I. Rationalism, Humanism and Atheism
In this book I have tried to bring into focus the philosophical ideas of some rationalist, humanist and atheist thinkers of twentieth century India, namely, Periyar, M.N.Roy, Ambedkar, Gora, Kovoor, A.B.Shah, Narsingh Narain and Ramswaroop Verma.
However, in this introductory chapter, the approach is conceptual, and the concepts of "rationalism", "humanism" and "atheism" have been discussed in a general way. Let me clarify at the outset that in analyzing these terms it is not my intention to give my own meaning of these terms, or, in other words, to stipulate a meaning from my side. On the contrary, I am interested in finding out the sense or the senses in which the words are actually used in our language. As, in fact, these words are being used in more than one sense; I will also be indicating the sense in which I will be using them this book.
Rationalism
The word “rationalism” has been used in more than one sense. For example, it has been used in philosophy to describe the epistemological position of the seventeenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes as well as to characterize the ethical position of the eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Besides, we have the popular sense in which the word has been mainly used in twentieth century. If we look into details, these three meanings are different from one another, but still there is a common thread among them. There is no doubt about the fact that “rationalism” is linked to “reason”. Rationalists emphasize reason in one way or another, either in the sphere of knowledge or in the sphere of ethics.
The popular or the lexical meaning of “rationalism” can be ascertained from popular and standard dictionaries of the English language. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, for instance, defines rationalism as “the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion as in other subjects of study”. The same dictionary defines “rationalist” as a “person who accepts reason as the ultimate authority in religion, ethics, etc.”
Similarly, Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “rationalism” as “the principle or practice of accepting reason as an only source of knowledge and as the only basis for forming one’s opinion, beliefs, or course of action”.
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on the other hand, has this to say about rationalism:
The term “rationalism” (from the Latin ratio “reason”) has been used to refer to several different outlooks and movements of ideas. By far the most important of these is the philosophical outlook or program which stresses the power of a priori reason to grasp substantial truths about the world and correspondingly tends to regard natural science as a basically a priori enterprise.
Thus, in philosophy, even now, the word “rationalism” is mainly used for the epistemological position of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. In this sense, “rationalism” treats “a priori reason” or reason independent of sense-experience as the source of knowledge. “Rationalism”, in this sense, is often opposed to and contrasted with “empiricism”, which regards sense-experience as the main source of knowledge.
However, whether some academic philosophers are aware of this or not, in the popular sense, “rationalism” is not opposed to empiricism, but includes it, or is rather synonymous with it. “Rationalism” in the popular sense regards reason, that is, sense perception and inference, as the ultimate source of knowledge. Rationalists are supporters of logic and scientific method. They reject faith, intuition, revelation, authority and other alleged extra-rational sources of knowledge. In this book, I am concerned with “rationalism” in the popular and broader sense of the term. From now onwards, I will be using the word “rationalism” in this book in this sense only. There are several organizations and individuals all over the world, including India, which have used “rationalism” in this sense and have given to themselves the label of “rationalist”.
For example, the Rationalist Press Association, a London based organization, defined “rationalism” in 1899 as “the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience and independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority.” (emphasis mine)
Kaz Dziamka, editor of the American Rationalist, has defined “rationalism” as “a practical, pragmatic and operational philosophy of life… which includes science but rejects mysticism and all kinds of religious and other superstition.” (emphasis mine)
Rationalist Association of India (founded in 1930 as “The Anti-Priestcraft Association”) had the following object, as described by Dr. d’Avoine, editor of its official organ Reason:
To combat the superstitious beliefs and practices of the masses in this country and rescue them from the baneful influence of priest-craft to encourage people to educate themselves so as to cultivate a scientific habit of mind, or, at any rate, an inquiring habit so that nothing should be accepted which cannot stand the test of reason and commonsense. To reject all arbitrary authorities in matters of belief however hoary and venerable they may appear. (emphasis mine)
Thus, it is more than clear from the above references that popular rationalism in twentieth century is not opposed to sense experience and scientific method. It does not regard a priori reason, or reason independent of experience, as a source of knowledge. On the contrary, the rationalists have strongly supported the scientific method, which is based on observation and experimentation. Another feature, which comes out clearly, is that rationalists have been opposed to superstitions, dogma, faith, authority, revelation and mysticism. A rationalist is a “free-thinker” or, in other words, a “person not accepting traditional religious teaching, but basing his ideas on reason”
According to Finngeir Hiorth, since nineteenth century the word “rationalist” has served as a synonym of “freethinker”, and “since the nineteenth century on most of those who have called themselves ‘rationalists’ have been atheists.”
In short, rationalists are largely non-religious. This is not surprising because the rationalists emphasize reason as a source of knowledge whereas religions mostly emphasize faith, or in other words, strong belief even in the absence of evidence.
Even if some or most of the professional philosophers are not aware of the popular meaning of “rationalism”, there are, on the other hand, some professional philosophers who have given to themselves the label of “rationalist” in this sense. Bertrand Russell, for example, who is normally described as an “empiricist” in philosophical circles, has called himself a “rationalist”. As he says in his "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?":
I speak as one who was intended by my father to be brought up as a Rationalist. He was quite as much of a Rationalist as I am...
Since I became a Rationalist I have found that there is still considerable scope in the world for the practical importance of a rationalist outlook...
Defining "rationalism" in the same essay, Russell says:
The question of how to define Rationalism is not altogether an easy one... The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason. If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you are still a Rationalist. To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Similarly, in his book Understanding Rationalism, Indian philosopher D.D. Bandiste has described himself as a “rationalist”. According to Bandiste, rationalism is a philosophy of life based on the human faculty of reasoning. Bandiste regards empirical knowledge as the foundation of rationalism. The central message of rationalism, says Bandiste, is that “we should keep on examining our beliefs in the light of the empirical evidence.”
Bandiste has not given much importance to the conflict between empiricism and rationalism in the European philosophy of 17th and 18th century. He maintains that this antagonism is now a matter of historical interest only. He asserts that the foundation for rationalism is now provided by empiricism. As he says, “The older rationalism was against empiricism. The present rationalism is against irrationalism.”
In my own Buddhiwadi Ghoshna-patra (Rationalist Manifesto), I have formulated “rationalism” in the following manner:
Rationalism is not a closed set of conclusions, but a method of arriving at conclusions. As a mental attitude, rationalism gives supreme importance to reason for understanding and solving the problems of life. Rationalism rejects faith, intuition, authority and revelation as sources of knowledge. A rationalist uses reason for testing all conclusions, and accepts only those which are coherent and which correspond with the reality. A rationalist believes in the truth of a conclusion only to the extent of the evidence in support of its truth. If in any sphere of knowledge, sufficient evidence is not available for arriving at any conclusion, a rationalist suspends his or her judgment. In other words, a rationalist uses logic and scientific method for understanding this world. Similarly, a rationalist also rejects the rigid and divisive morality based on blind faith in religious scriptures and on unreasonable and unscientific beliefs like god, heaven, hell and rebirth. He or she uses reasoning in the sphere of ethics as well, and accepts a rational morality based on human desires and needs. In short, the rationalist philosophy of life is based on reason.
I believe that this formulation of “rationalism” is in consonance with the popular meaning of the word.
Atheism
“Atheism” is probably the most unambiguous among the terms being discussed in this chapter. Yet, subtle distinctions have been made regarding different meanings of the term by some atheist thinkers.
Both the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English and Webster’s New World Dictionary define “atheism” as the “belief that there is no God.”
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English defines “atheist” as a “person who believes that there is no God.”
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, on the other hand, gives the following definitions of "atheism": "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God, 2. disbelief in the existence of God or gods." The same dictionary defines "atheist" as "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods."
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains an article on “Atheism” by Paul Edwards. Edwards has this to say about the definition of “atheist”:
According to the most usual definition, an “atheist” is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence “God exists” expresses a true preposition. On our definition, an “atheist” is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that “God exists” expresses a false proposition.
In his Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith has explained "atheism" in the following manner:
The prefix 'a' means 'without,' so the term 'a-theism' literally means 'without theism,' or without belief in a God or Gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a God or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.
Smith grants that "atheism" is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a God cannot exist. However, according to him, while these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism - and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. As he says:
Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief; it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a God does not exist; rather he does not believe in the existence of a God.
Thus, according to Smith, "theism" and "atheism" are descriptive terms: they specify the presence or absence of a belief in God. "If a person is designated as a theist, this tells us that he believes in a God, not why he believes. If a person is designated as an atheist, this tells us that he does not believe in a God, not why he does not believe."
In his Introduction to Atheism, Finngeir Hiorth has discussed various concepts of "atheism", and has made an important distinction between "theoretical atheism" and "non-theism". The belief "that there is no god" has been called "theoretical atheism" by Hiorth. Hiorth has pointed out that contemporary atheists are not always happy with the concept of theoretical atheism. Some of them prefer to define "atheist" as "a person who is without belief in god or gods." This latter kind of "atheism" has been called "non-theism" by Hiorth.
In his article "An Introduction to Atheism" posted on The Atheist Web, the author of the article, Mathew, has drawn attention to a similar distinction, which corresponds to the distinction between "theoretical atheism" and "non-theism" made by Hiorth. As he says:
Atheism is characterized by a deliberate (that is, chosen) absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists go further, and believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position. Believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
Thus, "weak atheism" is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of god. "Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a positive belief that god does not exist.
In short, a person who denies the existence of god is a theoretical atheist or a strong atheist whereas a person who is without belief in god is a non-theist or weak atheist. It is obvious that in this sense "non-theism" is a wider term than "theoretical atheism", because a person who denies the existence of god is bound to be without belief in god. However, the converse is not true. A person could be without belief in god owing to several different reasons. One reason, of course, is that he or she may believe, that god does not exist (theoretical atheism). Besides, there could be other reasons as well. For instance, he could be an atheist because he may believe that there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of god. Such an atheist may believe that the burden of proving the existence of god is on the theist, and that it is rational not to believe in existence of god until his (or her?) existence has been proved. Thirdly, he may believe that it is not possible to know whether god exists or not (agnosticism). Alternatively, he may believe that though theoretically it is possible to know about the existence or non-existence of god, but at present, sufficient evidence does not exist to draw a conclusion either way. Fourthly, an atheist may believe that the term "god" is meaningless and all sentences containing the term "god" are senseless. There could be other reasons, too, for being without belief in god. A person may not have ever encountered the idea of god. (However, opinions differ on whether a person who has not been ever exposed to the idea of god should be called an atheist or not). In any case, in this book I will be using the word "atheism" in the wider sense. In this sense, a person who does not believe in the existence of god is an "atheist", irrespective of his reasons for not believing.
Rationalism and Atheism
In this section, I wish to explore the logical relationship between rationalism and atheism as opposed to the empirical relationship. In other words, I am not concerned here with the question whether most of those who call themselves "rationalist" are, in fact, atheists or not and vice versa. I am concerned here with the question whether atheism follows logically from rationalism and vice versa.
It appears to me that atheism does follow logically from rationalism. There are no good reasons for believing in the existence of god. Besides, the idea of god as found in the major religions of the world does not square up with the presence of evil in this world. Thus, I maintain that if a person is a consistent rationalist, he or she is bound to be an atheist as well. However, the converse is not true, because rationalism does not follow logically from atheism. The argument "god does not exist, therefore, reason alone is a source of knowledge" or the argument "I do not believe in the existence of god, therefore, reason alone is a source of knowledge" is not a valid argument. Thus, it is logically possible for a person to be an atheist without being a rationalist.
Humanism
The word "humanism" has been used in different senses. It is probably the most ambiguous of all the three concepts being discussed in this chapter. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English gives the following meanings of "humanism": 1. devotion to human interests; system that is concerned with ethical standards (but not with theology), and with the study of mankind. 2. literary culture (of about the 14th to 16 cc) based on Greek and Roman learning.
The same dictionary gives the following three meanings of "humanist": 1.student of human nature or human affairs (as opposed to theological subjects). 2. supporter of humanism. 3. (esp in 14th to 16th cc) student of Greek and Roman literature and antiquities.
The Webster's New World Dictionary has given the following four meanings of "humanism": 1.the quality of being human; human nature. 2. any system of thought or action based on the nature, dignity, and ideals of man; specific., a rationalist movement that holds that man can be ethical, find self-fulfillment, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism. 3. the study of humanities. 4. the intellectual and cultural secular movement that stemmed from the study of classical Greek and Roman culture in the Middle Ages and helped give rise to Renaissance. (emphasis mine)
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this to say about "humanism":
Humanism is the philosophical and literary movement, which originated in Italy in the second half of the 14th century and diffused into the other countries of Europe, coming to constitute one of the factors of modern culture. Humanism is also any philosophy, which recognizes the value or dignity of man and makes him the measure of all things or somehow takes human nature, its limits, or its interests as its theme. (emphasis mine)
In this book, we are concerned with "humanism" as a life-stance or a philosophy of life. Even in this sense, some people have talked about, and some are still talking about "religious humanism". Yet, it cannot be denied that in 20th century there has been an increasing tendency to use the term "humanism" in the sense of secular humanism, or in other words, non-religious and this-worldly humanism. In this sense, humanism is closely related to rationalism, and to the rejection of supernaturalism. For example, the Little Oxford Dictionary 1995 edition says: "humanism, non-religious philosophy, based on liberal human values." Similarly, Collins Concise Dictionary, 1995 says: "humanism, the rejection of religion in favor of the advancement of humanity by its own efforts." The Chambers Dictionary, 1994: "humanism, any system which puts human interest and the mind of man paramount, rejecting the supernatural belief in God, etc." A mini-edition of Chambers has only ten words about humanism: "seeking, without religion, the best in, and for human beings."
Let us see how some of the leading organizations of humanists define and explain humanism. According to the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU):
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
The American Humanist Association defines "humanism" in the following manner:
Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values - be they religious, ethical, social, or political - have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.
It is obvious from the foregoing discussion that the word "humanism" without any prefix is now increasingly being used for secular and rationalistic humanism. Humanism in this sense is non-religious and this worldly. It is based on reason and free inquiry, and it accepts the scientific method and the results of science. Besides, humanism rejects supernaturalism and is atheistic, at least in the non-theistic sense of the term. Humanism emphasizes human freedom and responsibility as well as a secular ethics based on human needs. Politically, humanism supports human rights, democracy and a secular state based on separation of state and religion.
In this book from now onwards, I will be using the word "humanism" without prefix in this sense only. Humanism in this sense accepts or is closely related to rationalism. In fact, at times, "humanism" and "rationalism" are used almost as synonyms. According to Finngeir Hiorth, nowadays the word "rationalist" is often used more or less synonymously with "freethinker", "secularist" or "secular humanist".