How to Get Rid of Religion
Content
HOW TO GET RID OF RELIGION, AND WHY
Floris van den Berg
Director, Center for Inquiry Low Countries Lecture to the Ethical Society, 19 January 2009 [email protected] The full version of this talk is available at: http://verlichtingshumanisten.web-log.nl I: Beyond the New Atheism It is time to take up the project of the radical Enlightenment and try to liberate humankind of ignorance, unreason and superstition, some of which have been institutionalized as religions. It is time - it always was - to stop treating religion with respect, as if it is something precious. Patients are precious, not their illnesses. In recent years a plethora of books about and against religion have been published, called the New Atheism. However, the most important question about religion is neglected in public discourse, even in the wave of books about and against religion: How to get rid of religion? If religion has been diagnosed as something bad - which is the case - then it is time to move forward and find liberal ways to become free from religion. The New Atheism books, most notably Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great and Sam Harris' The End of Faith have diagnosed religion, including contemporary religion, as an illness. It is overwhelmingly clear that the truth claims of religion are either false or meaningless. Not one single argument
for a transcendental being or realm has stood the test of critical inquiry. It is time to find a cure. My talk is a help to find strategies to liberate humankind of religion. I am proposing a strong secularism. II: Moral and Epistemological Atheism There are two major reasons why the disappearance of religion would make the world a better place. In the first place, religion is false. Religious claims about the nature of reality can and are an obstacle to free (scientific) inquiry. This could be called epistemological atheism. The second objection to religion is moral. I am primarily a moral atheist. Moral atheism is concerned with religion because religion often is an obstacle for individual freedom, choice and self-determination. If religion were relatively innocent, like the belief in flying saucers, I personally would not be much interested in it. If religion - though false - had positive influence on individual liberty, social justice, sustainability and animal welfare - I would not bother to criticize and scrutinize religious beliefs too much. As it is, I am not convinced of the blessings of religion. Religion seems to be a malignant virus, which on balance causes more harm than good. All books of the New Atheism linger on the evil aspects of religion. Religion is not the root of all evil, but of much human-made evil and misery. Religion can reinforce evil. III: Religion, Culture & Traditions Apologists of religion will respond to accusations of the evils of (their) religion with: `(my) religion is good; those who have done evil deeds in the name of religion are not real believers'. However, for an outsider, there is no difference between a real and a fake believer. If someone says `I am a Muslim/Christian etc.', then I believe hir. The criterion for belief is the believer
hirself claiming to be a believer. Any other definition of what belief is, is likely to run aground in debates between believers. For a moral atheist, it is morality that matters most, not whether or not it is religion. Any cultural practice should be morally evaluated by some standards like: 1. are there any victims (can you want to trade places?) 2. does it contribute to the wellbeing of individuals? and 3. is it true? These criteria will rule out a great many cultural practices. Many cultures do not respect individual rights, especially the rights of women. IV: No Guarantee for Utopia A cure for AIDS makes the world a better place because it would save many people from suffering and dying. However, this cure does not guarantee health, because there are many more threats to a person's health than AIDS alone. Still, a cure for AIDS is a moral good. A cure for religion makes the world a better place; it saves many people from evil and ignorance. However, this does not guarantee sanity, because there are many more threats to sanity and morality than religion alone. Still, a cure for religion is a moral good.
V: Some Strategies 1. Prevention of Religious Indoctrination `Prevention is the best cure', is a folk wisdom. Many illnesses in the western world are easily preventable illnesses, which are caused by unhealthy life styles. I argue that religion is also an unhealthy life style, for yourself, your family and others. The best way to get rid of religion is to stop imposing faith!belief/religion on children. Not only should people be free to choose or change religion, children should be free from religion. `[Faith based education] involves the indoctrination of intellectually defenseless children, and that is a form of child abuse.'
I am a secular humanist, who takes individual liberty as a core value. That limits the range of means that can be used for the cure for religion. A totalitarian dictator, like Stalin, who, for completely different reasons, wanted to get rid of religion, used totalitarian means - violence and suppression - to abolish and abandon religion. Just like liberal democracies cannot and should not use illiberal means in the `war on terror', there should not be illiberal methods used to dispense of religion. What matters most is the individual. Most people will probably frown when they read the phrase `how to get rid of religion', because it has become common to grant religion special privileges, like infusing children's minds with nonsense. Individual liberty is the core value of the (radical) Enlightenment, of liberalism, free thought and secular humanism. And if individual liberty is the core value, then why should parents, or any other guardian, have the right to impose nonsense, ignorance and sexual taboos on a child and have the right to withhold (scientific) knowledge about the world? A free flow of information, without censorship, is a necessary prerequisite for both individualism and an open society. Schools should teach about religions. What is taught about religion should be science-based. So, if children ask the teacher whether or not god exists, the teacher should give the scientific answer: `There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of god or gods'. In secondary education attention might be given to theories about the functions and origin of religion. To exclude religion as religion from the schools is not atheistic indoctrination, as religious apologists and multiculturalists commonly say. There is a fundamental difference between an open education and a closed frame of mind. What apologists and multiculturalists fail to notice is that critical inquiry excludes
many things. The goal of education is not indoctrination, but liberation; knowledge, not ignorance. Teaching scientific facts (which are fallible) and the scientific method is not indoctrination. Freedom is not slavery. True is not false. Evidence based knowledge is not faith. 2. Political Secularism: Separation of Religion and State Political secularism, or laicism, is about a separation of religion and state. Religion is a private matter, like a hobby. Religion should not be privileged in the public domain, like tax exemption for religious organizations. All existing privileges should be abolished, including religious schools. Religion has historically permeated law and gained privileges. It is time to undo this injustice. Essential for an open and free society is that its citizens have as much freedom as is compatible with the freedom of other individuals. The state is neutral in matters of religion. Religion is not a state matter, nothing that happens between (well-informed) consenting adults (who cause no harm or damage to others or the environment) is a state matter. Politicians, when in office, should not use religious arguments. State officials in a position that requires a neutral point of view should not be allowed to wear symbols of a religion or any other group or organization which distorts their neutrality (so, also no button of one's favourite soccer club). For example, law officers and judges should not be allowed to wear a cross or a necklace, nor may they wear a headscarf, yarmulke or turban. Also, a religious beard (a beard which is only grown in religious groups) should not be allowed for those public officials. In a multireligious society - as is the case in most western societies - all individuals, including religious people, benefit from a secular state and government, because believers are free to do as they please, within the bounds of the (secularized) law. In an open society all individuals are equal: believers and non believers alike.
3: Moral Secularism: A Plea for Moral Esperanto When people discuss ethical problems no religious arguments should be used, because it is a priori impossible to reach consensus if people do not share the same (religious) vocabulary. For example, in a debate about abortion, only arguments that do not refer to religion should be used. If people use the same secular discourse it is possible to reach consensus or at least agreement. Moral Esperanto is not only a means for communication between believers and non-believers. Believers from different religions would benefit as well if they refrained from using religious arguments and spoke in the moral discourse of Esperanto. A moral and political theory should be secular and not rely on religion. Atheism, or at least an exclusion of religion from the moral domain, is a prerequisite for ethics. Ethical theories, which depend on god or other kind of transcendentalism, are not true, and often immoral, when analyzed from the perspective of their victims. Secularism, a strict separation of church and state, is a necessity for liberal political philosophy, which takes as core value the freedom of each individual citizen and the free flow of information. The political argument against ethics based on religion is that without the use of repression and violence there is no way there will ever be consensus about which god and what religion is right. 4. A Policy of Determent [...] imagine if we identified children from birth as young smokers or drinking children because their parents smoked or drank! Government should have the same attitude towards religion as it has (recently) in regard to smoking: government allows the private use of tobacco for adults, but informs smokers that it is bad for their health, and government protects secondary smokers so far as possible by banning smoking in public (indoor) areas. Taxes deter
people from buying tobacco. The analogy with tobacco is partial: individuals should be allowed to wear and publicly expose (symbols of) their religion, because this is part of the right of the freedom of expression, and because this does not harm others. Of course people should not be forced to wear anything against their wish (uniforms and special requirements of course excepted - a surgeon is not free to choose not to wear a hygienic outfit). Headscarves should be forbidden in primary and secondary schools, because children should be free from religion (at least at school), and should be free and well informed to choose a religion, or none at all, when they are adults. Children should not belong to a religion, and there should not be religious ceremonies or rituals involving children, like circumcision, baptism, or catechism. Wearing a burka - any outfit that makes a person unrecognizable in public space, should not be allowed, because it is a threat to public safety. A paradox of liberalism is that it is impossible to impose freedom upon others. People should be free to be unfree - within limits though, individuals have the right to opt out. It is not allowed to submit yourself as a slave: you are allowed to play as a slave for some time, but people cannot forfeit their right to escape. Everyone can voluntarily enter communes or sects where there is little personal freedom. This is all allowed. But individuals always have the right to step out and leave. Freedom is absolute and not conditional. The liberal state, therefore, should not tolerate intolerance and be on the side of those individuals who are being coerced into doing or not doing something against their will. A liberal state can and should try to create the best possible institutions and cultural climate to foster individual freedom, autonomy and well-being. If well-informed women freely decide to wear a headscarf, this should be allowed. But of course
government should be suspicious as to whether this is a real free choice and keep attention focused on this issue. The state should be strictly secular and neutral. It is not the role of the state to try to get rid of religion. Laicism and a policy of determent are as far as the government should go. But it is the role of public intellectuals, scientists, humanist, free thinkers and their organizations to try to get rid of religion. 5. Coming Out People should speak out about being an atheist. Non-believers, non-theists, atheists, rationalists, skeptics and freethinkers have kept quiet for too long. While religious believers speak out loud and proud about their belief; nonbelievers have been polite and quiet in their defense. Outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are accused of hitting religion too hard. But that is the world turned upside down: religion makes claims about reality, prescribes social and ethical rules and evangelizes these ideas and ideals. For centuries religion had such a strong grip on social life that it was impossible to be an outspoken atheist, perhaps Spinoza, Hume and Kant were atheists in a more or less see-through disguise. Still, even today it is practically impossible for an outspoken atheist to run for office in the USA. Of course, the only reason to call oneself an atheist is because there are theists. Atheists do not say out of the blue `god does not exist', but atheists claim that none of the arguments for the existence of god(s), is true. Atheism is part of the scientific outlook, which is called naturalism. Atheists are not as well organized as believers. Most believers take their beliefs more seriously (as part of their identity) than atheists their atheism. Of course atheism is part of my identity. But I cannot say I am proud to be an atheist. I am embarrassed that
there are believers. Am I proud to be a non-believer of the Loch Ness monster, or am I proud to be a denier of the existence of UFOs or the viability of astrology? I think not. By speaking out, atheists should show that atheists are normal, and that believers are strange, weird or even mentally ill. 6: The Role of Public Intellectuals Debunking and Criticizing Religion Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology. Morality starts where religion ends. As long as there are people making nonsensical or false truth claims it is necessary to criticize them. The arguments against religion are not new, but still there are many people out there who have not, or cannot, understand the flaws of their truth claims. If atheists keep quiet because they are bored of seeing the same stupid arguments over and over again, believers will gain influence and followers. Religion is a persistent virus that lingers on. Atheists who criticize the New Atheism authors miss the point of these books. These books are not meant for outspoken atheists (though paradoxically many atheists have read New Atheism books). These books are also not meant to persuade fervent believers. These books are meant for those people who have not given much thought to religion and want to make up their minds; or believers who have an open mind. If one takes these books seriously, it is logically impossible to remain a believer. That, however, does happen, because many believers are so immune to rational scrutiny of their beliefs and practices that rational arguments do not count. But even the most arduous believers do have some rudiments of rational behaviour. Most believers use modem technology, which is based on science and rationalism. Believers have somehow managed to
compartmentalize their minds. Liberal believers just have a smaller `religion compartment' than fundamentalists, or none at all. Public intellectuals should continuously and politely campaign against religion. No more flirting with religion, but embracing the ideals of the Enlightenment. Flirting with religion is a danse macabre. 7: Positive Atheism, Individualism and Secular Humanism Secular humanism rejects supernatural accounts of reality; but it seeks to optimize the fullness of human life in a naturalistic universe. It is not true that criticizing religion is `only negative' and not constructive. No one will say of a doctor that s/he is not being constructive because s/he focuses on the negative. A doctor tries to cure illnesses and injuries. Medical science develops better treatment and medicine. Likewise public intellectuals should try to cure ignorance, unreason and religion in public discourse. Atheism can be more than liberating people from the fetters of religion. Positive atheism, individualism and (secular) humanism have a positive outlook and philosophy. Individualism takes as the core value of ethics the individual: each and every individual is of equal value. Individualism is not unbridled egoism nor vulgar hedonism. Individualism takes seriously the needs, desires and life plan of individuals, insofar as they are compatible with that of other individuals. 8: Interdisciplinary Research Programmes on the Cure for Religion In academia, theology - not to be confused with the scientific study of religion - apologizes for religion. Theology gives religion a scientific air. In one way or another theologians are trying to reconcile science and (their) religion. Theology takes the existence
of a god or `something' for granted. Theology is an embarrassment to science and academia. Richard Swinbume, for example, the theologian and Fellow of the British Academy, argues that the holocaust is god's help for people to be good! Instead of theology, there should be interdisciplinary research institutes, which study religion in order to work towards its evanescence. Like medical institutes that do research in order to find cures for illnesses, or like gender studies, which study genderrelated topics in order to overcome discrimination and submission. Anthropologists also have a tendency not to be too critical about the different belief systems they study. Anthropologist James Lett is one who does and who argues that the question `But is it true?' should be dared to be asked: It seems to me that the obligation to expose religious beliefs as nonsensical is an ethical one incumbent upon every anthropological scientist for the simple reason that the essential ethos of science lies in an unwavering dedication to truth [...] In science there is no room for compromise in the commitment to candour. Scientists cannot allow themselves to be propagandists or apologists touting convenient or comforting myths [...] When anthropologists fail to publicly proclaim the falsity of religious beliefs, they fail to live up to their ethical responsibilities in these regards. United Nations University, which concentrates on research on global problems, would be a logical place for this kind of research. Humanist research centers like the Center for Inquiry Transnational and Utrecht University of Humanistics could also contribute to this kind of interdisciplinary research.
9. Cultivating Nonreligious Practices for Body and Mind: Arts, Sports & Social Life If anyone is looking for the joy of working with others toward a common goal, let him join one of the many organizations devoted to helping refugees, the poor, the sick and the unfortunate. Taking care of the body, as in many eastern religious practices, seems a promising way to enrich humanist practices. Yoga and (Zen) meditation seem excellent ways to incorporate in a humanist way of life. Transcendental and spiritual language will have to be abandoned however. Work-out, capoeira, tango, running, cycling, rowing, mountaineering etc all can be part of living the good life in a humanistic way. In order to be humanistic care should be taken that there are no (future) victims due to your life style. A humanistic life style can be exuberant, but should be sustainable as well. Racing, for example, doesn't seem to fit in this scheme. In order to enrich your experience you could do some cosmopolitan cherry picking: taking from different cultures things you like. However, this should take place within the naturalistic framework. E.g., I like Zen (Japan), yoga (India), Arabian/Islamic tile decorations (Africa), mint tea (Morocco), jasmine tea (China). Wellness centres, spas and sauna seem to fit a humanistic tradition to take care of the body and enjoy the good life. Saunas, nude beaches and nudist camping where people of both sexes are naked must be the nightmare of many fundamentalists. Imagine a public mixed sauna in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Poland. The more public (mixed) saunas and public nudity, the less religion. A free and open society is about tolerating as much freedom as is consistent with the freedom of others. This includes tolerating things that you may abhor personally. Sociologist Ruut Veenhoven who studies conditions of happiness concludes that happiness is increased by more individual freedom. It is possible to live a good
life without religion. The exuberance of life can be experienced and appreciated without religion. 10: Inclusive versus Exclusive Identity: Transnational Cosmopolitanism [... ) many of the conflicts and barbarities in the world are sustained through the illusion of a unique and choice-less identity. In spite of high-spirited slogans such as 'the brotherhood of man', and `love thy neighbour as thyself', religion strengthens exclusive identity: by emphasizing being, for example, a Catholic, you make it clear that you are not a Protestant, a Jew or a Muslim. Identity is like a hobby taken too seriously. When you love playing bridge, it is uncommon to introduce yourself as being a`Bridge'. Loving bridge is not a part of the self-declared identity of most human beings. Nationality, religion and some (nonliberal) ideologies (like communism) are. The best medicine against fundamentalism, be it religious or nationalistic, is not to take anything too seriously, like singling out one specific label as your most important identity and neglecting or denying other memberships. A fundamentalist will say: `I am a XXX! !!'. That XXX is involved in deciding most or all aspects of his life. Remember that you could be wrong. All opinions are fallible. Religious believers believe their beliefs to be absolutely true, beyond doubt. Even if they have doubts, believers consider it a virtue to suppress their doubts and continue believing and to have faith. Believers consider faith a virtue. A criterion for civilization is a healthy cabaret culture, which ridicules, satirizes and criticizes society and beliefs. In totalitarian societies or theocracies there is nothing to laugh at. In those societies politics is bloody serious. There is no Pat Condell in Saudi Arabia or Sudan. Or imagine the movie Religulous, Bill Maher's hilarious critique of religion, being made in Iran.
11: Partial Versus Ad-Round Rationality Reason notwithstanding, the transcendental temptations of the paranormal and religion remain strong. Reason has much less popular appeal than unreason. Freethinkers should start a marketing campaign for reason. That is what the Enlightenment was all about: a marketing campaign for reason, contra the authority of the church and aristocracy. In some ways this campaign for reason has succeeded, and in general the living conditions for people in Western society have improved tremendously. Western culture is heavily influenced by science and reason. But, contrary to the hopes of some Enlightenment philosophes and their present-day admirers, religion and unreason remain in existence even today. Cognitive Dissonance It is hard to grasp the blatant incoherence of many believers who suspend their rationality in some domains of life. Nobody would survive long without at least the partial application of reason in their life. No one, not even pious believers or diehard fundamentalists, cross a busy street by closing their eyes, trusting on faith. Many fundamentalists, that is, those who take their irrationality seriously, use modem technology, like cell phones and the Internet, to further their cause. They seem to have compartmentalized their brain into rational and irrational parts. This is what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. They use reason to support unreason. Freethinkers-on the other hand, use reason to criticize unreason. Freethinkers try to use reason in all their endeavours and try not to compartmentalize their brains. Of course, it is not always possible to make optimal rational choices. Rationality is bounded by limited information, time and calculating techniques. Rationality is an ideal to strive for. Behaviour and opinions can
always be corrected by (new) arguments and critique. Decisions and beliefs are fallible, and critical inquirers realize this. All-round rationality could mean we will have to change our way of living dramatically in the light of reason. Adopting a rational point of view not only has cognitive consequences, like the vaporization of god, it will have to have consequences on how we are to live as well. Adopting reason as our guiding light has consequences for our moral conduct. Peter Singer remarks: `Once we start reasoning, we may be compelled to follow a chain of argument to a conclusion that we did not anticipate. Reason provides us with the capacity to recognize that each of us is simply one being among others, all of whom have wants and needs that matter to them, as our needs and wants matter to us.' The light of reason is a moral appeal; it is the end of blind obedience, the end of speciecism, the end of moral exclusiveness, the end of moral ostrichism, and the end of religion. Free from Religion Many evils, which torment humans, are man made. Let's try to get rid of them. Let's make the world a better place. Let's get rid of religion. Imagine no religion... Ethical Record, February 2009
Floris van den Berg
Director, Center for Inquiry Low Countries Lecture to the Ethical Society, 19 January 2009 [email protected] The full version of this talk is available at: http://verlichtingshumanisten.web-log.nl I: Beyond the New Atheism It is time to take up the project of the radical Enlightenment and try to liberate humankind of ignorance, unreason and superstition, some of which have been institutionalized as religions. It is time - it always was - to stop treating religion with respect, as if it is something precious. Patients are precious, not their illnesses. In recent years a plethora of books about and against religion have been published, called the New Atheism. However, the most important question about religion is neglected in public discourse, even in the wave of books about and against religion: How to get rid of religion? If religion has been diagnosed as something bad - which is the case - then it is time to move forward and find liberal ways to become free from religion. The New Atheism books, most notably Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great and Sam Harris' The End of Faith have diagnosed religion, including contemporary religion, as an illness. It is overwhelmingly clear that the truth claims of religion are either false or meaningless. Not one single argument
for a transcendental being or realm has stood the test of critical inquiry. It is time to find a cure. My talk is a help to find strategies to liberate humankind of religion. I am proposing a strong secularism. II: Moral and Epistemological Atheism There are two major reasons why the disappearance of religion would make the world a better place. In the first place, religion is false. Religious claims about the nature of reality can and are an obstacle to free (scientific) inquiry. This could be called epistemological atheism. The second objection to religion is moral. I am primarily a moral atheist. Moral atheism is concerned with religion because religion often is an obstacle for individual freedom, choice and self-determination. If religion were relatively innocent, like the belief in flying saucers, I personally would not be much interested in it. If religion - though false - had positive influence on individual liberty, social justice, sustainability and animal welfare - I would not bother to criticize and scrutinize religious beliefs too much. As it is, I am not convinced of the blessings of religion. Religion seems to be a malignant virus, which on balance causes more harm than good. All books of the New Atheism linger on the evil aspects of religion. Religion is not the root of all evil, but of much human-made evil and misery. Religion can reinforce evil. III: Religion, Culture & Traditions Apologists of religion will respond to accusations of the evils of (their) religion with: `(my) religion is good; those who have done evil deeds in the name of religion are not real believers'. However, for an outsider, there is no difference between a real and a fake believer. If someone says `I am a Muslim/Christian etc.', then I believe hir. The criterion for belief is the believer
hirself claiming to be a believer. Any other definition of what belief is, is likely to run aground in debates between believers. For a moral atheist, it is morality that matters most, not whether or not it is religion. Any cultural practice should be morally evaluated by some standards like: 1. are there any victims (can you want to trade places?) 2. does it contribute to the wellbeing of individuals? and 3. is it true? These criteria will rule out a great many cultural practices. Many cultures do not respect individual rights, especially the rights of women. IV: No Guarantee for Utopia A cure for AIDS makes the world a better place because it would save many people from suffering and dying. However, this cure does not guarantee health, because there are many more threats to a person's health than AIDS alone. Still, a cure for AIDS is a moral good. A cure for religion makes the world a better place; it saves many people from evil and ignorance. However, this does not guarantee sanity, because there are many more threats to sanity and morality than religion alone. Still, a cure for religion is a moral good.
V: Some Strategies 1. Prevention of Religious Indoctrination `Prevention is the best cure', is a folk wisdom. Many illnesses in the western world are easily preventable illnesses, which are caused by unhealthy life styles. I argue that religion is also an unhealthy life style, for yourself, your family and others. The best way to get rid of religion is to stop imposing faith!belief/religion on children. Not only should people be free to choose or change religion, children should be free from religion. `[Faith based education] involves the indoctrination of intellectually defenseless children, and that is a form of child abuse.'
I am a secular humanist, who takes individual liberty as a core value. That limits the range of means that can be used for the cure for religion. A totalitarian dictator, like Stalin, who, for completely different reasons, wanted to get rid of religion, used totalitarian means - violence and suppression - to abolish and abandon religion. Just like liberal democracies cannot and should not use illiberal means in the `war on terror', there should not be illiberal methods used to dispense of religion. What matters most is the individual. Most people will probably frown when they read the phrase `how to get rid of religion', because it has become common to grant religion special privileges, like infusing children's minds with nonsense. Individual liberty is the core value of the (radical) Enlightenment, of liberalism, free thought and secular humanism. And if individual liberty is the core value, then why should parents, or any other guardian, have the right to impose nonsense, ignorance and sexual taboos on a child and have the right to withhold (scientific) knowledge about the world? A free flow of information, without censorship, is a necessary prerequisite for both individualism and an open society. Schools should teach about religions. What is taught about religion should be science-based. So, if children ask the teacher whether or not god exists, the teacher should give the scientific answer: `There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of god or gods'. In secondary education attention might be given to theories about the functions and origin of religion. To exclude religion as religion from the schools is not atheistic indoctrination, as religious apologists and multiculturalists commonly say. There is a fundamental difference between an open education and a closed frame of mind. What apologists and multiculturalists fail to notice is that critical inquiry excludes
many things. The goal of education is not indoctrination, but liberation; knowledge, not ignorance. Teaching scientific facts (which are fallible) and the scientific method is not indoctrination. Freedom is not slavery. True is not false. Evidence based knowledge is not faith. 2. Political Secularism: Separation of Religion and State Political secularism, or laicism, is about a separation of religion and state. Religion is a private matter, like a hobby. Religion should not be privileged in the public domain, like tax exemption for religious organizations. All existing privileges should be abolished, including religious schools. Religion has historically permeated law and gained privileges. It is time to undo this injustice. Essential for an open and free society is that its citizens have as much freedom as is compatible with the freedom of other individuals. The state is neutral in matters of religion. Religion is not a state matter, nothing that happens between (well-informed) consenting adults (who cause no harm or damage to others or the environment) is a state matter. Politicians, when in office, should not use religious arguments. State officials in a position that requires a neutral point of view should not be allowed to wear symbols of a religion or any other group or organization which distorts their neutrality (so, also no button of one's favourite soccer club). For example, law officers and judges should not be allowed to wear a cross or a necklace, nor may they wear a headscarf, yarmulke or turban. Also, a religious beard (a beard which is only grown in religious groups) should not be allowed for those public officials. In a multireligious society - as is the case in most western societies - all individuals, including religious people, benefit from a secular state and government, because believers are free to do as they please, within the bounds of the (secularized) law. In an open society all individuals are equal: believers and non believers alike.
3: Moral Secularism: A Plea for Moral Esperanto When people discuss ethical problems no religious arguments should be used, because it is a priori impossible to reach consensus if people do not share the same (religious) vocabulary. For example, in a debate about abortion, only arguments that do not refer to religion should be used. If people use the same secular discourse it is possible to reach consensus or at least agreement. Moral Esperanto is not only a means for communication between believers and non-believers. Believers from different religions would benefit as well if they refrained from using religious arguments and spoke in the moral discourse of Esperanto. A moral and political theory should be secular and not rely on religion. Atheism, or at least an exclusion of religion from the moral domain, is a prerequisite for ethics. Ethical theories, which depend on god or other kind of transcendentalism, are not true, and often immoral, when analyzed from the perspective of their victims. Secularism, a strict separation of church and state, is a necessity for liberal political philosophy, which takes as core value the freedom of each individual citizen and the free flow of information. The political argument against ethics based on religion is that without the use of repression and violence there is no way there will ever be consensus about which god and what religion is right. 4. A Policy of Determent [...] imagine if we identified children from birth as young smokers or drinking children because their parents smoked or drank! Government should have the same attitude towards religion as it has (recently) in regard to smoking: government allows the private use of tobacco for adults, but informs smokers that it is bad for their health, and government protects secondary smokers so far as possible by banning smoking in public (indoor) areas. Taxes deter
people from buying tobacco. The analogy with tobacco is partial: individuals should be allowed to wear and publicly expose (symbols of) their religion, because this is part of the right of the freedom of expression, and because this does not harm others. Of course people should not be forced to wear anything against their wish (uniforms and special requirements of course excepted - a surgeon is not free to choose not to wear a hygienic outfit). Headscarves should be forbidden in primary and secondary schools, because children should be free from religion (at least at school), and should be free and well informed to choose a religion, or none at all, when they are adults. Children should not belong to a religion, and there should not be religious ceremonies or rituals involving children, like circumcision, baptism, or catechism. Wearing a burka - any outfit that makes a person unrecognizable in public space, should not be allowed, because it is a threat to public safety. A paradox of liberalism is that it is impossible to impose freedom upon others. People should be free to be unfree - within limits though, individuals have the right to opt out. It is not allowed to submit yourself as a slave: you are allowed to play as a slave for some time, but people cannot forfeit their right to escape. Everyone can voluntarily enter communes or sects where there is little personal freedom. This is all allowed. But individuals always have the right to step out and leave. Freedom is absolute and not conditional. The liberal state, therefore, should not tolerate intolerance and be on the side of those individuals who are being coerced into doing or not doing something against their will. A liberal state can and should try to create the best possible institutions and cultural climate to foster individual freedom, autonomy and well-being. If well-informed women freely decide to wear a headscarf, this should be allowed. But of course
government should be suspicious as to whether this is a real free choice and keep attention focused on this issue. The state should be strictly secular and neutral. It is not the role of the state to try to get rid of religion. Laicism and a policy of determent are as far as the government should go. But it is the role of public intellectuals, scientists, humanist, free thinkers and their organizations to try to get rid of religion. 5. Coming Out People should speak out about being an atheist. Non-believers, non-theists, atheists, rationalists, skeptics and freethinkers have kept quiet for too long. While religious believers speak out loud and proud about their belief; nonbelievers have been polite and quiet in their defense. Outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are accused of hitting religion too hard. But that is the world turned upside down: religion makes claims about reality, prescribes social and ethical rules and evangelizes these ideas and ideals. For centuries religion had such a strong grip on social life that it was impossible to be an outspoken atheist, perhaps Spinoza, Hume and Kant were atheists in a more or less see-through disguise. Still, even today it is practically impossible for an outspoken atheist to run for office in the USA. Of course, the only reason to call oneself an atheist is because there are theists. Atheists do not say out of the blue `god does not exist', but atheists claim that none of the arguments for the existence of god(s), is true. Atheism is part of the scientific outlook, which is called naturalism. Atheists are not as well organized as believers. Most believers take their beliefs more seriously (as part of their identity) than atheists their atheism. Of course atheism is part of my identity. But I cannot say I am proud to be an atheist. I am embarrassed that
there are believers. Am I proud to be a non-believer of the Loch Ness monster, or am I proud to be a denier of the existence of UFOs or the viability of astrology? I think not. By speaking out, atheists should show that atheists are normal, and that believers are strange, weird or even mentally ill. 6: The Role of Public Intellectuals Debunking and Criticizing Religion Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology. Morality starts where religion ends. As long as there are people making nonsensical or false truth claims it is necessary to criticize them. The arguments against religion are not new, but still there are many people out there who have not, or cannot, understand the flaws of their truth claims. If atheists keep quiet because they are bored of seeing the same stupid arguments over and over again, believers will gain influence and followers. Religion is a persistent virus that lingers on. Atheists who criticize the New Atheism authors miss the point of these books. These books are not meant for outspoken atheists (though paradoxically many atheists have read New Atheism books). These books are also not meant to persuade fervent believers. These books are meant for those people who have not given much thought to religion and want to make up their minds; or believers who have an open mind. If one takes these books seriously, it is logically impossible to remain a believer. That, however, does happen, because many believers are so immune to rational scrutiny of their beliefs and practices that rational arguments do not count. But even the most arduous believers do have some rudiments of rational behaviour. Most believers use modem technology, which is based on science and rationalism. Believers have somehow managed to
compartmentalize their minds. Liberal believers just have a smaller `religion compartment' than fundamentalists, or none at all. Public intellectuals should continuously and politely campaign against religion. No more flirting with religion, but embracing the ideals of the Enlightenment. Flirting with religion is a danse macabre. 7: Positive Atheism, Individualism and Secular Humanism Secular humanism rejects supernatural accounts of reality; but it seeks to optimize the fullness of human life in a naturalistic universe. It is not true that criticizing religion is `only negative' and not constructive. No one will say of a doctor that s/he is not being constructive because s/he focuses on the negative. A doctor tries to cure illnesses and injuries. Medical science develops better treatment and medicine. Likewise public intellectuals should try to cure ignorance, unreason and religion in public discourse. Atheism can be more than liberating people from the fetters of religion. Positive atheism, individualism and (secular) humanism have a positive outlook and philosophy. Individualism takes as the core value of ethics the individual: each and every individual is of equal value. Individualism is not unbridled egoism nor vulgar hedonism. Individualism takes seriously the needs, desires and life plan of individuals, insofar as they are compatible with that of other individuals. 8: Interdisciplinary Research Programmes on the Cure for Religion In academia, theology - not to be confused with the scientific study of religion - apologizes for religion. Theology gives religion a scientific air. In one way or another theologians are trying to reconcile science and (their) religion. Theology takes the existence
of a god or `something' for granted. Theology is an embarrassment to science and academia. Richard Swinbume, for example, the theologian and Fellow of the British Academy, argues that the holocaust is god's help for people to be good! Instead of theology, there should be interdisciplinary research institutes, which study religion in order to work towards its evanescence. Like medical institutes that do research in order to find cures for illnesses, or like gender studies, which study genderrelated topics in order to overcome discrimination and submission. Anthropologists also have a tendency not to be too critical about the different belief systems they study. Anthropologist James Lett is one who does and who argues that the question `But is it true?' should be dared to be asked: It seems to me that the obligation to expose religious beliefs as nonsensical is an ethical one incumbent upon every anthropological scientist for the simple reason that the essential ethos of science lies in an unwavering dedication to truth [...] In science there is no room for compromise in the commitment to candour. Scientists cannot allow themselves to be propagandists or apologists touting convenient or comforting myths [...] When anthropologists fail to publicly proclaim the falsity of religious beliefs, they fail to live up to their ethical responsibilities in these regards. United Nations University, which concentrates on research on global problems, would be a logical place for this kind of research. Humanist research centers like the Center for Inquiry Transnational and Utrecht University of Humanistics could also contribute to this kind of interdisciplinary research.
9. Cultivating Nonreligious Practices for Body and Mind: Arts, Sports & Social Life If anyone is looking for the joy of working with others toward a common goal, let him join one of the many organizations devoted to helping refugees, the poor, the sick and the unfortunate. Taking care of the body, as in many eastern religious practices, seems a promising way to enrich humanist practices. Yoga and (Zen) meditation seem excellent ways to incorporate in a humanist way of life. Transcendental and spiritual language will have to be abandoned however. Work-out, capoeira, tango, running, cycling, rowing, mountaineering etc all can be part of living the good life in a humanistic way. In order to be humanistic care should be taken that there are no (future) victims due to your life style. A humanistic life style can be exuberant, but should be sustainable as well. Racing, for example, doesn't seem to fit in this scheme. In order to enrich your experience you could do some cosmopolitan cherry picking: taking from different cultures things you like. However, this should take place within the naturalistic framework. E.g., I like Zen (Japan), yoga (India), Arabian/Islamic tile decorations (Africa), mint tea (Morocco), jasmine tea (China). Wellness centres, spas and sauna seem to fit a humanistic tradition to take care of the body and enjoy the good life. Saunas, nude beaches and nudist camping where people of both sexes are naked must be the nightmare of many fundamentalists. Imagine a public mixed sauna in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Poland. The more public (mixed) saunas and public nudity, the less religion. A free and open society is about tolerating as much freedom as is consistent with the freedom of others. This includes tolerating things that you may abhor personally. Sociologist Ruut Veenhoven who studies conditions of happiness concludes that happiness is increased by more individual freedom. It is possible to live a good
life without religion. The exuberance of life can be experienced and appreciated without religion. 10: Inclusive versus Exclusive Identity: Transnational Cosmopolitanism [... ) many of the conflicts and barbarities in the world are sustained through the illusion of a unique and choice-less identity. In spite of high-spirited slogans such as 'the brotherhood of man', and `love thy neighbour as thyself', religion strengthens exclusive identity: by emphasizing being, for example, a Catholic, you make it clear that you are not a Protestant, a Jew or a Muslim. Identity is like a hobby taken too seriously. When you love playing bridge, it is uncommon to introduce yourself as being a`Bridge'. Loving bridge is not a part of the self-declared identity of most human beings. Nationality, religion and some (nonliberal) ideologies (like communism) are. The best medicine against fundamentalism, be it religious or nationalistic, is not to take anything too seriously, like singling out one specific label as your most important identity and neglecting or denying other memberships. A fundamentalist will say: `I am a XXX! !!'. That XXX is involved in deciding most or all aspects of his life. Remember that you could be wrong. All opinions are fallible. Religious believers believe their beliefs to be absolutely true, beyond doubt. Even if they have doubts, believers consider it a virtue to suppress their doubts and continue believing and to have faith. Believers consider faith a virtue. A criterion for civilization is a healthy cabaret culture, which ridicules, satirizes and criticizes society and beliefs. In totalitarian societies or theocracies there is nothing to laugh at. In those societies politics is bloody serious. There is no Pat Condell in Saudi Arabia or Sudan. Or imagine the movie Religulous, Bill Maher's hilarious critique of religion, being made in Iran.
11: Partial Versus Ad-Round Rationality Reason notwithstanding, the transcendental temptations of the paranormal and religion remain strong. Reason has much less popular appeal than unreason. Freethinkers should start a marketing campaign for reason. That is what the Enlightenment was all about: a marketing campaign for reason, contra the authority of the church and aristocracy. In some ways this campaign for reason has succeeded, and in general the living conditions for people in Western society have improved tremendously. Western culture is heavily influenced by science and reason. But, contrary to the hopes of some Enlightenment philosophes and their present-day admirers, religion and unreason remain in existence even today. Cognitive Dissonance It is hard to grasp the blatant incoherence of many believers who suspend their rationality in some domains of life. Nobody would survive long without at least the partial application of reason in their life. No one, not even pious believers or diehard fundamentalists, cross a busy street by closing their eyes, trusting on faith. Many fundamentalists, that is, those who take their irrationality seriously, use modem technology, like cell phones and the Internet, to further their cause. They seem to have compartmentalized their brain into rational and irrational parts. This is what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. They use reason to support unreason. Freethinkers-on the other hand, use reason to criticize unreason. Freethinkers try to use reason in all their endeavours and try not to compartmentalize their brains. Of course, it is not always possible to make optimal rational choices. Rationality is bounded by limited information, time and calculating techniques. Rationality is an ideal to strive for. Behaviour and opinions can
always be corrected by (new) arguments and critique. Decisions and beliefs are fallible, and critical inquirers realize this. All-round rationality could mean we will have to change our way of living dramatically in the light of reason. Adopting a rational point of view not only has cognitive consequences, like the vaporization of god, it will have to have consequences on how we are to live as well. Adopting reason as our guiding light has consequences for our moral conduct. Peter Singer remarks: `Once we start reasoning, we may be compelled to follow a chain of argument to a conclusion that we did not anticipate. Reason provides us with the capacity to recognize that each of us is simply one being among others, all of whom have wants and needs that matter to them, as our needs and wants matter to us.' The light of reason is a moral appeal; it is the end of blind obedience, the end of speciecism, the end of moral exclusiveness, the end of moral ostrichism, and the end of religion. Free from Religion Many evils, which torment humans, are man made. Let's try to get rid of them. Let's make the world a better place. Let's get rid of religion. Imagine no religion... Ethical Record, February 2009
