Atheism in a Humanist Civilization
(The Code for Global Ethics)
Complete Text

October 2^nd, 2010, Montreal, AAI-HC Convention

Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay,
Emeritus professor, University of Montreal
Ph.D. Stanford University
Former president of the North American Economics and Finance Association
Author of “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, 2010
[Prometheus Books, ISBN: 978-1616141721]

Back to the main page of Rodrigue Tremblay

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works... They [religious people] made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible.”

Stephen W. Hawking (1942- ), British theoretical physicist

“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 (1922-2010), 1998 Nobel Prize for Literature winner

“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

“Religion, comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere else but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.”

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
Austrian philosopher and founder of psychanalysis

“The essential element of religious knowledge from an evolutionary perspective is not theology, but the practice of rules of moral, military and reproductive behavior, the distilled collective wisdom of leaders past and present, as to the guiding principles likely to ensure society’s survival… Beyond its role in strengthening the social fabric, religion exerts a cultural influence that has in effect become a defining factor of the world’s major civilizations.”

Nicholas Wade
(The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolves and Why it Endures)

Summary

We live in troubled times. It seems that the moral environment is deteriorating at a moment when problems are becoming increasingly serious and global in nature and when religious sentiment seems to be on the rise in some countries, especially in the United States, which happens to be the most heavily armed country in the world.

Political corruption, abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law, unchecked greed, fraud and deception in the economic sphere, severe economic crises, social inequalities, intolerance toward individual choices, sex scandals in religious organizations, the disregard for environmental problems by many, the rise of religious absolutism, the return of wars of aggression (or of pre-emptive wars) and of blind terrorism are all indicators that human civilization is suffering badly.

What can humanism contribute in terms of ideas, words and principles to avoid going back to an age of obscurantism? In particular, what should the scope of human empathy be in an age of globalisation? —What are the universal humanist principles of ethics and why are they not more widely accepted and applied? Why can they be shown to be superior to any religion-based ethical principles? —Finally, what can we do to bring about a more humanist civilization?

I- Preamble on the History of Quebec and the Importance of Religion in Politics

During one hundred years, Quebec experienced a political system of creeping theocracy. This period, from 1840 to 1940, is called the Great Darkness. It followed the failed revolt of 1837-1839 against the British occupation, during which the Catholic Church took de facto control of everything that was important in the collective social life in Quebec, with the exception of the economy and of central politics: Education (while at the same time being opposed to compulsory education), hospitals, orphanages, charitable institutions or rehabilitation institutions and hospitals, etc.

In order to be in the good graces of the British Empire, the leaders of the Catholic church of the time rushed to excommunicate the patriotic leaders of the insurgency. Their clear purpose was to replace those civil leaders in the remnants of whatever the foreign occupant would concede to them in terms of autonomous political life.

Our native bishops were faithful servants of two foreign empires: the British Empire, which militarily occupied Quebec and the Roman Catholic Empire to whom they owed their primary allegiance.

The religious theory of politics at the time was that political power came from God and that royal or imperial authorities were its rightful owners. The people had no right to self-government.

Thus, on July 25, 1837, Bishop Jean-Jacques Lartigue (1777-1839), first bishop of Montreal, said the following regarding the Patriots: “It is never permissible to rebel against the legitimate authority, or violate any laws of the country ... it (is not) permissible to rebel against the government under which we are fortunate to live ...”. For him, “the royal authority comes from God.” —That's it. And God loves kings and queens! This explains why he hastened to excommunicate the Patriots after their defeat. Twelve of them were hanged, adding insult to injury.

But political power was not the exclusive domain of the British occupation. The Catholic Church and the Canadian Catholic hierarchy claimed for themselves a significant part of secular political power.

Bishop Louis-François Laflèche (1818-1898), the right arm of Bishop Ignace Bourget (1799-1885) was among the first to say that French-Canadians (the Quebecers of the time) form a Catholic nation, that they have a providential mission to fulfill, and that therefore they owe their bishops—leaders by divine right of society—a most absolute submission, both in spiritual and in temporal matters. This, of course, under the tutelage of the military occupiers.

II- Religion in Contemporary United States

And even today also, there are some American politicians and evangelists who openly call for the United States to become a latent theocratic society (contrary to the U.S. Constitution) just as Quebec was in the 19th Century. Just consider what an American Vice-president said in 1988:

“I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

George H. Bush, August 27, 1988
(declaration contrary to Article VI, section iii of the U. S. Constitution: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”)

Differences between Canada, the U.K. and the United States regarding scientific knowledge.

In July 2010, Angus Reid Public Opinion released the results of a poll conducted last year (2009) that asked Americans, Canadians, and Britons which of two statements comes closest to their views on the origins and development of human beings.

Here are the results in a summary:

And here are the U.S. results broken down by region:

Source: “Americans are Creationists; Britons and Canadians Side with Evolution”, Angus Reid Public Opinion, 2010

In general, the younger people are and the more educated, the more they accept the scientific consensus about evolution. Conversely, the older people are and the less educated, the more they tend to agree with the creationist legend.

III- Weaknesses of Organized Religions

Over the past decade, many authors have demonstrated the irrational and even destructive features of religion, of which there are some 1,250 denominations or sects according to some statisticians, and over 4,000 according to others. Therefore, many thanks go to Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Onfray and others for their wits and their courage for speaking out about religions, and for exposing the emptiness of religious thought.

But this is not enough. More is needed and this for two reasons.

Like anything else that belongs to the realm of feelings and emotion, rather than reason, facts and abstract arguments often fail to change minds. In fact, they can produce the opposite effect: Show someone that his or her beliefs are false, and he or she may cling to them even more closely. Scientific experiments have shown such a psychological reality for many individuals.

For example, in a series of studies done in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. On the contrary, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs.

Especially in the religious sphere, but also in politics, facts don’t necessarily have the power to change minds. Often, this is quite the opposite. In such a context, rational arguments demonstrating the fallacies of certain beliefs are unlikely to influence many people.

Personally, I rarely use the religious term “atheism” as such in my most recent books. I prefer to raise the issue in rather general terms as a secular and independent humanist, while stressing the negative personal and social consequences of established religions, today of course, but also throughout history.

For example, in “The CODE for Global Ethics” (Prometheus, 2010), I raise a number of fundamental criticisms against established religions and their founding texts, with an emphasis on the failings of the three so-called Abrahamic religions, i.e. Judaism (Torah), Christianity (the Bible) and Islam (the Koran).

Basically, I criticize these three major religions for being in direct conflict with the scientific knowledge developed over the last four centuries. Indeed, the vision that people had of themselves about their place in the universe was forever turned upside down 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 have eternal life, 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 98 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.

Nevertheless, these powerful organized religions continue to profess that:

1. human beings have been placed at the center of the universe by mysterious divine forces, some 6,000 years ago (a scientific error);
2. the human mind is an entity that is independent of the human body (such a distinction has no scientific basis);
3. it is permissible to persecute and even kill members of other religions or people who have other philosophies, in certain circumstances, based on the myth of so-called superior races or “chosen people”;
4. there is one ethics for individuals as individuals and another for persons who happen to be heads of state;
5. and people should base their behavior on the fear of eternal punishment in a kind of extraterrestrial “Hell”. (This ideology of hell, because of the hate and exclusion that it engendered against the “others”, has been a major cause of numerous persecutions, religious wars and even genocides throughout human history.)

Let us say that religious faith in things without evidence makes fools of men.

That is why, because of all these errors, I prefer to reverse Immanuel Kant's position on religion, at least as far as ethics is concerned. For him, religious morality was the rationale that he advanced for keeping religious organizations. If you remember, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) 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.

I am in agreement with Kant that many religions propose 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.

Thus my first conclusion is that organized religions, far from being a reliable source of moral values, are rather, in many senses, a moral threat to humankind.

IV- The strength of organized religions: Do not underestimate the practical attraction of religion

Nature does not tolerate a vacuum. Indeed, we must recognize that religions have played an important if not central role in human evolution, and they continue to provide a host of important social and personal services to their adherents.

Therefore, it is important to realize that the reasons that motivate people to adhere to organized religions are not primarily theological but rather very practical and down-to-earth. I would say that organized religions are useful in the minds of some people, for at least four reasons:

1. They are useful, first and foremost, for an emotional and social reason, because people have a natural instinct 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 and 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. Thus, one big contribution of churches, temples and mosques is the building of a community and the offer of rites of all sorts.
   
   That is why for political leaders, religions have served very often as political tools to bring a needed cohesion and unity within their realm. They have been and they are still an important factor of community integration. That is also the reason why, in the past, political leaders doubled up as religious leaders. Political leaders receive legitimacy and support from organized religion.
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 an active member of an organized religion is to receive concrete social services and assistance, at a low cost, including rites of passage at birth or at death.
   
   When the government is corrupt or nearly absent, some organized religions can become de facto governments in themselves by providing education, health care or social assistance. These are tangible benefits. This has nothing to do with an idyllic 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.
3. A third reason that attracts people to organized religions is more emotional, and it is their promise, for some, of an afterlife. This is very easy to understand. Unless new research on other mammals reveals otherwise, homo sapiens seems to be the only species whose members know they are going to die. Thus, it is understandable that there is a demand for any form of drug that can help 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 human brain has a lot of problems, 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 probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind. Therefore, even though all religions, in my opinion, are peddlers of snake oil, they still have a bright future among the poorly educated of this world.
4. Finally, as I mentioned before, a fourth and more rational reason to cling to religion is related to ethics and morality. While some people may have serious doubts about religious metaphysical promises, they may still want to adhere to a religion because it is a source of principles of morality to be followed or to be taught to children.
   
   It is this fourth contribution of religions that I tackle in my book. In terms of ethics and morality, at least, I think there are superior alternatives beyond anything that the established religions can provide.
   
   On this last point, humanists have long argued that morality is a purely human concern and must be conceived independently of religious beliefs and dogmas. This does not eliminate the harsh reality of death, nor the obligation of governments to be competent in social affairs, nor the need for humanitarian organizations to celebrate the events of life. However, at least in terms of ethics, humanism is a superior alternative to anything that organized religions can offer.

V- A Superior Human Civilization

All of this led me, first, to wondering what a truly humanistic civilization would be, based on humanistic values and not on religious creeds? And if, as I think these humanist values are superior to any other moral system, why doesn't the world adopt basic humanist principles but instead seems to be moving presently away from humanism to embrace dangerous absolutist religious worldviews?

Let me answer the first question about what a humanist civilization would look like.

First and foremost, the scope of human empathy would be more universal and more comprehensive, and would not merely apply to some chosen people, to members of a particular religion or to persons belonging to a particular civilization.

In practice, this would require that we establish a higher threshold of human morality, beyond the traditional norm of the Golden Rule (“Treat others as you would have others treat you.”) It would require that we adopt 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. Such a concept 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.

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 merely 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 and the rule of law.
• 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 and parents would see that their first and most important task is to help develop children's intelligence and talents through education.

As we can see, we do not currently live in a humanist civilization. The question is why?

After World War II and the adoption of the UN Charter and the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it was widely believed that a more humanist civilization could replace political totalitarianism and the brutal wars that characterized the first part of the 20th century. We know today that this was not going to be the case, because wars of aggression and genocides have continued as if nothing had happened.

The old forms of fascism and of communism are less prevalent, but they seem to have been replaced by a new form of corporatocracy or corpocracy, in other words a form of shadow government where the CEOs of large companies, banks, conglomerates and other concerns take effective control of the electoral process, of the media, and even of the courts and of the governments. One could also describe this kind of system as a form of plutocracy, which is in itself a new form of fascism.

VI- Conclusion

I think that atheism as a denial of supernatural fables has a place in our societies. However, religious organizations are much more than sellers of serotonin to calm the anxiety of death. If they are to be replaced over time, and I think that on the whole they present a net negative influence on the evolution of our societies and of that of all humankind, a replacement must be found. Among other things, other institutions must provide the concrete services presently the realm of organized religions. In any case, in terms of ethics and morality, it is my contention that humanism is a much superior substitute for what they can offer.

XHTML CSS