Posts Tagged ‘harvest’
Though I identify myself as an atheist, when it comes to the heart of my ethics, I’m a humanist. I tend towards pragmatism when it comes to social issues, and I embrace a humanistic view as it seems to be the best of all possible approaches to making life as good as it can be for as many people as possible. I recognize the enormous potential we humans have for cooperation and altruistic behavior. We are capable of being very kind to each other and, on occasion, rising above the raging desire for short-term advantage and choosing, instead, to delay our instant gratification for a reward that we are (sometimes grudgingly) willing to share with others, even strangers.
As you can see by the way I describe the “good” in us humans, I do not shy away from the bad. How can I? I am human too, and I know all too well the impulses in my own consciousness that are necessarily modulated by that lately-added lump of brain tissue in my frontal lobes. My motives for self-understanding are no more or less noble than my own social survival and hope for success in life and love (the two go together for us social primates).
All religions recognize the cognitive tensions (the result of mediating conflicting desires) that are our natural inheritance. To me this tension is a not-surprising product of our natural evolution, while to the religious it is the result of sin entering into the world through our defiance of God. Leaving aside the God idea for a moment (and looking instead at the actual evidence of our origins) why should it shock us to find powerful animal reactivity in us when we have spent most of our evolutionary history as animals living in the wild like any other? Have you considered just how recent is our rise to modern human status? Or the exponential increase in our numbers and multiplication of our technical and cultural achievements that is even now sweeping us forward like a flood toward our future?
Religions base their doctrines and orthodoxies on the ins and outs and ups and downs of human nature. (They have to if they are going to a) appeal to humans, and; b) be of any practical use whatsoever). But a mark of religions is their consistent inability to resist the temptation to re-brand whatever problems they aim to fix (or the solutions they offer) as something unique and special unto themselves. This is not the spreading of truth: this is commercialism and team-building for the sake of building a brand.
Humanism, on the other hand, does not (I think) go about things in that way. It continually throws people back upon their own naturally-derived (and therefore already-owned) resources, while encouraging those that have a surplus to share with those that (through the vagaries of genetics or place of birth) have a deficit. Churches often work to help the poor and the needy, but they are always doing it in part to increase the size and power of the church. As the late Christopher Hitchens liked to point out, they may claim to have their eyes on the rewards in the next life, but they sure seem to spend a lot of time building up kingdoms in this one.
How many times in my Christian years was I told “the fields are white for harvest”, as if people were stalks of wheat to be gathered with sickle and wagon? Or exhorted to be a “fisher of men”, as if people are fish to be caught with bait, hook or net and gathered into the boat? Think about what this says about how the unsaved are viewed by the saved.
Do you want to know why American Evangelical preachers lash out so vehemently at “secular humanism”? Because humanists are out there offering every single benefit that religion offers without the small print, the hidden costs, and the requirement to sign away your reason, your autonomy, and your eternal soul (these same Evangelicals often have as little sympathy for the religious humanists in their own ranks).
As an aside, this all points to one of the basic flaws in this whole “church of bob” concept (at least in terms of a business model): I have nothing at all to hold over anyone who might come here to read, enjoy, learn or laugh. I have no threat of hell to wield, or any hint of a deity’s displeasure (there are very few, I think, concerned about incurring the decidedly temporal “wrath of bob”). That’s why this “church” will never work like a real church (and it is why I’ll never be the slick preacher driving his new Escalade up to his mansion with his trophy wife, just counting the days until my evangelistic empire is brought to ruin by a shocking sexual scandal — sigh).
I go back and forth on my feelings for humans. On the one hand, we sort of deserve whatever we get in terms of fouling our own global nest. But, then, why should I be any more harsh on the human species of animals than I am on any other? Did the dinosaurs “deserve” to go extinct? No. Yes. I don’t know. Anything that is living has earned its moment in the sun through dint of the eons of sheer survival and adaptation that is represented by the surviving DNA in every single living organism (including you and me). And that is why — being an atheist and a humanist — I mourn and I ache for a life that is cut short by the willful act of another. What right does one human have to knowingly make life more miserable for others (especially when they use some bullshit religious justification for it like: “Well, if they were innocent, God will make it up for them in Heaven” — nice)? (I am not addressing, here, the spectrum of discomforts that some humans have with the fact that our very survival requires us to consume other life forms, be they animal or vegetable — one more “tension” we must deal with in life).
So when I attack religion (which I often do, seeing it as but the fat middle of the bell curve of human irrational beliefs of all kinds), I am not attacking my fellow humans, but rather hoping to appeal to (and encourage) our “better natures”. Some will claim that this is what religion does as well, and I will allow that for some people religious conversion does serve as an entry-level introduction to not acting like a complete and total selfish prick. But because religion always has (at its heart) a fearful view of the world, an enshrined sense of self-loathing, and a preening need to be the only game in town, the results are ever going to be mixed.
I think humanism, then, is the way to go. It is not perfect — for it will always be rooted in the reality of actual human behavior — but it is the most reality-based mix of hope and evidence, poisoned the least by denial and absent the religious demand for human debasement before the throne of an imaginary totalitarian in the sky. No humanist will ever think of a person as a fish to hook, or a sheaf of wheat to chop with a scythe.
But, then, it’s not easy to take full responsibility for consciousness — for existence. Too little attention is paid to the challenge that simply being alive and aware entails, I think. Like the button I saw in a store last week that said “Stuck in that awkward phase between birth and death”. Truer words could not be spoken.
All I’m saying is this: let us each do the bit that we can to make that “awkward phase” a bit less awkward (or miserable or tragic) for both ourselves and our fellow human beings. If we end up losing a god who doesn’t seem think that highly of us anyway in the process of achieving the fullness of our humanity, is that such a bad thing?
I, for one, don’t think so.