All Comments (106)

Hello Mr. Epstein

I'm in full agreement with you regarding humanism being more than mere atheism, and I also regularly speak against anti-theism.

Where we might differ, is that I'm opposed to the Humanist Association of Canada implementing a chaplaincy program. My reasoning is entirely semantic. By dictionary definition, etymologically, and very much by common perception in North America, "chaplain" is a religious term.

Unlike some members of the American Humanist Association, we in the HAC define ourselves as non-religious; as secular humanists. As such, some (but not all) of us are uncomfortable with using this exclusively religious title.

I'd like to have your thoughts on this subject. Being a humanist Chaplain and Rabbi, I expect you have an opinion that will interest me.

With much respect,
Derek Kaill
First Vice President,
Humanist Association of Canada

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

I can assure you I speak for many fellow believers when I say I'd like to help bridge the gap that fundamentalists and anti-theists are creating.

I'm glad to see viewpoints like yours and mine get some attention, and please do have the courage to reach across that gap if you think some less-confrontational believers might be of help.

Without God there can be no good, because we know, that only God is good. And the things and ideas,and feelings we come to see as "good" are directly from God.

Humans are by nature incapable of attaining "goodness".

What is the difference between humanism and hedonism? In theological terms the definition you give for humanism is much the same for the cardinal sin of pride that assumes that we can achieve all we need and that we can do all things of our own power.

It seems that humanism is simply the moral, ethical, and social realities of a God centered religion, without the source;God.

Doris, you're right. After thinking about your post I just wanted to rush back to the heartland, cozy up at the family hearth, and quietly, happily, accommodate evil.

I am in accord with Greg Epstein.I live quietly and good-humoredly within a large,religious family.

Stan, don't worry about the triplicate posts - it happens and I've never seen them removed. I can undertand your desire to get out. I also respect your insight.

I hope (and think) you're wrong about the fundies. We have to work to keep them under control, but I believe we are now. Their ascendancy is over, I think. They are on the wane and will continue so as long as we ar vigilant. I think leberal Christians and just as determined as atheists/humanists to keep them at bay. I think that the whole growth in atheism is related to fundamentalism among Christians and Muslims.

Apologies for triplicate posts above. It happened because I thought that my http-post was failing. Instead, it's just the delay in post publication.

Will moderators please remove two of them?
Regards,
Stan

E favorite,

I made this move many years before this issue (believers v non-believers) crept into the public domain. What I did was decide not to go down with the ship, to stop allowing myself to be so compromised. It worked. I maintained my self-respect and have not been shamed by the country's (USA) war of aggression, torture practices, and gross neglect of its own citizens (New Orleans).

Believe me, I was compromised long before 2000. For instance, here is a personal anecdote about the last conversation I had with my grandmother in the late 90s. She was a loud, devout, hateful believer who gave thousands of dollars to evangelists. That day she told me a story of how a black man was caught with a white girl. (She didn't say they were eating ice cream, kissing, dating, or something horrible.) She giddily told me how the towns-people (of a small town in my home state of Texas) wrapped a chain around the man's neck, tied the other end of the chain to a truck, and dragged him up and down Main Street until his head came off. That woman compromised me. I had to ditch her.

Having said that, as much as I would like to participate in working for positive change, it cannot happen until intense focus and reality is introduced to the debates about US foreign policies regarding Israel & Palestine / Iraq / Iran / Cuba, and tax policies (why what's good for the top 1% is bad for the rest of us). Faith needs to be stripped out of these debates. History has a lot to teach about these matters, but it is ignored with contempt, and replaced by irrationality, cheap, squalid patriotism, and faith. Elected officials avoid these issues like the plague, knowing that showing respect for reality and expressing concern for human life is to commit political suicide. And when I mention human life, I mean all of it, not just the faithful part of the 4% of it that live within US borders.

I have confidence in my world-view. I do not have confidence in the world-view, and various agendas, of religious, political, corporate, and military leaders in the US. Why? Here is another reason: in the winter of 2003 I was working in a large UK news organization. When colleagues asked what I thought -- as an American -- about the imminent US invasion of Iraq, I said I am sure it will end in US defeat and Iraqi civil war. Few regarded my responses respectfully. But I had hindsight that most of my career-management obsessed colleagues did not. I knew, for example, that the Americans were no wiser than the British in 1920, who also failed to impose themselves on the Iraqis. Again, history, not faith, can provide warnings, answers, and some wisdom. But exceptional American leaders create their own reality, right? And oh-boy, do they.

I mention this to point out that I knew I was realistic enough to see the awful consequences of a Bush presidency and the Iraq War long before any friends, family, and all but a tiny handful of pedigreed "experts". Therefore, I trust my perspective to match up very well against reality, regarding the issue of positive changes in US foreign and domestic policies occurring in the future.

I do not see any reason to hope that there will be meaningful change in the near future. There is far more damage to be wrought, and it will be wrapped around the necks of the fundies and their apologists. Not mine.

I am willing to talk all of this out with family, former friends, or anybody else. Nothing interests me more. But instead of demanding apologies from me, they've got to demonstrate remorse, drop the imaginary friend, or there is nothing to discuss.

E favorite,

I made this move many years before this issue (believers v non-believers) crept into the public domain. What I did was decide not to go down with the ship, to stop allowing myself to be so compromised. It worked. I maintained my self-respect and have not been shamed by the country's (USA) war of aggression, torture practices, and gross neglect of its own citizens (New Orleans).

Believe me, I was compromised long before 2000. For instance, here is a personal anecdote about the last conversation I had with my grandmother in the late 90s. She was a loud, devout, hateful believer who gave thousands of dollars to evangelists. That day she told me a story of how a black man was caught with a white girl. (She didn't say they were eating ice cream, kissing, dating, or something horrible.) She giddily told me how the towns-people (of a small town in my home state of Texas) wrapped a chain around the man's neck, tied the other end of the chain to a truck, and dragged him up and down Main Street until his head came off. That woman compromised me. I had to ditch her.

Having said that, as much as I would like to participate in working for positive change, it cannot happen until intense focus and reality is introduced to the debates about US foreign policies regarding Israel & Palestine / Iraq / Iran / Cuba, and tax policies (why what's good for the top 1% is bad for the rest of us). Faith needs to be stripped out of these debates. History has a lot to teach about these matters, but it is ignored with contempt, and replaced by irrationality, cheap, squalid patriotism, and faith. Elected officials avoid these issues like the plague, knowing that showing respect for reality and expressing concern for human life is to commit political suicide. And when I mention human life, I mean all of it, not just the faithful part of the 4% of it that live within US borders.

I have confidence in my world-view. I do not have confidence in the world-view, and various agendas, of religious, political, corporate, and military leaders in the US. Why? Here is another reason: in the winter of 2003 I was working in a large UK news organization. When colleagues asked what I thought -- as an American -- about the imminent US invasion of Iraq, I said I am sure it will end in US defeat and Iraqi civil war. Few regarded my responses respectfully. But I had hindsight that most of my career-management obsessed colleagues did not. I knew, for example, that the Americans were no wiser than the British in 1920, who also failed to impose themselves on the Iraqis. Again, history, not faith, can provide warnings, answers, and some wisdom. But exceptional American leaders create their own reality, right? And oh-boy, do they.

I mention this to point out that I knew I was realistic enough to see the awful consequences of a Bush presidency and the Iraq War long before any friends, family, and all but a tiny handful of pedigreed "experts". Therefore, I trust my perspective to match up very well against reality, regarding the issue of positive changes in US foreign and domestic policies occurring in the future.

I do not see any reason to hope that there will be meaningful change in the near future. There is far more damage to be wrought, and it will be wrapped around the necks of the fundies and their apologists. Not mine.

I am willing to talk all of this out with family, former friends, or anybody else. Nothing interests me more. But instead of demanding apologies from me, they've got to demonstrate remorse, drop the imaginary friend, or there is nothing to discuss.

Regards,
Stan

E favorite,

I made this move many years before this issue (believers v non-believers) crept into the public domain. What I did was decide not to go down with the ship, to stop allowing myself to be so compromised. It worked. I maintained my self-respect and have not been shamed by the country's (USA) war of aggression, torture practices, and gross neglect of its own citizens (New Orleans).

Believe me, I was compromised long before 2000. For instance, here is a personal anecdote about the last conversation I had with my grandmother in the late 90s. She was a loud, devout, hateful believer who gave thousands of dollars to evangelists. That day she told me a story of how a black man was caught with a white girl. (She didn't say they were eating ice cream, kissing, dating, or something horrible.) She giddily told me how the towns-people (of a small town in my home state of Texas) wrapped a chain around the man's neck, tied the other end of the chain to a truck, and dragged him up and down Main Street until his head came off. That woman compromised me. I had to ditch her.

Having said that, as much as I would like to participate in working for positive change, it cannot happen until intense focus and reality is introduced to the debates about US foreign policies regarding Israel & Palestine / Iraq / Iran / Cuba, and tax policies (why what's good for the top 1% is bad for the rest of us). Faith needs to be stripped out of these debates. History has a lot to teach about these matters, but it is ignored with contempt, and replaced by irrationality, cheap, squalid patriotism, and faith. Elected officials avoid these issues like the plague, knowing that showing respect for reality and expressing concern for human life is to commit political suicide. And when I mention human life, I mean all of it, not just the faithful part of the 4% of it that live within US borders.

I have confidence in my world-view. I do not have confidence in the world-view, and various agendas, of religious, political, corporate, and military leaders in the US. Why? Here is another reason: in the winter of 2003 I was working in a large UK news organization. When colleagues asked what I thought -- as an American -- about the imminent US invasion of Iraq, I said I am sure it will end in US defeat and Iraqi civil war. Few regarded my responses respectfully. But I had hindsight that most of my career-management obsessed colleagues did not. I knew, for example, that the Americans were no wiser than the British in 1920, who also failed to impose themselves on the Iraqis. Again, history, not faith, can provide warnings, answers, and some wisdom. But exceptional American leaders create their own reality, right? And oh-boy, do they.

I mention this to point out that I knew I was realistic enough to see the awful consequences of a Bush presidency and the Iraq War long before any friends, family, and all but a tiny handful of pedigreed "experts". Therefore, I trust my perspective to match up very well against reality, regarding the issue of positive changes in US foreign and domestic policies occurring in the future.

I do not see any reason to hope that there will be meaningful change in the near future. There is far more damage to be wrought, and it will be wrapped around the necks of the fundies and their apologists. Not mine.

I am willing to talk all of this out with family, former friends, or anybody else. Nothing interests me more. But instead of demanding apologies from me, they've got to demonstrate remorse, drop the imaginary friend, or there is nothing to discuss.

Regards,
Stan

Problem is, Stan, if everyone responded as you did and left the US, there would be no atheists/humanists to change things. the fundies would have the country all to themselves.

Sorry I have not had time to read and comment on this article before. It is a good historical synthesis of the way our brains think about deity and how we respond by praying, essentially a conversation with ourselves. And, of course, how can we mistrust the echo of ourselves in our own minds in the first place? That is heresy.

The problem I always have is when we move away from a world full of dogmas unto its opposite empty of them. Isn't that dogmatic? Of course, that is not your problem. I suppose that is mine and I still have to sort it out.

Thanks.

I am not convinced by the essays and posts here suggesting that I be more accommodating towards believers. I ask that those who attempt to reconcile believers and non-believers first challenge christian fundamentalists and their apologists, who are the responsible electoral base which brought to power those who have destroyed many lives, humanistic values and practices within the US, and its reputation abroad.

To those who suggest a quieter, less angry approach by non-believers, I say this: I will show more respect towards believers when they show it in return. In most social situations, just saying "I am an atheist" will provoke hatred and derision. Yet, I have to listen to various invocations of "God" (or "Deus", where I live now) dozens of times per day. I cannot say "Please keep your religion to yourself, I am an atheist", without truculent believers taking serious offense. Where is the mutual respect and fair-play here? Why should I play this game on their terms? I will not.

I believe in fair play, equality under the law, or simply, "the golden rule", a rule that has been around for much longer than the Old Testament. But in these times, I also believe in a similar rule: Do unto others as they do to you, or them.

Many atheists are afraid of "coming out" because of their fear of what believers will think about them, or even do to them. This can be turned around. Atheists can "do to them" instead. Here is an example:

My biological/extended family were convinced I will suffer unimaginable pain for an eternity because I do not have an imaginary friend named Jesus. To me, this was and still is the utmost in disrespect and hostility. For decades I kept my mouth shut (or was labeled a heathen, communist, fill_in_the_blank, if I expressed doubt). I maintained a defensive posture until December 2000, when the Supreme Court decided that the one who is "with God" -- as my evangelist/bomber pilot bother-in-law put it -- deserved to take over the White House and the keys to the Pentagon's arsenal. At that moment I stopped being defensive. I disowned them within 72 hours of the court's decision. Since then I have made a point of being as nasty as I could be towards believers who support the evil psychopath. Together, they are responsible for the deaths of an estimated one million human beings (and that does not yet appear to satisfy them). I also vowed never to live within the US again until the country begins to act in a more adult, rational, and less blood-thirsty manner. I am not holding my breath.

The onus is on the believers. They will get respect when they show it. I have no need for them. They have no power over me. And my life is far better without them in it. There will not be common ground between us until the other side demonstrates more respect for human life (the foreign variety), reality, and acknowledges that they do not get to make the rules anymore.

Vincent Fabiano: "It has concerned me that people like Dawkins, and Hitchens, even though being very smart, are alienating people, because they are coming off as arrogant"

Don't worry about it. They're getting attention in a way the humanists haven't and never could. Quietly blending in is no way to make change. When the fur stops flying, we can get down to business

I think this is wonderful article by Mr. Epstein. I too feel the same way he does.

I consider myself a humanist and lack a belief in any dieties or the supernatural.

It has concerned me that people like Dawkins, and Hitchens, even though being very smart, are alienating people, because they are coming off as arrogant.

I myself would have no problem working alongside of a religious person defending human rights, and promoting social justice.

Science is a great tool for making the world a better place, and this is what people like Dawkins should be promoting, not anti-theism. Also, in my opinion, people like Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Hitchens have not shown how atheism can promote a kinder, more compassionate world. Just because a person is pro science, and a materialist view of the world does not say anything of their character.

Again thank you Epstein for this wonderful article. :)

Epstein is wrong in equating anti-theism to hostility to religion. Anti-theism seeks not to destroy religion, but to strip the bad part out (theism) and leave the good parts in. Epstein even named these good parts: "Family, tradition, and community. Memories of lost loved ones and consolation in the face of death. The organized pursuit of social justice. Not to mention music, art, architecture." We can certain value those things with or without theism - none of them requires belief in a supreme being.

I don't see why Epstien doesn't understand that a lot of atheists avoid organized religion FOR A REASON.

Nice response to Hitchens, Greg! Keep it up! As a member of Ethical Culture, I share most of your perspective. Life is so short. I would like to focus on bringing out the best in us all.

In that vein, I hope my comment contributes constructively to your greate leadership as a Humanist. I note your phrase:
"While atheism is the lack of belief in any god, anti-theism means actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion. Anti-theism seeks to shame and embarrass people away from religion, browbeating them about the stupidity of belief in a bellicose god."

I applaud your taking on angry athiesm, but In your effort to avoid polarization, don't you slip into it a bit here? Is there room for someone who is more than an athiest, who in fact actively denies the existence of God, who thinks theism should be countered by non-theistic humanism, but isn't as nasty as the portrait you paint of an anti-theist? I agree I have met some ugly anti-theists, but your phrasing doesn't leave room for more "reasonable" thinkers who are more than athiests, who love all the good things you mention associated with religion, but believe that the world would be better off if we nurtured those good things outside of religious or theistic frameworks.

One final question: do you acknowledge "religious Humanism" as a category? You seem to see religion and humanism as mutually exclusive. I am still trying to work this one out.

Hugh Taft-Morales

Less Theism, More Humanism

Greg Epstein’s comments about humanism are well-stated and on-point. However, his comments about theism, atheism, and anti-theism are not. This is immediately apparent from his choice of titles. Despite his stated beliefs, Epstein’s title shows an inherent bias against atheism.

It is true that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are noisome individuals who are easy to dismiss on personal grounds. But can we really afford to dismiss the content of their messages?

Anti-theism takes note of the deplorable aspects of religion and rallies against them. To say that antitheists “seek out the worst aspects of faith in god” seems to imply a nitpicking attention to uncommon or irrelevant aberrations by the religious. The fact is that immorality and nonhumanistic thinking is rampant in the written gospels of most major religions. One can be an anti-totalitarian or anti-slavery or anti-misogynist and point out the evils of these belief systems without relying on obscure examples. Such is also true for religion. Moreover, most of the modern wars have an implicit or explicit religious basis, including the American wars in the Middle East. If religion is represents “the organized pursuit of social justice” then it has failed miserably after millennium of effort. Maybe it is time to try a different paradigm.

To say that religion is responsible for great art is also misguided. Slavery may produce architectural marvels, or high economic productivity, or even brilliant music. But that hardly justifies slavery. Ditto religion. Most great literature and musical are not religious in nature. And who is to say how much great art, music, architecture, science, and humanity has been prevented by the ubiquity and predominance of religion? When religious society is the only game in town, then all works good or bad fall within its dominion. That hardly proves that secular society could not produce something even more grandiose.

The question “why hasn’t anti-theism ever gained any real political or social power?” is ill-considered for a number of reasons. First of all, it has. Anti-theism gained significant power during the late eighteenth century and it is gaining power today. It is written into the American constitution in the separation of church and state as a safe guard against religion. Secondly, theism is deeply threatened by anti-theism in the way that totalitarianism is threatened by freedom. Therefore, religions have long quashed most inroads made on their territory. Thirdly, the mere existence of your essay points to the advances that have been made in releasing the death grip of religion on intellectual thought. These advances are the result of push back against religious oppression, in short, by anti-theism. To equate anti-theism with Hitchins or Dawkins is a deception and a caricature. Fourthly, one can illustrate the misdirection of the question by example. Imagine I pose the questions: “why hasn’t anti-slavery ever gained any real political or social power?” or ”why haven’t democratic ideals ever gained any real political or social power”. In our modern world, we would see those questions as preposterous. However, if we posed them 250-300 years ago, they would just as pertinent as the question Epstein poses. It is merely a question of timing.

The real problem with religion is that everyone has their own version of what it means - even among Christians, even among individual sects of Christianity, even among families, even in the same individual over time. And there is no metric for differentiating between these different conceptions. Except coercision, promises of grandeur, or indoctrination of the naïve. While defining his terms, Epstein forgets to introduce the term “anti-atheism”. How many religions or religious people have a truly humanistic view of atheists? Perhaps Epstein’s next essay should scrutinize the issue of “Less Anti-Atheism, More Humanism.” If he were to succeed, then we would have no need for Hitchins.

Marguerite Robbins - I appreciate your response, but I must admit, I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounds like you're giving me a lecture on my communications style, advocating that I use more "I messages” – and suggesting, that I shouldn't say "you" as much? If this is so, could you be more direct about it and tell me why you think a change in my behavior would be a good thing?

It also seems like you're saying your definition of violence is not the main one in the dictionary that most people are familiar with, but one you learned in a course that I (and presumably others here) haven't taken. I don’t have a clue of what you’re implying when you mention not being “shamed into new beliefs.” Is that something that happens much? I left an Episcopal church just 4 months ago. In the process of rejecting Christianity I felt surprised, deceived, angry, curious, enlightened, relieved, and emancipated, but never shamed. Why do you mention that?

Frankly, I don't think we are in agreement. I suspect you're someone who can't say, "Oops, that's not what I meant," or "Oops, I shouldn’t have said that.” Sorry to be so hard on you, but as one humanist to another, I think it’s important to speak clearly and take responsibility for one’s words. Theistic religion is full of obfuscation. This is one “tradition” I think we humanists should avoid emulating.

Yes, Humanism allows us scientists to have our cake and eat it too. Richard Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' acknowleges as much and describes rather eloquently how there is strong evolutionary advantage to organisms that form communities and act altruistically toward each other. Both Hitchens and Dawkins however are anti-theists, to quote your term, because tolerance of religion in general has allowed fanatically religious people to conclude that it is/was particularly ethical to fly hijacked airplanes into skycrapers, bomb mass transit systems and destroy embassies. I must agree with them that intellectuals are commiting 'high treason' by allowing the argument for bellicose behavior in the name of God to persist. As I attended High Holiday services at my synagogue last week, I gather my attitude makes me a hypocrite, and I confess as much. I will however continue to argue with my fellow humans that there is no rational reason to follow 'God's law' per se as it is extremely unlikely that there is a god at all. Furthermore, and I believe you'll agree with this, we can all be ethical, law-abiding beings and still be hostile to the god concept.

In response to E Favorite's message on October 2nd at 9:15 AM regarding my message on October 2nd at 1:09 AM.

E Favorite, your message has reminded me how important it is to define the words we use. In a graduate school class on Nonviolence, I learned the following definition for the word "violence." "Violence is emotional, verbal or physical behavior which dominates, diminishes or destroys ourselves or others."

I am a strong advocate for people speaking their truths using "I messages" such as "I believe ...because..." or "I don't believe...because..." I am not an advocate for people using disrespectful "you messages" which attack others and are therefore violent in themselves (given the above definition). Such statements provoke defensiveness and psychological or verbal violence in the recipients, blocking the opportunity for constructive sharing, deep listening, learning, growth and transformation.

FYI - Over the past twelve years I have moved from being a Christian to a theist to a humanist/atheist. During this time I was fortunate to meet humanists who expressed their beliefs and lived lives I respected. They also accepted me where I was spiritually/philosophically which enabled me to investigate and choose what was right for me, unencumbered by obstacles of defensiveness and anger.

E Favorite, both of us want to stop violence. I believe that understanding and practicing nonviolent communication are necessary steps in that process.

In response to a message from E Favorite on October 2nd at 9:15 AM:

E Favorite, your response to my message of October 2nd at 1:09 AM reminds me of how important it can be to define the words we use. The meaning of "violence" in my message has the following definition which I learned in a graduate school course on Nonviolence. "Violence is emotional, verbal or physical behavior which dominates, diminishes or destroys ourselves or others." I am a strong advocate of people speaking their truth using "I messages" such as "I believe in... because ..." and "I don't believe in ... because..." I am not an advocate for "you messages" which are disrespectful and usually put the receiver in a defensive mode. Disrespectful "you statements" are themselves a form of violence (given the definition above) and usually provoke violent responses either internally or externally in the recipient. FYI - Over the past twelve years I have moved from being a Christian to a theist to a humanist/atheist. I did not find my way through these transformations because I was shamed into new beliefs. Rather, I was fortunate to meet people who spoke their own humanistic truths and lived lives I respected. They also accepted me where I was in my spiritual/philosophical journey and thus enabled me to investigate and decide for myself - without the obstacle of defensiveness - what worked for me. It seems to me, E Favorite, that you and I are in agreement. We just aren't using the same definition of "violence."

I agree whole heartedly with Humanist Greg Epstein of Harvard U. I have been a humanist of deep spiritual thought for 30 years and an ardent student of Ralph Waldo Emerson for over 10 years.

Emerson proved that all religious feelings can be evoke by letting the mind contemplate infinity or in the realization of the "infinitude of the private person" as Emerson called it.

Wendell F. Refior

Rabbi Epstein offers an eloquent, thoughtful response to the harsh condemnation presented by Mr. Hitchens. I applaud his insight and positive contributions to the discussion.

There is a point that merits mentioning. Faith and religion are distinct. Faith is a personal yearning to embrace, be absorbed by and be one with a Higher Authority. Religion is artificial. Religion is manmade and can enhance a spiritual journey through its beauty, culture and ritual. Unfortunately, religion is often used as a tool toward emotional, spiritual and physical abuse.

Bishop Paul Peter Jesep,
By Appointment of His Beatitude
Metropolitan Myfodii of Kyiv and All Ukraine,
Dir. of Public Affairs and Govt Relations in USA

I cannot deny that if there were a world full of humanists, our living situation would most likely be much improved.

However, I must take issue with your characterization of antitheism. Whatever your particular criticism of Christopher Hitchens may be, antitheism is the belief that religion is harmful overall and that the world would be better off without it.

This is not simply "actively seeking out the worst aspects of faith in god and portraying them as representative of all religion," it is a legitimate philosophical position that can be expressed politely and with all due respect to a religious tradition, or with pointed words.

MARGUERITE ROBBINS: “As long as anti-theists are overtly intolerant and disrespectful of those who believe in theistic religions, violence will be manifest.”

This is a pretty broad and ominous statement. Please show me one example of this. Chris Hitchens is the only celebrity anti-theist I know of and all he does is express his opinions, which by the way, include [paraphrasing]– “just keep your religion away from me.” Even when being negative or insulting, he talks in a low, modulated and cultured tone, and he never, ever even suggests any acts of violence against believers. I just visited his website and find no antitheist remarks, no call to arms - nothing but a list of articles and interviews, just as you would expect from a journalist.

So tell me, where do you think this violence will come from? Believers, perhaps? They certainly are angry at articulate journalists like Chris Hitchens with the audacity to speak negatively (albeit truthfully) about religion. And why do you think violence is the inevitable result of anti-theists showing disrespect? Truly, I can’t believe that you do. I can only hope that you realize that you’ve overstated your thoughts. Perhaps you’re unconsciously trying to frighten atheists and anti-theists into their previously quiet and respectful position – where it was OK for believers to openly disrespect “godless atheists,” but decidedly not OK for atheists to respond, or even admit their own existence. Many of us don’t “know our place” any more and I’m afraid you find it so disconcerting that you see chaos ahead.

Please think about this some more and in your future writings, please consider not threatening violence. Surely there is a middle ground between “overtly intolerant and disrespectful” and “violence is manifest.” Humanists, who are atheists, want to stop violence. How about you?

And let us not forget that however humansist or secular, RABBI Epstein IS a JEWISH RABBI. Judaism is a much about tribal affiliation as religion. No other tribe has maintained racial purity and tribal cohesivness to be able to return to the tribal homeland, 2000 yrs after losing it. The insistance of Zionist Israelis that Israel be a Jewish state with only Jews welcome, and that Israel will control all within its traditional boundaries and not recognize those silly UN mandated borders, does have a great deal to do with the unrest in the middle east. It is largely a front for islamic militancy and tribal rivalries, but it is a legitimate complaint.

So when the good Rabbi call for all to just get along as good little humanist, he also ask us to turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of his tribe, while my nation continues to support a tribal apartheid state to the tune of $20 billion a year and a big red target on our backs because of that support.

Once again, humanism is a great goal but impossible as long as 80% of the world would rather practise Abrahamism.

I fully support Greg Epstein's position on theism. Humanism must be tolerant and must not disparage other beliefs while at the same time critically engaging them. Both theism and anti-theism dichotomize the world into for versus against. Humanism should not fall into the binary framework that would alienate others who do not subscribe to the humanist school of thought. By demonizing believers we would only be doing the same thing that the religious fanatics do with the only difference being the proponents in this instance would be anti-theists.

Sudarsan Padmanabhan, IIT Madras

Bravo to Rabbi Greg Epstein for a wonderfully thoughful, sensitive, and enlightened perspective on anti-theism versus humanism! The world desperately needs to become acquainted with Epstein's wisdom on this issue.

"Better than" mentalities are a form of violence. They facilitate separation and a desire for "power over" rather than "power with." As long as anti-theists are overtly intolerant and disrespectful of those who believe in theistic religions, violence will be manifest. And it will produce a response of more violence - be it physical or psychological - by those who have been the recipients of the initial attacks. Violence always begets violence.

Our world does not need more violence. It needs interventions to break up the many strands of violence which form a life-depleting web of violence throughout our world. Rabbi Epstein's thoughts on anti-theism versus humanism inform us of a very important alternative to anti-theism, an alternative that is nonviolent and life-enhancing for all involved.

Thank you, Rabbi Epstein, for your wisdom on this very important issue.

Mr Epstein,

I love your presentation of Humanism, it does mesh quite well with other definitions I came across, such as "atheism with heart". I also understand your stand is possible in part because you live in a country that has been spared (so far!) the deadly embrace of political power and religion power. In other places, the "live and let live" attitude between atheism and religion is a lot more challenging. For those places "virulent anti-theism" may be the only shield left to atheists that are relentlessly subjected to defamation or even threat.

To the extent that Jews believe they are God’s chosen people, Christians that it is only through Jesus the Christ that you can know God and enter the kingdom of heaven, and Moslems that Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet, to that extent the Abrahamic religions are anti-social. They teach that they, exclusively, know God’s purpose for humankind which they, alone, are fulfilling. This makes them the authority and right on every issue and everyone else not just wrong but an infidel and a sinner. God does not like sinners and it may be his will that you set them right. This is an anti social mind set and the primary problem with the Abrahamic religions. The social strife they cause will be with us as long as Jews, Christians, and Moslems have power.

It is the religious people who leap to accuse atheists of anti-theism when we say HEY BUDDY, not in public school, please, and HEY, what about the bias of our Supreme Court? Personally I could not care less if a church is built across the street from my house, and I support its tax free status. But Separation of Church and State should be firm. Pray at home, pray in your temples, but publically funded schools and parks are to be secular. Because I do not believe in spirits, why should it make any difference if others do? The religious want it all.There is no real difference betwen American Christians wanting everyone to worship their God, and Muslim extremists wanting to kill those who are Christian.It's all a matter of degree.We atheists get trampled in that relentless zeal.

Ken Batt: “I would hope Epstein and Hitchens and their followers could see themselves as essentially on the same side.”

Me too. By the way – Hitchens doesn’t have “followers” - he has readers. He’s a journalist. Epstein is clergy – he’s the one with followers.

KATE: “For decades and centuries, religious and non-religious humanist organizations such as the American Ethical Union and the American Humanist Association have been promoting positive non-theistic messages, and they have been mostly ignored by the same mainstream media outlets now covering the New Atheism.”

Yes – In part because the humanists are such milquetoasts – sort of like the liberal protestants. And now, frankly some of the people in these groups seem jealous that the new atheists are getting so much attention. Let’s face, it the New atheists are a much more exciting group than the those kindly, quiet humanists. Still, I’m hopeful that we can coalesce and move ahead for our mutual benefit. We’re the same people, after all.

GINAN RAUF: “After all, who likes to hang out with someone constantly beating them over the head?”
You mean religious people threatening you with hellfire, right? Imagine if women had decided to be ladylike in their quest for equal rights? Or if Negroes hadn’t been “uppity”

Alan: “My Christianity doesn't rely on you believing the same things I do. If you don't, I do not think you will go to hell as I believe that it doesn't exist. I do believe that it is important that you fully understand what you believe in (if anything) and that you own that.”

Consider that you are confused and that you’re probably a humanist who can’t quite give up the idea of heaven.

MAGGIE PETERS: “It seems to me that a belief in God as natural good rather than a supernatural being that does or does not exist would be more helpful to mankind.

Nice idea – I think we’re far from it, unfortunately. Christian clergy, who don’t even believe it themselves, have thoroughly instilled the idea of a supernatural God.

Epstein is only partly correct; "atheism" means more than simply "lack of belief in any god." "Atheism" can mean either the denial of the existence of a god or gods, or it can mean disbelief in the existence of a god or gods. Epstein's definition better fits the word "nontheism" than it does "atheism."

That said, Epstein is right-on to suggest that Humanism is a step in the right direction for nontheists, whether atheists or "nothingists."

Hitchens is right, though, religion does poison everything. Read his book and you'll likely agree with what he says.

NT

Rabbi Epstein,

For me, your excellent essay raises more important questions than I can find worthy answers. Can there be a non-supernatural religion that can command the fierce loyalty that has given supernatural religions the power to be important forces in our societies? What is the function of religion in contemporary societies, particularly, in our democratic societies? Under what conditions has religion served us well and under what conditions has it led us astray? Can there be a religion that does not lead us astray, at least under the conditions that we have encountered in the past? Since I know of no evidence that a god or other supernatural force exists, I am limited to addressing these questions in terms of the utility of religious institutions to humanity.

The chimpanzee, the mammal that is genetically most like us, provides us with a useful mirror. Chimpanzees form tribes which contribute to defense against other tribes and against other predators and contribute to the acquisition of food. The immediate self-interest of the individual chimpanzee is subordinated to the general welfare of the tribe, in most cases. But, chimps battle for leadership within the tribe, and groups sometimes secede and form new tribes. These behaviors may be the result of lessons learned from chimp history and passed on in the education of the young, but I believe that, one way or another, they are instinctive.

I think that we too socialize and cooperate with each other and also compete for preeminence to a significant extent instinctually. Without cooperation we would have to live with chaos, and we would have no chance of making significantly large beneficial changes. Without competition, society would become stagnant and moribund. The fundamental task of human society is to find a good balance between cooperation and competition. If this is correct, then any religion, supernatural or secular, which proposes a reasonable balance will find loyal adherents.

The successful religions with which I am somewhat familiar (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism) have all provided their adherents with a supportive community. They have each declared the sanctity of some code of cooperation among co-religionists. They have advocated adherence to their codes as the singularly most important theme of each individual’s life, even unto their death – thus creating a plethora of saints and martyrs. However, they have also been open, though reluctantly, to innovation, usually in response to changing historical circumstances.

Supernatural religions have also offered supernatural rewards to the code conforming. Can religions succeed without offering such rewards? A Confucian colleague once explained the Confucian position to me. “There are gods,” he said, “but what do they have to do with us human beings?” According to my colleague, we are in charge of our existence and we are responsible for the quality of our lives. Confucianism was a successful creed in China for centuries, which is encouraging, but it became the state doctrine leading to a stagnant feudal society, which is not so encouraging.

Today, the nation state is the principal institution for competition between large groups of people, sometimes war, and it sometimes is the principal institution for establishing and maintaining the ascendance of one class of citizens over the others. Religion is the principal counterpoise to state power. When religion sanctifies the state, we are bound for disaster. Sometimes an unholy state/religion alliance results from the failure of precursor religions or from the failure of the means of communication, e.g., Luther’s church territorial, but more often it results from a power grab by state and religious leaders. The Nazi Arian doctrine is one example, and recently a widely followed traditional Israeli rabbi asked, “We have halacha (the rabbinic law), so what need do we have for democracy? “

Finally, what devices have been used to promote and sustain religions? As already mentioned, each successful religion has provided its adherents with a supportive community, featuring opportunities for group emotional expression, from celebration to mourning. Each has expressed the feelings associated with its codes using the art of the day (music, poetry, drama, sculpture, dance, etc.). Each has begun the ethical and moral education of its youth at the earliest opportunity. And, each has made contributions which the general society admires, and which are a legitimate source of pride to its adherents. These devices are equally available to secular and to supernatural religions.

I hope to be improving my questions and my answers by reading your future writings.

Thanks,

Joel A. Levitt

Nice article Mr. Epstein.

I am a non religious theist and this is the common ground we need to explore.

While Hitchens’ approach definitely sells more books I find your approach much more constructive. I agree with Chip if we strip away the dogma and ceremony of religions, not just Christianity most of the messages actually encompass humanism.

If we can free the concept of God from the shackles of dogma religion can have the positive affect on this life that we think it should have.

I see spirituality the same as any other discipline; you need study, examination, free thinking and imagination to move it forward.

If we look to expand the best of life it will lead us to one of two things; it will get us closer to God (if one exists) or it will only give us the best life has to offer. I don’t see how we lose here.

The last few years have brought the vehemently vocal atheist into the public arena. To a large part, this has been the result of Islamo/fascizm gaining ground in the public forum. While Christians have even been quick to jump on Sam Harris bus regarding the evil of Islam gone to an extreme, they can't see their own version of fundamentalism, the evangelism of conspicuous consumption and rampant corporate capitalism and greed, makes them particularly unsuited to making the argurment against radical islam.

So yes, I'm completely sick of the entire bunch. Everyone of the cults of Abraham carry the seed of that semetic Jewish Warlords Angry God of War.

I'm sorry but dispite being a humanist, I can't shut up. I really am fearful that the radicals of the axis of Evil, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, they are going to bring on Armegeddon WITHOUT THE NEED OF ANY SPIRITUAL BEING. JUST TO PROVE THEMSELVES CORRECT, THEY SEEM WILLING TO TAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD OVER THE BRINK OF DESTRUCTION AND I'M DAMN TIRED OF IT. I refuse to have anything nice to say about any of them. Individually many are great people, but AS A GROUP THEY SHOULD BE OUTCAST FROM HUMAN SOCIETY, until they learn HUMANISM as opposed to ABRAHAMISM.

It seems that religion has become a hot topic and not because the subject produces favorable responses from people. But even cogent arguments in favor of humanism as an antidote to religious beliefs don’t really satisfy or uplift the heart or heal those troubled souls who are looking for relief from suffering.

It seems to me that a belief in God as natural good rather than a supernatural being that does or does not exist would be more helpful to mankind.

Religion has become either a way to navigate through a moral code with the help of clergy, or a reason to wage war on whoever disagrees with a particular belief system.

Many attacks on religion originate from those who believe that God is responsible for all the ills that mankind suffers, or at the very least, does nothing to stop the worst possible miseries that afflict the human race. Even insurance companies refer to environmental disasters as “acts of God.”

However, the first chapter of Genesis is concerned with a creation of good. Genesis 1.31states, “And God saw everything that He had made and behold it was very good.” (King James Bible) If that’s the truth, then why should we not accept the existence of God?

The fact is that mankind has searched consistently for answers to the problem of being. And while humanism and philosophical arguments can be intellectually stimulating, they haven’t satisfied the heart nor provided the answers to human suffering.

So, writers like Hitchens who argue against the existence of God, should ask themselves why they or anyone else for that matter would care or bother to find out.

I do consider myself religious, a Christian actually, but I find a great deal of truth in humanism. I am a huge fan of Kurt Vonnegut and find a great deal of fault in modern religion, including and especially my own. I believe the best part of religion, the most connected part, is based on 'reason, compassion, and creativity, and promotes loving and ethical connections with family, community, all human beings, and the natural world surrounding us,' to quote Mr. Epstein. I condemn fanatics of all religions, and DO NOT believe that my belief is the one true belief. That may put me in conflict with other Christians, but I say that my belief is just that... mine. I cannot force you to believe it or agree with, but with it I will live the best life I can, and that includes helping other and being a compassionate human. It means responding to the suffering of others. My Christianity doesn't rely on you believing the same things I do. If you don't, I do not think you will go to hell as I believe that it doesn't exist. I do believe that it is important that you fully understand what you believe in (if anything) and that you own that.

Greg wrote, "Humanism is the non-religious pursuit of all that is best in human life. It is based on reason, compassion, and creativity, and promotes loving and ethical connections with family, community, all human beings, and the natural world surrounding us. It is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment, aspiring to the greater good of humanity."

Greg, If we define "religion" as it was defined by the writers and signers of the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, your statement above would read, "Humanism is the non-theistic, or naturalistic, religious pursuit of all that is best in Human life."

Since "religion" from that view is the attitudes, beliefs and practices that we adopt to orient our thinking and direct our living, I would like to keep at least the historical awareness that "religion" is not a bad word. Loyal Rue wrote "Religion is not about god". He has come up with a global theory of religion that is consistant with that of the Manifesto Generation.

Thank you so much for this wonderful essay. I think it captures a
mood. As a secular humanist I am all too eager to move on and
actualize my humanist values in my daily existence. A life can be
spent fighting with the theists. we need to build our own institutions and to cultivate the arts and sciences. Perhaps if we
spent less time and energy and human intelligence figthing, then, we could build the succesful alternative that draws others to our values. After all, who likes to hang out with someone
constantly beating them over the head? Besides, the earth is in need of healing and of a renewed interest in ethical thinking. that is our forte!! let's build on it.

Ginan Rauf

I enjoy your positive promotion of humanism. However, you attack those who argue against theism and religion? Why? They plainly point out the ravages of religion and the incredible suspension of reason and judgment necessary to delude oneself into believing the myths of religion and god. One does not need to "actively seek" the worst aspects of religion and god as these worst aspects jump out and strangle the good that religions borrow from humanism. I wonder how humanity would get on without that FEAR and GUILT residing in the too common myth of supernatural soul damnation forever. What contagious freedom that would be! I think that is one goal of these anti-theist's work.

Greg Epstein is right on target, though I would point out that many humanists are not bothered by the word "religion", especially as at least half of the members of Unitarian Universalist congregations are humanists. I made points similar to Epstein's in a July 12 debate with Christopher Hitchens on the syndicated Interfaith Voices program. As I see it, humanists and a very great number of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, and others share many values and thus can, should and do work together to deal with the pressing problems facing our nation and our world, such as global warming, environmental degradation, the decline of civil liberties and women's rights, the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us, etc.

Edd Doerr, Immediate past president, American Humanist Association.

Rabbi Epstein is right. We Humanists must be better at articulating what we do believe and who we are. Much too much of our time