Jul 26, 2011
Three questions for humanists
MR PAUL Tobin rightly observes that one does not need to believe in God in order to be good ("'I've no God - and am proud of it'"; last Saturday).
We know this from our interactions with friends and relatives, and from news of prominent people in public life. And we need only look at history, past and contemporary, to observe how much harm religion can do.
Nevertheless, I do have a few issues with humanists.
First, Ms Catherine Lim says she prefers to have faith rather than a faith. But the two are not mutually exclusive. "A faith" refers to an organised religion. One can believe in God (or gods) without belonging to an organised religion. Until not so long ago, the secretary of the British Humanist Association was an Anglican priest. In the West, Christian humanism has been around for many years. So, more precisely, humanism as described in the article refers to secular humanism. Even so, it is difficult not to ascribe the values of humanism to its religious roots.
Many of the values of Western humanism can trace their roots to Christianity. Secular humanists may say these values would have been dominant anyway, since they have proven to be the most adaptive for human survival and religion has only been the vehicle through which such values have been transmitted. This may be true, but in itself is not an argument against the existence of God.
Another member says he will let science rather than religion lead his thinking. This is fine so long as we do not go into the science versus religion debate. This is a false dichotomy. As astrophysicist Paul Davies reminds us, science describes the "how" while religion answers the "why".
The history of science is peopled by God-believing scientists. Indeed, the first person to postulate the Big Bang was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. Another Catholic priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, took the evolutionary theory on a radical path. Not so many years ago, Pope John Paul II pronounced the theory of evolution to be more than a theory. And we know that the person who headed the genome project, Dr Francis Collins, is a staunch Christian.
How do secular humanists respond to the following questions:
- Why is there something rather than nothing?
- If matter is all there is, how can specks of dust (matter) combine to produce a human being with consciousness (non-matter)? Astronomer Carl Sagan's standard response ("billions of years") is unhelpful.
- If matter is all there is and thoughts are a product of a chemical reaction in the brain in response to stimuli, then there is no free will, including the freedom of thought.
Every thought we have is an inevitable response in accordance with set natural laws. In other words, we cannot help thinking what we think. In that case, how can we believe anything, since the thinking is "done" for us?
How then can we trust what we believe, including the belief in no God?
Every thought we have is an inevitable response in accordance with set natural laws. In other words, we cannot help thinking what we think. In that case, how can we believe anything, since the thinking is "done" for us?
How then can we trust what we believe, including the belief in no God?
Eugene Tan
No comments:
Post a Comment