Sacred Humanism without Miracles

Responding to the New Atheists

R. Saltman

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781137012715
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy of Religion

The New Atheists' claim that religion always leads to fanaticism is baseless. State-backed religion results in tyranny. Sacred humanists work to implement their highest values that will improve this world; separation of church and state, eliminating denigration of nonbelievers, assuring just governance, and preventing human trafficking.

Chapter 1

Worldviews in Conflict

TRADITIONAL ADHERENTS OF ONE OF THE ABRAHAMIC religions—Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—maintain a God-centered conception of the universe. They receive and absorb information on how to live from their respective holy books and religious leaders. As a result, these believers know exactly who God is—a supernatural male. “He” created the Earth and all life on it, and “He” may intervene to answer prayers from the faithful who ask for specific events to happen. Furthermore, the theology that informs these folk states that each human has a soul that does not die with the body.

On the opposite pole are people who are certain that there is nothing in our universe but the physical world. These atheists, as well as some agnostics, believe that life on Earth began without the intervention of any supernatural force, and that evolution by natural selection eventually resulted in human beings many millennia later. The results of research by scientists, such as astrophysicists, biologists, and geologists, provide the information that sustains the views of these individuals. Furthermore, atheists generally believe that there is no afterlife, nor any sort of Spiritual World; agnostics are not certain.

True believers and absolute atheists have this in common: they are literalists with regard to holy scriptures. The believers cite chapter and verse to buttress their views. Combative atheists cite chapters and verses to identify contradictions between them. They also identify violations of physical laws and point out parts of the texts that are inconsistent with the liberal morality and cultural norms of today’s western Europe and North America. Both groups are rigid; they demand agreement with unprovable propositions about the supernatural and excoriate those who dissent.

For example, the story in Genesis about the seven days of creation and about Adam and Eve and the talking serpent is understood by many people to be a creation myth. Humans who have grown up to be discerning adults can appreciate that the function of this myth is to provide a vehicle for discourse about various ways of living. True believers, as well as uncompromising belief-haters, do not understand the allegorical nature of the story. Those persons who treat the myth literally, whether they believe it or totally discount it without understanding its function, are together in the class of humans who fail to understand an elementary intellectual distinction.

An example of this failure is in an advertisement mailed by the magazine Free Inquiry to attract new subscribers. The mailing included a statement by Richard Dawkins, who identifies himself as an FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society). He is one of the New Atheists discussed later, and his statement begins this way: “If you live in America, the chances are good that your next door neighbor believes the following: the Inventor of the laws of physics and Programmer of the DNA code decided to enter the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself born, then deliberately had himself tortured and executed because he couldn’t think of a better way to forgive the theft of an apple, committed at the instigation of a talking snake.”

A conclusion one may draw is that Dawkins really believes that my neighbors (and yours) have a limited capacity to make an elementary intellectual distinction. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

There may be many interpretations of a particular creation myth, and each explanation may yield a different worldview. That is, the interpretation sets a tone for how humans are to see themselves and how each is to act toward everyone else. For example, a stress on “original sin” and its effect on humans living today (“in Adam’s fall, we sinned all”) puts a heavy burden of guilt on people and may make them feel unworthy a priori. The implications of that teaching are significant for the future lives of impressionable students. On the other hand, a stress on the statement from Genesis 1:27, 28, “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them,” may be employed to provide a totally different orientation. (For the source of Hebrew Bible quotations, see The Holy Scriptures in the References chapter.) One does not have to believe in God literally to adopt a humanistic worldview that can be elucidated from the meaning of this text.

The process of interpreting such passages in the Hebrew Bible is a longstanding practice in the Jewish religion in order to make the text meaningful for the contemporary era. (The same issue of interpretation is a major function of the US Supreme Court as it adapts the Constitution, tersely written over 200 years ago, to respond to a current question.) An interpretation of the Hebrew Bible carried out by Jewish scholars is called a midrash (plural midrashim), and there could be many midrashim for the same passage, each produced by a different scholar. Christian exegetes have carried out interpretations also, to demonstrate, for example, that the events of Jesus’s ministry were predicted. Much more will be said in this book about this concept, in light of the view of both atheists and fundamentalists that their particular reading of the plain text is the only possible understanding.

In Search of a Middle Way

Is there a rational center between uncompromising religious belief and arrogant, know-it-all disbelief? British author Karen Armstrong, in The Case for God (2009), discerns the dilemma of those who “feel uncomfortably caught between two sets of extremists: religious fundamentalists, whose belligerent piety they find alienating, on the one hand, and militant atheists calling for the wholesale extermination of religion, on the other” (321).

Armstrong (b. 1944) has previously written several highly informative books on religion, including A History of God (1993). A significant statement in The Case for God is that “In most premodern cultures, there were two recognized ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge. The Greeks called them mythos and logos … Logos (‘reason’) … was essential to the survival of our species. But it had its limitations: It could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life’s struggles. For that people turned to mythos or myth” (xi).

An important theme in The Case for God is that there have been widely different definitions of God, from the earliest times to the present, even among persons of the same nominal religion. In Armstrong’s view, the current deep chasm between believers and atheists has its origin in the change in outlook that began with the Renaissance in the fifteenth century. Western society began to develop a civilization increasingly responsive to the discoveries of science based on observations of the physical world. The effect on religion was that “Logos achieved such spectacular results that myth was discredited and the scientific method was thought to be the only reliable means of attaining truth. This would make religion difficult, if not impossible” (xv).

One function of religion is to assist us to step outside ourselves and actually experience the transcendent. In times past, according to Armstrong, holy scriptures were interpreted in a mythic sense, improving the likelihood of the experience. Trying to achieve closeness with the transcendent by describing or analyzing it, rather than experiencing it, may not be possible. It cannot be fully articulated, as humans are limited by earthbound language. Intellectualization, inherent in the scientific method, may further distance us.

Attempts to define the transcendent have proceeded since ancient times. “God Is Beyond Comprehension” is the title of a section included in Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions (rev. ed. 2002) by Jeffrey Moses. Statements expressing this idea from six of the great religions are listed (122–3). Maimonides (1138–204), the Jewish sage of medieval times, wrote in The Guide of the Perplexed that one could only define God by negative attributes, that is, by what was not true, not by what was true. He was born in Muslim Spain but lived and wrote in Egypt for much of his life, where he was significantly influenced by Islamic thought. Muslim philosophers of that era also recognized the limited ability of humans to define the transcendent. The fact that both the Jewish and Muslim religions forbid the physical representation of the deity or the prophets in pictures or statues is indicative of their views on this issue. Such a representation would be limiting of a fuller understanding, and would constitute a tendency toward idol-worship.

Whether or not Armstrong’s view about the impact of the scientific method is correct, the literalist approach to holy writings is in vogue at this time. In particular, the New Testament is seen by some believers as a textbook similar to one that might be found in a class in physics, or perhaps like a handbook of beliefs and recipes for action, such as the Little Red Book of Mao Tse-Tung. Similarly, Muslim jihadis seem to be adopting specific statements in the Koran to justify their violence, while ignoring other passages that could provide the opposite interpretation. Jewish supporters of settlements in the Occupied Territories (West Bank) cite biblical passages about the God-given land to buttress their views (e.g., see Genesis 15:18). Their atheist opponents, also reading the texts literally and comparing them to scientific treatises, see them as nonrational, useless, or even destructive, from their point of view.

The Modern Dilemma and Its Analysis

It appears that Karen Armstrong would prefer the premodern, more spiritual, less rational interpretation of religion, and not that of our scientific age. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that people who have been educated with late-twentieth-century methods, and who have lived with all the accouterments of advanced technology based on scientific research, can revert to attitudes of the Middle Ages.

The implication of results of scientific investigations of recent centuries is clear: the universe operates on every level, from the atomic to the cosmic, only by physical laws that were established when the universe began. The most recent variable conditions on the Earth have favored the development of life-forms, leading to the evolution of humans, but also causing events dangerous to humans, such as droughts, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and epidemics. This new rational understanding of natural change has affected the basis that many people have used to regulate the way they live.

A statement by a Protestant evangelical leader that Hurricane Katrina of 2005 was “God’s wrath over societal tolerance of homosexuality” and a “judgment on the wickedness and decadence of New Orleans” seems ludicrous to those who fully understand the implications of scientific discoveries. In late April 2011, when destructive tornadoes killed about three hundred people in an area of the South where evangelical Christianity is extremely strong, no such pronouncements were made. Natural disasters are not God’s revenge or admonitions; rather, they are the result of processes regulated by the fundamental laws of physics operative in our universe.

Furthermore, the Earth doesn’t have unlimited resources; they must be managed, even more so than earlier, in the light of recent significant population growth and industrialization. If the availability of sources of sustenance as well as natural disasters are not God’s work, what about the sacred values by which we live? Religion, with its core buttressed by miracles, has told adherents how to select their sacred values. Without miracles, religious imperatives are questionable because the basis of religion is devalued. Without miracles, is nothing sacred? And if there is a sacred aspect to human life, how is it to be discovered and applied? These are the questions pursued here.

The remainder of this chapter elaborates on the meaning of the sacred and the impact on religion in the absence of miracles. Additionally, the origin of Christianity as a synthesis of Judaism and paganism, along with its debt to its church–state alliance, are discussed. The New Atheists are introduced, and their baseless claim that moderate religion leads to fanaticism is countered. Chapter 2 reviews the results of scientific research that has led us to understand both the origin of the universe and the operation of physical laws that have yielded the evolution of humans on planet Earth. Chapter 3 provides a discussion of religion, including its function, its analysis by a number of important theorists, its relationship to culture, and reasons for its continuation. Chapter 4 describes the violence and suffering historically generated by state-supported religion. Chapter 5 concerns the contemporary worldwide turmoil fostered by extreme variants of religious practice. Finally, in Chapter 6, the issue of sacred values that can be established independently of supernatural command is addressed. This chapter also undertakes a review of seven international convocations, held over the period 1933 to 2009, in which some of these values have been identified. It is asserted that sacred humanism, also called “humanism with sacred values,” is the rational middle ground between religion and a value-free atheism. Persons with this life-stance aim to improve the world; actions consistent with that purpose are delineated.

The Greco-Roman Era

Ideas and actions of the period from 400 BCE (“before the Common Era”) to 400 CE (“of the Common Era”) affect much of what we think and do today. This era may be considered to have begun at about the time that Socrates was condemned to death and Plato started to write philosophical works. Later in the period, the pagan Romans conquered the Greeks, who had developed stories about semidivine heroes called “demigods,” as well as the Jews, who had evolved monotheism. The era would end with Christianity, defined by a revised Nicene Creed, as the state religion of the Roman empire, with both paganism and Christian “heresies” proscribed.

With the conquests of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century BCE, Greek culture spread most strongly throughout the lands bounded by the eastern half of the Mediterranean Sea. This culture included Greek language and customs, as well as schools of its philosophers. For example, the ideas of the philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE) were widely disseminated, including the concept that the gods existed but that they did not interfere in the affairs of humans. In a reaction against Hellenism, “apikouros” (Epicurean) became a pejorative used by some Jews throughout the Greco-Roman world against nonpietistic individuals who were too closely associated with worldly attitudes and modes of living. The Jews of Judea were successful in battling the forces of the Greco-Syrian monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes, beginning in 167 BCE, leading to their temporary independence commemorated in the festival of Hanukkah, but were not so fortunate after being overrun by Roman legions under Pompey in 63 BCE.

Christianity began in the first century CE at a time when the Roman empire was at the height of its power. The Mediterranean Sea was a Roman lake. Rome’s power, enforced by its unequaled military legions, did not ensure that its subject peoples were always content. Many revolts were attempted. For example, the Jews rose up in 66 CE in their home country, but the result was their defeat, the destruction of the holy temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, and death or slavery for many of the losers. According to Martin Gilbert in The Dent Atlas of Jewish History (1993), other Jewish revolts against Rome that failed occurred in 115–17 CE in Cyrenaica (in today’s Libya), Egypt, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Another failed revolt, the Bar Kochba rebellion, occurred in 132–35 CE, in Judea itself. After this final revolt was suppressed by Emperor Hadrian, Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina by the Romans. Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina, and Jews were forbidden to live there. If nothing succeeds like success, then nothing fails like failure. The devastating military defeats in the homeland of Judaism must have had a significant outcome in conversions to the new religion by “God-fearers.” These were persons in the Diaspora who were sympathetic to Judaism and participated in some of its rites and festivals, but were not actually Jews.

One interpretation of Christian theology is that it is a synthesis of two disparate lines of religious thought: monotheistic Judaism and Greco-Roman polytheism. This borrowing and synthesis is not unique. The story of Noah in the Hebrew Bible appears to have been adapted from flood myths of earlier civilizations in Mesopotamia. The Koran, according to some experts, contains borrowings from the works of the two older monotheisms.

The development of Christianity owes much to the Roman admiration of Greek culture. The Romans may have defeated the Greeks, but they adopted much of the Greek pantheon of gods and heroes. Greek architecture, as well as copies of their statues, decorated Roman villas. New Roman cities established in conquered territories (such as Jerash, now in Jordan) mirrored Greek designs, with public temples, libraries, baths, and theaters. The Greek language was still in wide use as the lingua franca in the lands bordering the eastern Mediterranean. The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in stages in the third and second centuries BCE; the translation was called the Septuagint. Greek was the original language of the New Testament. Christianity’s triune godhead—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—is claimed to be really one God. This apparent attempt to be simultaneously monotheistic and polytheistic puzzles many nonadherents as confusing and inconsistent. In addition, consider the following description: A certain man was the son of a god and a mortal woman, although he had a nominal human father. As an adult, he performed a number of wondrous feats. He died a horrible and painful death, but became immortal.

This account fits both the Greek hero Heracles (called Hercules in the Roman world) and the crucified Jew, Jesus. Heracles was born to a mortal woman, Alcmene; his real father was Zeus, the most powerful of the immortal Olympian gods. However, Heracles had a mortal father, Amphitryon, in the same sense that Jesus had a mortal father, Joseph. Heracles performed 12 wondrous labors. Jesus carried out many miracles, such as turning water into wine, raising Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus from the dead, walking on water, driving out demons that possessed humans, and healing blind and paralyzed individuals.

H...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• About the Author
• 1: Worldviews in Conflict
• 2: Our Physical Universe: Beyond Belief
• 3: Religion: Origins, Interpretations, and Current Practices
• 4: Religion and the State: A Tyrannous Alliance
• 5: Contemporary Interreligious Conflicts
• 6: Acting on Sacred Values in a Scientific Age
• References
• Index