The battle between religion and secular humanism
I’ve heard this conundrum many times in the debate between followers of religion and devoted secular humanists: Should we do the right thing because it is favorable in the eyes of God? Or should we do the right thing because, well, it’s the right thing to do?
It's not quite black and white like that of course. Religious people don’t necessarily perform acts of charity or make ethical decisions solely because they believe God would want them to or ordered them to do so in scripture, though it does have an influence. There is also the argument, anti-religious as it may sound, that religion is not necessarily proof of divine existence but born out of an innately human need for a code of ethics to live by among an intelligent advanced species.
An ad for secular humanism on public transportation
Photo courtesy of http://thecylinder.files.wordpress.com
This is something I learned about in college courses dealing with the philosophy of religion. It was posed as one of the several potential influences (along with hallucinogens, among other things) for organized religion arising in human populations. For anyone that doesn’t see this as an extremely polarizing debate, there are several online sources that will approach this dilemma in a biased fashion either directly or indirectly picking a side.
Here is a a religious view on secular humanism and here is a slightly different view of the same subject.
Many misconceptions arise involving both sides of the argument. One must understand religion from an academic standpoint in order to empathize with its side of the argument. This exists as simply a debate over how to best make ethical decisions. One must also understand secular humanism from the same standpoint and be able to correctly distinguish between religious and secular humanism.
There are several great organizations that help coordinate efforts to help the poor, provide for the needy, and offer aid for the disabled that happened to be based in religious principles. At times, they hope to bring the people they are helping to their belief system, but more often than not, they simply offer a helping hand and leave it at that.
-thumb-200x256-58511.jpg)
Habitat for Humanity is a Christian-based ministry that builds affordable housing for low income families.
Photo courtesy of www.habitatwake.org
So the general argument I’ve heard making a case for the secular humanist side is that people can act on that innately human need to be ethical and charitable without the added baggage of doing it to earn brownie points with God or get to heaven. The general argument I hear from the religious side is that all humans don’t have an innate code of ethics and urge to do the right thing and religion, for better or worse, fills that role and helps organize charitable efforts on a global grand scale not possible by individuals alone. It seems that the common consensus is that altruism is a good thing. But what kind of altruism serves us best?
Comments
Kent Jocque
Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 11:03 a.m.
Dear Clownfish, One of the reasons I feel comfortable posting to the annarbor.com site is because of people like you. I hope to exchange thoughts with reasonably calm individuals who like to ponder. I will endeavor to be nice in return. Yes, indeed, this is pretty deep territory for the comments section of an online local newspaper. I have a book on my shelf constantly mocking me. Written on its spine is "The Enduring Questions". We don't have much hope of answering one or more of those in this discussion but it shouldn't stop us from engaging. I'm not a serious person when it comes to religion and as an atheist this cartoon strikes a chord, one-sided as it is: http://api.ning.com/files/wmAtvoesyIx8dJXWiJUChGnVFZfmCTr4byzxqZg4aYd6obpzPNPigwGypC6m3bwd/rehab477.jpg -Kent
clownfish
Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 10:16 a.m.
@KENT- Touche'. How about "do good, be good"? ahh, but then we get into the quagmire discussion of what is "good"? One person's good can easily be another's bad, or even evil. -- If one is acting in order to "get into heaven", is that person's altruism actually a selfish act, not a truly altruistic act? Or, having accepted the Christ as the ONLY way into heaven, does one have to live up to Jesus' Beatitudes in order to receive his eternal love, or can they be danced around, picking and choosing from varied scripture? Similar argument for secular humanists, if one performs an act out of a desire to make oneself feel better, is it truly altruistic? Which brings up the Philosophy 101 question, "Is there such a thing as an unselfish act?". Can't say I have the answer to the authors questions, but ultimately doesn't it come down to people doing good regardless of how they got to that point? Or, can one persons approach to helping create problems because of the nature of reaching a certain conclusion? Would Primitive Baptists accept a Muslim run shelter or food bank? But what kind of altruism serves us best? Whom are we serving? Are we serving our own need to help someone, or are we serving the one in need? Deep thoughts for a blog. (I blasted this off while checking email briefly, please be nice. I do not claim it is entirely well reasoned and flushed out...it's a blog, not a thesis)
Kent Jocque
Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.
Here's a contradictory take on The Golden Rule. The last sentence is a good summary, "Consider that in some cases, treating people the way they would like to get treated works better than the way you would like to get treated." Golden Rule http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible5.htm "At first glance, the rule appears justified. Who wouldn't want to receive treatment the way we wish? And who wouldn't want to give the same treatment to others? However, upon further reflection we quickly come upon problems. Who says that the receiving person wishes to always get treated the way 'we' wish? Would most people like to get treated like a masochist from a masochist? Would an atheist like to get treated like a Christian? Would a Christian like to get treated as an atheist? Clearly, the Golden rule can cause severe incompatibilities with the other person involved. The Golden Rule only seems commendable because we impart our own individual concepts without realizing that 'doing unto others' has various meanings to other people. The Golden Rule reflects upon selfish motives instead of incorporating a system that can work for a diverse society. Therefore, when Jesus uses this incomplete and illusory command, he deceives the believer into a false sense of morality. Consider that in some cases, treating people the way they would like to get treated works better than the way you would like to get treated. Think about it."
clownfish
Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 7:06 a.m.
Who titled this column? There is no mention of a "battle" in it, why must there be a war, fight, battle between the philosophies? What kind of altruism serves us best? What is wrong with the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? (not to be confused with the Gold Rule, He who has the gold makes the rules, ie: Citizens United vs FEC)No religion required, no adherence to secularism needed. Organized religion does offer the benefit of having large entities in place to move resources or collect revenue quickly, but they do not have a lock on that. Doctors without borders, the Gates Foundation etc seem to do fine without the backing of such a formalized religious structure.