Posted by Jason on: 07.28.2008 /
Last week I wrote about false assumptions and how Christians suffered in the past because of them just as atheists suffer today. Atheism doesn’t have a philosophy or principles to counter these false assumptions any more than it has a philosophy or principles to deserve them. Secular humanism does put forward a set of positive traits and promotes a world view. These are:
The first one I wish to discuss is the need to test beliefs.
Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
I want to point out that this isn’t a rejection of faith but it is a willingness to examine our beliefs. Secular says nothing about God, god(s) or the beliefs or lack thereof that people hold about them. Atheistic denotes an actual position being taken (no positive belief in god). A secular humanist with a religious belief can focus on the human aspects of living without rejecting their god. Faith and secular humanism are not mutually exclusive but I think it is still rare to find a religious secular humanist or at least a person who takes on both labels for themself.
Buddha wrote:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
The need to test beliefs is not the need to reject everything that is held on faith. It is a requirement to ensure that those beliefs are meaningful. They should have some basis in reason, logic, fact or function that make them worthwhile retaining.
Let’s take the life of Jesus Christ as an example, not to be contentious but to illustrate the point. Assume that you hold that Jesus lived a life as a teacher and example to man on how to live a good life. You decide to emulate the man and his actions in your own life. The actual events are not provable in the independent historical record. The miracles performed are not repeatable in the modern age. Are the lessons still valuable though? Does this way of living work? Does the philosophy of helping others and personal sacrifice that Jesus personified make for a happier and more fulfilling life? I think that even the non-religious could agree with these points in a general way.
On the subject of religions though lets take a specific Christian ritual and test it in accordance with the first tenet of secular humanism. Something that has recently been mentioned in atheist blogs is the issue of the communion wafer representing the flesh of Christ in Roman Catholic ritual. What purpose does this serve? A Roman Catholic might tell you that it is a literal transubstantiation and that by taking bread and wine as the flesh and blood of Christ they are bringing themselves closer to the divine. For me the issue of transubstantiation is purely one of faith. The bread is not literally divine flesh, I could test it to determine this if I wished. Is it spiritually divine flesh? I see nothing to indicate that it is or that it isn’t so I must reserve judgment until proof is provided or reject the idea based on what I do know.
What benefit does the transubstantiation ritual provide? For the faithful it is a way of drawing the group together in something that is shared only between them. It fosters ties within the religious community. It also marks them as separate from other factions of Christianity and other faiths. This could well lead to divisions within disparate communities. Indeed it has. The same could well be said of any other ritual from Sunday service to morning prayer, from the Bah-Mitzvah to the ritual ablutions of the Bahá’í Faith
As human beings we learn things as we grow. We take what works and pass it on. Sometimes a lesson that is passed on does not keep the reason with it. An example might be the avoidance of pork in Jewish and Islamic religions. Pork spoils easily and contains a number of parasites that can be passed to humans. Avoiding this meat may make a lot of sense to a people who live in a hot country with poor sanitation and methods of long term food storage. Does it make sense today with modern refrigerators, relatively clean meat processing plants and more hygienic storage of food? The religious restriction remains, independent of the food hygiene issue. Perhaps it didn’t arise from that or perhaps society moved on and the lesson remained behind.
It is important to take stock and reassess the things that we have learnt or discovered in order to ensure that we haven’t got them wrong. I should point out that this obviously includes the assumption of atheism as well as religion. Are my views on religion appropriate given what I know about the world, history, philosophy and science? Have I been introduced to new information or a new way of looking at current information since taking on the label of atheist? Do my views still remain valid given this new information? In all honesty I can say that they do, although my views on religion have changed considerably in the last few years. There are some interpretations and rituals that I view as horribly destructive or socially repressive but there are equally some that I see as positive and worth retaining in a secular life.
Finally the tenet states that it is the individual who must test and assess a conviction. We all have our own criteria for belief. Some of us require hard evidence, some accept witness testimony, others believe second hand evidence or viable theories, others still place value on workable ideas and axioms even when they can never be proven. I think most of us take a mixed approach to ideas and the burden of proof. That’s why we must all make up our own minds about what is true and what is false.
That’s my take on the first tenet. Hopefully I’ll write about the second tenet next week.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Mike O
1 07/28/08 10:26 AM | Comment Link |Nicely put!
I take issue with a couple of *minor* points, but speaking as a Christian, I think we (christians) need to test our beliefs more and not blindly accepting what we’re taught as truth. Before all the believers cry “HERESY!” however, I don’t think you need to constantly question every detail all the day long. By that, I mean you don’t need to assume incorrectness to question correctness.
For example, the transubstantiation example. I happen to believe the communion ritual is a ritual that believers should take part in because of it’s purpose of remembering what Christ did for us. I do not, however, believe that it becomes the actual body and blood of Christ when I take it.
Let’s say I decide to question that belief - perhaps it does become the actual divine flesh and blood. I don’t have to reject my current position to consider the new one - I can just consider the new one. And in this example, I don’t personally see anything in Scripture that mandates one belief over another. And in my own prayer life, I don’t sense any spiritual feeling/inclination that I am wrong when I honestly ask the question to God in prayer. In this example, in my case, I walk away believing I am right, but open to the idea that I am not.
I take *minor* issue with this quote because it assumes people have the ability to be objective about their own beliefs, which we typically don’t. Our “common sense” will tend to lead us down whatever path we happen to be on, right or wrong. Good men and bad alike can use this principal to justify what they’ve already decided is correct. It provides no corrective measures.
On the other hand, I actually use this sort of principal when trying to discern truth within the Christian community. For example, if someone comes to me and said they believed God wanted me to do something, I would weigh their words against my own inclination of what God wants me to do. I would do my best to seriously consider that they are correct, but if there seems to be any dissonance, I will follow my own gut/spirit. As a general rule, I try to maintain a good “speaking terms” relationship with Jesus myself. Given that He and I are already talking, if someone else comes to me and tells me God is telling them something different than he told me when I was talking to Him, I would assume they are incorrect. But I would consider it.
To that end, I believe Buddha’s proverb can be useful, but only if one is truly open to the idea that they could be wrong.
But with all that said, the need to test beliefs is something Christians could stand to do more. I’ve been doing it and finding them to be sound. I’ve modified some over time, but the core tenets of what I believe have remained sure. I believe my faith is stronger because I’ve questioned and tested it.
Comment by: Jason
2 07/28/08 4:29 PM | Comment Link |Mike said:
What a great example of testing your belief. You are quite right in that you don’t have to reject a belief to test it, only if it fails your test.
On the Buddha quote, I think it is more to encourage people to question and to think about the grounds for their beliefs than to maintain a consistent, objective view of their own lives. Of course that is the ideal from a Buddhist viewpoint but neither of us are Buddhists. Not that either of us are closed to the idea of testing and actually being wrong.
That is precisely one benefit of testing a belief. By examining it you eliminate the lingering doubts that your view isn’t sound. You adapt your view to fit the facts rather than obfuscate the facts to fit your view.
Comment by: Mike O
3 07/28/08 6:21 PM | Comment Link |Preach it, brother! I use this quote all the time at work, but it fits in matters of faith, too - “Reality is a factor.”
Comment by: Secular Humanist Tenets Part 5 - This Life | All Reason
4 10/5/08 10:32 AM | Comment Link |[...] Need to test beliefs [...]