five related broad themes. First, the
increasing globalization of modern problems. Second, the scope of humanistic
human empathy and consciousness, from tribal in the remote past to global
today. Thirdly, why religions and sects of all sorts have so much appeal.
Fourthly, the inadequacy of establishing our moral view of things through the
prism of the major established religions, which can be counterproductive. And
fifthly, how we can articulate and apply universal humanist principles to
solve human problems. I- Global
issues Many of our
modern problems and threats are not only severe, but they have also become
increasingly global in nature. In fact, our scientific and technological
progress seems to be advancing much faster than our moral progress, with the
consequence that problems arise faster than our moral ability to face them
and to solve them can cope. Indeed, our problems are more and more global in
nature, while our worldview is still essentially parochial. At the very top
of human preoccupations is the way the new technologies of war are being used
and the growing willingness to use them. Indeed, it was
widely thought that wars of aggression (or pre-emptive wars) had been
abolished with the adoption of the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945
and the issuance of the Nuremberg Charter on August 8, 1945. But wars of aggression persist and those
who initiate them are rarely punished, especially if they are powerful.
—We also thought that financial crises and the severe economic
recessions and sometimes depressions they provoked were a thing of the past,
thanks to a protecting
net of financial regulations designed to control greed and prevent a repeat
of the past. Well, twenty years of wholesale deregulation has brought us back
to an era of anything goes and financial collapse.—We also thought that
the problem of poverty in the world could be alleviated, but abject poverty
persists in many parts of the world. There seems to
be a pattern here, and that is that humanity seems unable to break out of a
cycle of wars, economic crises and endemic poverty. And, these
throwbacks to an unpalatable past coincide with other developments, such as
the spread of nuclear weaponry, the persistence of ignorance, growing social
and economic inequalities, disregard for basic democratic principles, the
rise in global pollution, , and an increasing religion-based willingness to
kill and terrorize. For example,
as a case in point, former U. S Vice President Dick Cheney once boasted that
a U.S. president can destroy the world on his own volition: “The [U.S.] president has 24/7 access to
nuclear codes in the event of a nuclear attack against the United States ...
He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen... He
doesn't have to check with anybody, he doesn't have to call Congress, he
doesn't have to check with the courts, he has that authority." (Dick Cheney, George W. Bush's Vice
President, Sunday, December 21, 2008). This is quite something. Nobody asked
him if this was moral! II- The Modern
Scope of Human Empathy The circles of
human empathy have gradually become larger and larger over the course of
human evolution. 1- First,
there was the empathy within the immediate or entended family of an
agricultural, gathering or hunting society with ethical sharing among family
members, with the sorcerer playing an important role in explaining the
mysteries about the world and as a leading oral communicator. 2- Second,
came the empathy within a large tribe or clan with religion playing an
important role in creating cohesion and in spreading kinship altruism to
non-family or non-relative members within an enlarged group. Morality is
implicitly designed here for a society of co-religionists (of brothers and
sisters within a state religion), with non-kin or outsiders viewed with
suspicion and even excluded and fought. The mysteries about the world are
partly explained through a common belief in all-powerful supernatural agents
such as gods, spirits, angels or demons. 3- Third, empathy
within a larger and more pluralistic nation-state and even an empire, the
government playing the traditional father role in providing security and in
promoting different levels of sharing among all citizens within an extended
welfare state. Science and religion or superstition compete then as the major
sources of human knowledge. Industrialization raises labor productivity and
the average standard of living. Communication is enhanced by the printed word
and wide scale taxation is being made possible by advanced accounting
techniques. 4- Fourth, and
I think this is where we stand today, empathy is beginning to be practiced on
a global basis with humanity in its entirety being viewed as the
worldwide extended human family. Knowledge-based industrialization is
spreading worldwide, while energy sources become more diversified. Instant
communication is being made possible worldwide through the Internet and
satellites, with increasing economic and financial interactions. Morality is
now necessarily more centered on universal values and the rule of law. III. Atheism is not enough
I often tell
friends in the New Atheist movement that atheism is not enough. Even though
books such as R. Dawkins' The God Delusion and S. Harris' The End of Faith or
Letter to a Christian Nation are certainly useful in cleaning the
intellectual table of unfound religious myths and illogical religious claims.
But, for many people, this is just like flogging a dead horse. This does not
go to the essential reasons why people adhere to religious organizations, and
these reasons are not theological. I may surprise
you, but let me say that, maybe not for you, but for many people, organized
religions are useful, and for some, very useful institutions. Indeed, in the
real world, people join organized religions for many reasons other than the
metaphysical promises they make and they receive tangible benefits from it.
It is indeed important to realize that people's
motives to join and militate within established religions are not only
rational, but also belong to the world of emotions and to the reality of
services provided. And that is why, for many people, organized religions can
be seen as useful. IV-
Fundamental Reasons Behind the Appeal of Religion 1- They are
usefull, first and foremost, for an emotional and social reason, because
people have a natural instinct to to belong and to join, much more
than they want to believe in a given set of metaphysical propositions. People want to be part of a
community. They want to connect (some like to hold hands ad sing in a group).
In sum, they like to belong to clubs, if the entry fee is not too high. In
many societies, the most important social organizations are religious organizations. As a
matter of fact, one is
“expected” to belong to them. As I explain
in my book (The Code for Global Ethics”), people join, or sometimes are
pressured to adhere to, some organized religions as if they were political
clubs or parties. They hold “their” religion as if it were a flag
or a standard to rally around. That is part of their identity. That is why
for political leaders, religions have served very often as political tools to
bring a needed cohesion and unity within their realm. That is the reason why
also, in the past, political leaders doubled up as religious leaders. There is an
strong element of mass psychology involved here, depending on the society,
when individuals are placed under the emotional pressure to join and conform.
The more socially and politically totalitarian an organized religion is, and
the more social
harmony is valued in a
society, the more pressure for an individual to conform and to join a state
religion, and the more it is done at a lower age. In fact, in religion-dominated
societies, the individual sometime has no choice but to join the official or
state religion, if he or she wants to avoid discrimination or even
persecution. It's a form of tyranny, probably the most insidious of all but
it is a fact of life in many countries. Of course, the
results of such strong social cohesion are not always positive. Indeed,
religion is a powerful too of group dynamics. It can create family-like links
between people that can isolate them from the rest of society, or from the
rest of the world. Fanatism, radicalism and extremism may thus ensue,
especially if that evolves into a form of “mission-mentality”
against “the others” or against members of other persuasions or
other beliefs. 2- The second
reason is more rational. In many poor countries, religion is a provider of
social welfare and an insurance against fear and uncertainly. Indeed, for some people, especially the poor
and the disadvantaged, an important reason to adhere to or to remain active
members of an organized religions is to receive concrete social services
and assistance, at a low cost. When the government is corrupt or nearly
absent, some organized religions can become de facto governments in themselves in providing
education, health care or social assistance. These are tangible benefits.
This has nothing to do with the metaphysical ideal of an afterlife, but a lot
to do with real social support. The lesson, however, is that religious organizations are in
direct competition with state institutions, and where the latter are absent,
incompetent or corrupt, the former take over. Different
religions may also have different impacts on economic development within a
country. For example, on the question of the influence of different religions
on economic development, Xavier Couplet and Daniel Heuchenne (Religions and Development, 2009)
have found that in 2007, on average, a Protestant “produced” 2
times more wealth than a Catholic, 4 times more than an Orthodox, 13 times
more than a Muslim, 18 times more than a Buddhist, 25 more than a Hindu and
42 times more than an animist. Clearly, religions seems to influence the
level of poverty or of prosperity of a given country. 3- Of course,
a third reason that attracts people to organized religions is more emotional,
and it is their promise, for some, of an afterlife. And it is very
easy to understand. Unless new research on other mammals reveal otherwise,
Homo Sapiens seems to be the only species whose members know they're going to die. Thus, it is
understandable that there is a demand for any form of drug that can help to
deal with this harsh reality. Religion is a cheap form of therapy against
anxiety. Indeed, the
promise of an ever-lasting life can act as a drug to calm people's natural
anxiety toward death. It has been said that religious temples are
intellectual serotonin-manufacturing plants, providing a needed drug against
human frailty. The prize of living eternally in a life of total bliss is a
big prize indeed. It's worth a lot, as long as one clings to the idea, even
if it is purely illusory, or as Blaise Pascal (1632-1662) had it, “take
a wager, ...just in case that is true”.[1] The human
brain has a lot of problem, from an emotional point of view, with the idea of
death. It tends to revolt against the very idea. Soothing that fear of death
is therefore a useful contribution on the part of religions. It remains,
however, that the religion-based promise of eternal life is the greatest hoax
ever perpetrated on humankind. There is not an ounce of evidence or justification
for such an extravagant claim. A recent study
indicates how complex is the functioning of the human brain. Indeed, it has
been found that when some people pretend to have experienced a
"near-death experience," with flashing lights and divine encounters,
it is simply the result of the brain having unusually high levels of carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the blood, thus creating hallucinations. 4- Finally, a
fourth and more rational reason to cling to religion: People may have serious
doubts about religious metaphysical promises, but they may want to cling
to religion because it is a source of morality principles to be followed or
to be taught to children. This was the
rationale advanced by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), for keeping religious organizations. If you remember,
Immanuel Kant in his analysis of religions, came to the paradoxical
conclusion that although the philosophical foundations of established
religions were false, it was nevertheless necessary to accept them (the
religions) because they were a necessary source of morality for men. Kant also
based human morality on the supreme principle of universality of the
“categorical imperative” “Act only on that maxim by
which you can at the same time want it to be a universal law”. Principles of ethics must be acceptable
as being universal. If they are not, they are not acceptable. Modern ethics
is based on democratic rule, on tolerance, on freedom of thought and
expression, and on equality between men and women. Many organized religions,
sad to say, are still prisoners of century-old biases and reject these most
fundamental democratic and humanist principles. Many religion-based ethical
principles are not universal and are thus unacceptable. That is why,
personally, I prefer to reverse Immanuel Kant's position on religion,
at least as far as ethics is concerned. —I am in agreement with Kant
that religions are usually based on false and irrational beliefs and myths.
However, unlike Kant, who lived in the eighteenth century, my analysis of
religion-based codes of ethics has led me to the conclusion that they are
either fundamentally deficient and inadequate, or at the very least very
incomplete, for a humanity which must live and survive in the new globalizing
context. My analysis leads
me to the conclusion is that organized religions, far from being a reliable
source of moral values, are rather, in many senses, a moral threat to
humankind. In fact, institutionalized religions are a flawed source of
morality essentially because: 1-they tend to generate conflicts, as well
as to create a god-ordered incentive to kill and maim others; 2- they promote
bigotry and exclusion; 3- they promote
moral dualism between the state and the individual; 4- they promote
anthropomorphism with the wrong idea regarding man's true place in the
Universe; 5- they rely on
intimidation through inventions like Hell; 6- and because
they draw a non-scientific and arbitrary separation between the physiological
and intellectual functions of the human body. From this series
of errors flows a variety of adverse consequences for the organization of
human affairs. Therefore, my first conclusion is that there could be many
good reasons to follow a particular religion, but, on the whole, organized religions are not the
key to moral behavior or to self improvement. There are better ways. And that's
here where universal humanism can play a useful role and provide a useful and
superior moral substitute. Humanism is at a somewhat disadvantage because it
cannot make in good faith the promise of eternal life with a reward of an
infinite value (or of a punishment of infinite severity). It can, on the
other hand, provide a better moral code to humanity and it can provide
assistance to people in need. Therefore,
cleaning the intellectual table, as far as the religious metaphysical
propositions are concerned, is not enough if one's purpose is to contribute
to liberate people's mind. A simple defense of atheism is not sufficient to
persuade many people that religions are not useful. Besides,
“atheism” has two fundamental defects: It is a negative term and
it is a religious term. That is why I personally rarely use the term.
Besides, it has acquired over time the unjust connotation of a lack of
morality. I give this
example of American evangelist Billy Graham's trick to defame atheism as
being a selfish proposition when he says that “those who reject God
want to escape moral restraint and want to pursue desperate lives of
sin.” Talk about inanity! Of course, this is a complete falsehood since
study after study show that people who live outside of established religions
are, on average, more moral than religious people. V- More
Fundamental Problems with Religion-based Morality There are two
additional problems with religion-based morality. -First and
foremost, we can say that the foundations of religion-based morality are in
direct conflict with the scientific knowledge developed over the last four
centuries. Indeed, humans' vision of themselves in the Universe has been forever
altered by three fundamental scientific breakthroughs: - Galileo's
proof, in 1632, that the
Earth and humans were not the center of the Universe, as so-called holy books
have asserted. - Darwin's
discovery, in 1859,
(“On the Origin of Species”) that humans are not some unique
god-like creatures among all species, destined to live forever, but are
rather the outcome of a very long natural biological evolution, having
evolved from other forms of life. - The
Watson-Crick-Wilkins-Franklin's discovery, in 1953, of the structure of the double helix DNA
molecule (Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid) in each of the 46 chromosomes in human
cells, and the devastating knowledge that humans share more than 95 percent
of their genes with chimpanzees. I would add,
also, that ongoing research about how the human brain functions has cast new
light on how some phenomena, such as different kinds of thoughts, including
religious thoughts, are generated in different zones of the brain, an
indication that all psychic phenomena have their origin in the brain. Therefore,
nobody can assert anymore that the Earth is the center of the Universe;
nobody can claim that humans are unique in the scale of things; nobody can
maintain that the human body and the human mind are two unrelated entities. This knowledge
has tremendous consequences for our moral stance. The ideas of afterlife
rewards or punishments, of the existence of a paradise or a hell in some
extraterrestrial world, and the myth of so-called “chosen” people
or races, are pretty much negated by this new scientific knowledge. And such
knowledge cannot be ignored under the pretext that science and religion
belong to two different worlds. They are both an integral part of the human
experience and they must be reconciled. -A second important
problem with religion-based morality is that its precepts, as presented in
so-called “holy” books are at best very ambiguous, and at worst,
they can be fundamentally very immoral. As summarized
by Jose Saramago, the Portuguese laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, in the case of the Hebrew and
Christian Bible: "The Bible is a manual of bad morals [which] has a powerful influence on
our culture and even our way of life...It is a catalog of cruelty and of what's worst
in human nature. Without the Bible, we would be different and probably
better people.” VI- A Superior
Humanism-based Morality But, we may
ask, what are the universal values that a majority of people living in
Western democracies adhere to? As a matter of fact, those are basically
universal humanist values. The
contradiction between modern problems, new scientific knowledge and the
inadequacy of our prevalent source of morality or of ethics, which are mainly
religion-based, has led me to write a book, “The Code for GLOBAL
ETHICS, Ten Humanist Principles”, [ISBN: 978-1616141721] prefaced by
Dr. Paul Kurtz and published this year by Prometheus Books. In this book,
I ask a certain number of fundamental questions, such as: Why do we have this
uneasy feeling that the world is less moral than it should be? In fact, can
we not talk of a moral bankruptcy at the highest levels of our societies,
both in politics and in business? Or, again, why
is it that the resurgence of religions, especially the three Abrahamic and
proselytist religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) seems to have
coincided with a drop in basic human morality at a time when global solutions
to global problems are more acute than ever? Would the world be a better
place if we adhered to universal humanist principles? And, what can be done
realistically to bring about a humanist civilization? In general,
when religions of all stripes cease to be instruments of personal
spirituality and experience and morph into politicized and state systems,
they lose much of their overall usefulness. Indeed, there is a huge gap
between religion as a system, and individual spirituality and morality. Religious
fundamentalism and rigidly pyramidal religions—not the least is the
example of the Abrahamic religions—necessarily lock individuals in a
dehumanizing intellectual and moral straitjacket. Clinging to outdated dogma
or to deficient moral rules is of no help in developing one's personal
spirituality, or a modern morality for that matter. This has led
me to ask what humanism can offer as moral principles or as a moral code that
would be more attuned to our current global problems, as compared to what
traditional organized religions have to offer with their so-called holy
books, written millenia ago when societies were smaller, were family- or
tribe-oriented, and agricultural. In essence, I am
asking what would be a truly humanist civilization based on fundamental
humanist values? And, if, as I think, humanist values are superior to any
other type, why is it that the world seems to be moving presently from
humanism to embrace dangerous absolutist religious worldviews? VII- A Humanist Civilization
Let me answer
the first question about what a humanist civilization would look like. In essence, in
such a humanist civilization, • All
human beings would be equal in dignity and in human rights. • Life on
this planet would not be devalued and seen as only a preparation for a better
life after death, somewhere beyond the clouds. • The
virtues of tolerance and of human liberty would be proclaimed and applied,
subject only to the requirements of public order. • Human
solidarity and sharing would be better accepted as a protection against
poverty and deprivation. • The
manipulation and domination of others through lies, propaganda, and
exploitation schemes of all kinds would be less prevalent. • There
would be less reliance on superstition and religion to understand the
Universe and to solve life's problems and more on reason, logic and science. • Better
care of the Earth's natural environment—land, soil, water, air and
space—would be taken in order to bequeath a brighter heritage to future
generations. • We
would have ended the primitive practice of resorting to violence or to wars
to resolve differences and conflicts. • There
would be more genuine democracy in the organization of public affairs,
according to individual freedom and responsibility. •
Governments would see that their first and most important task is to help
develop children's intelligence and talents through education. First and
foremost, the scope of human empathy would be universal and global and not
limited to some chosen people, to the members of some religion or to some
civilizations. To reach such a moral
stage, in practice, would require that we move to a higher level of human
morality that stands above the traditional or standard Golden Rule (“Treat others as you would
have others treat you.”) that one finds in all moral codes. We would adopt instead what I
call a Super Golden Rule
of humanist morality that incorporates the humanist rule of empathy:
"Not only do to others as you would have them do to you, but also, do to
others what you would wish to be done to you, if you were in their
place." — Of course,
the corollary also follows: “Don't do to others what you would not
like to be done to you, if you were in their place.” [This is a far cry from the implicit
rule that former President George W. Bush seems to have been following while
in power: "Do unto others before they do unto you!"] This is a
general moral principle, which requires that we judge whether an act is moral
or not as if we did
not know in advance if it would apply to us or to others. This is a concept
that is analogous to John Rawls' famous “veil of ignorance” for
distributive justice. Thus, racism is wrong because you would not want people to treat
you badly if you were of another race; sexism is wrong because you would not want to be treated
disrespectfully if you were of another sex; torture is wrong because you would not want to
be tortured, etc. As can be seen,
humanist ethics goes beyond the natural Golden Rule of human morality which stipulates that
each one of us should attempt to treat others as we would have others treat
us. Indeed, the Super Golden Rule of humanist morality that I develop in detail in the book (see
chap. 3) is the very foundation of universal humanist ethics. VIII-
Different Ways to View the Humanist Rules
—There are
many ways to divide the humanist rules of global ethics. A first approach is
to divide them between individual and collective rules. For example, we can
say that humanist rules #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 apply principally to individuals,
while humanist rules #1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 apply primarily to human societies or
collectivities. —A second
approach is to divide humanist rules between what I would call the basic
natural morality rules (not to kill, not to steal, not to lie, and to share
in a spirit of justice and fairness) that can be found in most moral codes
and that apply primarily to individuals. Such natural morality is our blood,
in our genes, as surviving members of the human species through a very long
process of evolution. They appear here in rules #2, 4 and 5. —However,
other important humanist rules for private and public morality belong to what
I would called a more advanced morality code and they must be learned.
Because, in general, they do not come naturally, such more advanced rules of
ethics have to be learned through education and persuasion, as they can be
deducted from historical experience, reason, judgment and scientific
knowledge. Such is the rule
of the inherent dignity and equality of human beings, whatever their race or
sex (rule #1). For example, it is fair to say that the principle of equality
between men and women is far from being accepted all over the world. In fact,
most religions de facto
refuse this principle. —The other
great humanist principles, such as the requirement of tolerance (rule #3),
the rejection of superstitions that come essentially from ignorance (rule
#6), the need to leave to future generations a clean environment (rule #7),
the outlawing of wars of aggression and of wars of conquest (rule #8), or the
proclamation of the human value of democracy (rule #9) and the human value of
education for all (rule #10) are not necessarily inscribed in nature. For example,
dictatorship or aristocratic rule can come as naturally, or even more
naturally, as democracy. After all, the law of the jungle and the rule that
“might makes right” do exist. Indeed, when one applies the general humanist
empathy principle, one recognizes that one's own rights and needs are also
everyone else's rights and needs.[2]
The general humanist empathy principle is the foundation for the rule of
tolerance in our complex and pluralistic world. As such, the fundamental
right of freedom of conscience means that people have a right to their own
thoughts, their own beliefs, their own philosophy, and their own religion.
The only requirements for social peace are double: First, people should not
impose these beliefs on others and should not use these beliefs to foster
violence and intolerance toward others in a way that perturbs public order or
in a way that negates constitutional rights and, secondly, the state should
remain neutral in matters of religion and beliefs. —Fanaticism,
extremism, and proselytism are the opposite of tolerance, trust, and
open-minded attitudes in human relations. IX-
Religion-based Morality vs Humanist Morality Some religions
are in denial, partly or totally, of most of the basic humanist principles. - Rule #
1 about dignity and
equality: Many religions deny that man and woman are equal, either in
principle or de facto, and they have accepted for centuries the practice of
slavery. - Rule #
2 about respect for
human life as primordial human property: Some religions consider life as a
privilege bestowed by deities and not as a fundamental human right. This error
comes from the religious premise that political power come from deities and
not from people and that god-appointed leaders can take the life of people as
they wish. Rule # 3
The value of tolerance
is often denied by some
religions under the pretext that an absolute moral authority must rule the
world. It is a
fact that some religiously oriented people think that humanist
"tolerance" reflects a rejection of any absolute moral principles.
Of course, this is wrong. This is a sad caricature. - Rule # 4 The requirement of sharing can be found in both
humanist and religious ethics. However, most religions prefer to rely on
private charity, which is proven in most cases to be insufficient, while
humanist ethics relies on both private and public sharing. - Rule # 5 Most organized religions only pay lip
service to the requirement of non domination, since their power rests on the
domination of people's mind. - Rule # 6
Of course, reliance on
fear and superstitions is essential to organized religions while humanism
reject it. - Rule # 7 Respect for the environment can
conceivably be part of religion-based ethics. However, by placing humans at
the center of “Creation” and by negating the scientific reality
of human evolution, some organized religions indirectly provide solace to the
deprecation of the natural environment. - Rule # 8
The religious approach
to wars and conflicts is wrought in contradictions, especially among the
so-called “imperial” abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity
and Islam). Such imperial religions became over time “state
religions”, a status that forced them to condone all kinds of state
violence, including so-called wars of religion (“my god is stronger
than your god”!). - Rule # 9
Most organized religons
are hierachical organizations that see democracy with suspicion, refusing the
democratic principle that power comes from the consent of the people and
rather pretending that such power over humans comes from deities. - Rule #
10 Historically,
organized religions have played a central role in educating children.
However, some of them have placed the educational emphasis on teaching
children to memorize and recite byh rot so-called holy books, at the expense
of more useful scientific knowledge. X- The Current
Civilization is a Far Cry from being Humanist Obviously, we do
not presently live in a humanist civilization. For example,
after World War II and the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945 and
the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949, it was
hoped that a humanist civilization could replace political totalitarianism
and the savagery of the world wars waged during the first part of the
twentieth century. The persistence of wars and genocides indicates that this
has not been the case. The disappearance
of fascism and communism seems to have been replaced by a new form of
war-proned corporatocracy or of corpocracy, i.e. a form of
government where large business corporations, banks,
conglomerates,
and government-sponsored enterprises control
the electoral process, the media, the courts and the government of a country.
Such a system could also be called plutocracy, which is a form of fascism. General
conclusion As we see,
humanist morality goes much further than raising the question of human moral
perfectibility or even asking if human nature is evolving too slowly. It's
obvious that there is a gulf between the idealism of utopian perfection and
the human reality of greed and cruelty that surrounds us. Nobody denies that.
But, even if we accept that human moral evolution is necessarily a very slow
process, this does not mean that we should not attempt to develop better
moral codes to guide human actions and interactions, along with appropriate
institutions. And for that, the humanist ethical code would seem to be the
best that humanity could adhere to. |
[1] Blaise Pascal argued that if reason cannot be trusted, it is a better "wager" to believe in God than not to do so
[2] According to
Immanuel Kant, a good moral rule should satisfy the condition of
universalisability, that is to say that it could consistently be willed as a
law that everyone ought to obey. The Humanist Super Golden
Rule meets this criterion.