(It was circulated originally by the Buddhiwadi Foundation for discussion and publication. It has been published in The Modern Rationalist (vol.23 No.4 April1998), Indian Skeptic (vol.11,No.2, 15-6-1998), The Radical Humanist (vol.62 No.7 October 1998), The Secularist and Humanist Outlook till now. It is being published here on the internet for the first time with the permission of the author.)
Most of the Humanists all over the world do not believe in the existence of god. They are either atheists or agnostics. International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), with its headquarters in London, is the leading international organization of Humanists at present. The "Minimum Statement" of Humanism adopted by the IHEU Board in their meeting at Mexico City in November 1996 goes as follows:
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and the 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 enquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic and it rejects supernatural views of reality. (emphasis added).
According to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Theism signifies belief in one god (theos) who is (a) personal, (b) worthy of adoration, and (c) separate from the world but (d) continuously active in it.
Now, if a person is not a theist in the above-mentioned sense of the term, then what are the alternatives?
He could be a polytheist believing in the existence of more than one or many gods.
He could be a deist believing in a personal god who has created this universe but who, like an absentee landlord, no longer takes active interest in its activities.
He could be a pantheist according to whom "god" and "nature" are one and the same.
He could be an atheist who denies the existence of god.
Finally, he could be an agnostic who refuses to take a clear stand on the existence or the non-existence of god. Either an agnostic has not made up his mind on this question or he maintains that it is not possible to know whether god exists or not.
Further, since Humanists reject supernatural views of reality, it is highly unlikely that many humanists will be polytheists or deists, because neither of them maintains that god or gods are natural beings. Thus a humanist is left with three alternatives: pantheism, atheism and agnosticism.
A pantheist, as is obvious, is only clinging to the word "god", because even atheists do not deny the existence of nature. The only difference between an atheist and a pantheist in this regard is that the pantheist uses the word "god" for nature, whereas the atheist uses the word "nature". Thus, though the pantheists retain the word "god", they are atheists for all practical purposes. In fact, they will be well advised not to use the word "god" for nature because this uselessly confuses others.
In short, we can safely assert that most of the humanists do not believe in the existence of god. They are either atheists or agnostics. Yet, there is a view among humanists, even among those who themselves do not believe in the existence of god, that humanists should leave god alone and concentrate on their own positive beliefs and activities. It is useless to waste ones time and energy in attacking god and other negative aspects of religion. There is also a view that the idea of god is harmful only when conjoined with some other ideas, such as, belief in a prophet (son or messenger of god) or in a "revealed" scripture such as, Veda, Bible or Koran. A belief in a deistic kind of non-interfering god in particular is not harmful.
I am writing this article to show that the idea of god is a big hurdle in the path of the growth of human knowledge and morality or, in other words, of human society. The idea of god has many harmful consequences. It is not possible for rationalists and humanists or for rational humanists, working in a god-dominated cultural atmosphere, to ignore this idea.
A questioning mind is an essential pre-requisite for the growth of knowledge. Theism inhibits the questioning attitude by providing oversimplified and ready-made answers to complex questions. As a result, a person believing in god is not able to understand the real causes of the events taking place around him or her. He thinks that god is doing everything, and everything can be explained in terms of "god". There is no need to search and investigate beyond this.
Secondly, when the theists find that they are not able to defend god from the attack of logical and scientific, anti-god arguments of atheists; they start discouraging logical and scientific thinking itself. In order to preserve the belief in god, they start glorifying "faith" and "devotion", on one hand, and they try to devalue the importance of reason, on the other. Instead of encouraging freethinking, they encourage superstitious mentality by saying that we ought to believe in the existence of god even though we do not have any evidence for doing so. Once we accept the superstition of god, the door is thrown open for all kinds of superstitions. (It should be noted that this objection is equally applicable to a deistic god, because there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of such a god either. The deistic god is certainly less harmful than the theistic god is, but even the deistic god is not totally harmless.)
Thirdly, the followers of theistic religions regard their own religious scriptures as the final truth, because, according to them, these scriptures contain "the words of god". This kind of blind faith obstructs the growth of knowledge as is demonstrated by the examples of Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno or even Darwin, whose theory of evolution was opposed by the church because it went against the theory of creation propounded in the Bible.
As far as morality is concerned, the idea of god is not at all morally useful. In fact, it is dangerous to erect the foundation of ethics on a superstition. My contention is that we ought to develop and practice a secular and human morality based on logical and scientific thinking. The idea of god is a stumbling block in developing morality in the true sense. There is no room for ethics in a consistent theism. Thus, it is not my position that atheists, too, can be moral or that the idea of god is unnecessary for ethics. On the contrary, I maintain that only an atheist can be moral in the true sense of the term. As I have said in my small Hindi book Kya Ishwar mar chuka hai?:
"Ethics is a branch of philosophy which makes a systematic and rational study of important problems related to morality, but for the theists whatever has been called "good" in divine scriptures is good, and whatever has been called "bad" in them is bad. They do not consider it necessary to think anything beyond this on the subject. When god has provided a ready-made solution to the problem, then why should anyone spend ones mental energy on this!.. In the name of morality the theists only cling to fossilized traditions, which often have no logical foundations. It is possible that in various religious scriptures some such actions have been called "right", which could be regarded as right even from a logical point of view. But, on the other hand, in almost all scriptures many such things have been called "right", which are totally wrong from a logical and human point of view. For example, the Hindu scripture Manu-Smriti justifies varna-vyavastha and untouchability, which are based on inequality. Similarly, Islam does not grant equal rights to man and woman. In the name of god and scriptures, the religious fundamentalists oppose social reforms and change in the direction of equality. In this way blind faith in "divine" scriptures is a big hurdle in the path of social reforms and the growth of true morality."
Besides, according to theists, god is omniscient and omnipotent. Nothing happens in this world without god’s will. (Theists bring in the idea of free will only when they are face to face with the problem of evil.) This kind of divine determinism leaves no scope for freedom of will. What a person will do at a particular time is already pre-determined. But if human beings are not free, then they cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. Human beings can be held responsible for their actions only if they are free to choose among various alternative options. The idea of god knocks the bottom out of morality. Thus, there is no room for freedom of will and morality within a consistent theism.
The widespread existence of belief in god, in spite of the idea being logically incorrect and morally harmful, is mainly because of three reasons: one, mental inertia and relative absence of free and critical thinking. Two, the wrong notion that the idea of god is essential for preserving morality in society. Three, because the idea satisfies certain psychological needs of human beings, though in a wrong way.
The attitude of a believer towards god is similar to the attitude of a child towards its parents. God is a crutch for weak persons, who are unable to face the reality and who always want to remain a child. An adult human being should not need this false support...If we want to live our lives in a proper manner, and if we want to solve our individual and social problems in a sincere manner, the first essential precondition is that we must see our problems as they are, and we must take full responsibility of our future...We have to realize that social evils are human-made, they have nothing to do with the so-called god... We also have to realize that "divine justice" does not exist, and that god is not going to come as an avatar (incarnation) to solve our problems, we have to solve them ourselves.
Honesty demands that instead of hankering for the false
crutch of god, human beings stand on their own feet; instead of
running away from reality like an ostrich, they face the reality
boldly and squarely; instead of shifting their responsibility on
‘god’ and ‘fate’, they take their own decisions with a full sense of
responsibility, and face the consequences of their actions in a
bold manner.