Less Anti-theism, More Humanism

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 is spent on what we don't believe and why we don't believe. Too often a humanist is defined as someone who doesn't believe in god and that is the end of our story. We have a much better case than that!

David Berman,member of the Congregation for Humanistic Judaism,Sarasota Florida

Hitchens is no dummy--he's only getting coverage from the Washington Post because of his outrageous claims. For decades and centuries, religious and non-religious humanist organizations such as the American Ethical Union and the American Humanist Association have have been promoting positive non-theistic messages, and they have been mostly ignored by the same mainstream media outlets now covering the New Atheism. Extremism and inflammatory rhetoric are used to sell books and newspapers. Reasonable goodwill is not. The hypocrisy of the coverage of this "debate" is sad.

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 is spent on what we don't believe and why we don't believe. Too often a humanist is defined as someone who doesn't believe in god and that is the end of our story. We have a much better case than that!

David Berman,member of the Congregation for Humanistic Judaism,Sarasota Florida

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 is spent on what we don't believe and why we don't believe. Too often a humanist is defined as someone who doesn't believe in god and that is the end of our story. We have a much better case than that!

David Berman,member of the Congregation for Humanistic Judaism,Sarasota Florida

I am not a believer, a theist, a non-theist, an atheist, a unbeliever or an agnostic.

All of these terms express or imply reference to a *theos*, something there which one may possibly believe in or decline to believe in.

These terms and the thinking they represent all belong in the realm of rationality and metaphysical speculation, not of physical nature. I do not think there is anything to discuss. No real question exists if you ask about gods.

Don't expect me to either assert or deny claims made in the language of Athens. I prefer to think like the Ionians, who looked to observable evidence.

Nature - ah, there is a meaningful subject for discussion. An alleged supernature is not. Atheism makes no more sense than theism - they both assume there can be something outside nature to argue about. Neither atheism nor theism touches nature.

I do not know of any evidence that any meaning attaches to three letters GOD any more than meaning attaches to JKD and VTW. Until there is something to assert or deny, I will neither assert nor deny it.

So far as I can achieve it, I wish to live without belief. To believe is to accept a proposition as true. The proposition may be offered on the basis of evidence, says the OED, or it may derive from authority and tradition.

If a claim is based on evidence, I'll listen to it. Then I may form convictions by reasoning from evidence. But "belief" is contaminated by that other motivation - authority and tradition. I prefer to build on induction from observable evidence and verifiable/falsifiable deductions from them.

Let me be an empirical scientist, not a believer - or an unbeliever either. I'm just not going there. I'll be outside Miletus, getting my hands dirty, seeking evidence from nature, alongside Thales and Anaxagoras, while you're strolling in the Academe with Plato, or debating the existence of the gods with Paul on the Areopagus.

"Skepticism ... is nonsensical when it tries to doubt unaskable questions." - Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus," 6:51.

Greg Epstein is on the right track.

I agree 100% with Greg Epstein's view on this.

I'd like to thank Greg Epstein for saying well much of what I think. When I found that I could no longer believe the religion I was taught, I knew I still wanted to be an ethical, moral person. I, like Greg, found my answer in Humanism. Most people I know, except within Humanism, are religious. Many are good, even very good, people. I don't agree with their belief systems, but I don't need to bash either them or their beliefs. Just as I would never use government to enforce Humanism on them, I resist efforts to force religion, namely radical Christianity, upon me. I often am puzzled by their religious beliefs and statements; I see huge inconsistencies there. But if they feel helped by these, great. I've been told that I should "believe anyway; look at the consequences if I'm right and you're wrong." I could no more reconnect with Christianity than I could embrace Greek or Navajo beliefs. If they're right and I end up going to Hell, there's no way I could have worshipped a god that would send people there, anyway. So I live the best I can, and invite all to do the same, whatever their beliefs.

The distinction you make between atheism and anti-theism is a welcomed one. Hitchens is a bright individual, but I get the sense that he is also the epitome of an English aristocrat who would have thrived during the years of the grand British Empire. He does have some brilliant insights, but strong anti-theism is not productive. Even though Richard Rorty argues that religion is a conversation stopper, I think that anti-theism can also bring a dialogue to a grinding halt.

I'd like to thank Greg Epstein for saying well much of what I think. When I found that I could no longer believe the religion I was taught, I knew I still wanted to be an ethical, moral person. I, like Greg, found my answer in Humanism. Most people I know, except within Humanism, are religious. Many are good, even very good, people. I don't agree with their belief systems, but I don't need to bash either them or their beliefs. Just as I would never use government to enforce Humanism on them, I resist efforts to force religion, namely radical Christianity, upon me. I often am puzzled by their religious beliefs and statements; I see huge inconsistencies there. But if they feel helped by these, great. I've been told that I should "believe anyway; look at the consequences if I'm right and you're wrong." I could no more reconnect with Christianity than I could embrace Greek or Navajo beliefs. If they're right and I end up going to Hell, there's no way I could have worshipped a god that would send people there, anyway. So I live the best I can, and invite all to do the same, whatever their beliefs.

I personally agree with the ideas brought forth in Christopher Hitchin's book. I too am a Humanist Minister, and unlike Epstein I find that Religion does poison everything. Religion doesn't necessarily cause people to do good things, though it can be considered a mark of people who wish to subscribe to ideas of right and wrong, and intend to pursue what is right... (that is highly speculative and subject). One key aspect of Religion that makes it so dangerous is its dogmatic approach; its rigidity of thought, which makes it dangerous-and thus poisons everything.
Spirituality on the other hand is slightly different than religion. It matters not to me whatever folktale or superstition that trips your trigger. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it doesn't injure me or pick my pocket. Religion is regimented spirituality that tends to cry out for the preservation its own freedoms but seeks urgently to destroy the freedoms of others who offend them.
On the matter of art, an artist is an artist is an artist, it just so happened that during the renaissance that bucks flowed from holy mother church. If it weren't for this, the brilliantly talented would have found another cash cow to suckle from. Today we have NEA grants, yesterday Michaelangelo had papal commissions, no real difference, government dollars to support the arts.
And as for socializing, of course we find meaning in relationships. Through the millions of years from pond to skyscraper our ancestors huddled together around fires for safety, and we developed a need to remain in groups. Just walk through a mall, and watch retail counter behavior especially when you want to purchase something, the herd always flows together- "ALWAYS A LINE!".
So yes, it is a neat idea to think that we can have peace with Religions, but unfortunately they don't like us (Humanists) we are hurting their numbers and they know it. Once someone's mind becomes emancipated they lose a customer. To quote Thomas Jefferson once more, "Those who advocate Religious Freedom should expect neither peace nor forgiveness from the clergy." I would go one step further to say the institutions of religion as well, and not just their representatives. Lest we forget that most of us Humanists have come together from a disgust of religion rather than a desire to enter into another one.
When the religions of the word come to terms with the equal roles of women, they lose their hangups on sex, cease advocating second class citizenship (and sometimes death) for homosexuals, when they finally truly help the poor, when they stop infighting over the legitimacy and superiority of one invisible man over someone else's, and provide true solace and inspiration for self actualization and free inquiry rather than false promises and blind faith; then I will say that religion has a place outside of a history book. Until then pageantry and playtime is cute, but we grownups have some work to do.
Humanists don't need to reconstitute religion. I disagree with that sentiment entirely. We need community YES, but religion no. Trying to organize Humanists is like trying to herd cats. We are individuals, that is why we are humanists. Individuals who like to help people, and and make the world a better place for everyone. So spiritualism (which doesn't harm or infringe on others) yes, religion no. I also have to commend Greg Epstein on the work he is doing to promote Humanism, with a new positive light. He does great work, but on the subject of Religion, it doesn't work anymore, Hitchins is right.

I think there's room for both Epstein's and Hitchens'views. We can be both negative about the harm done by religion and positive about the benefits of humanism (or, in my case, humanistic naturalism). Change involves both tearing down and replacing, and good for Hitchens and Epstein for advancing the vital shift from supernaturalist to naturalistic worldview.

I would hope Epstein and Hitchens and their followers could see themselves as essentially on the same side.

As a professor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, I daily encounter the damage that religion can do to human life -- and less frequently the good. Your summation of what Humanism means is just what the word means to me. And describes what I mean when I identify myself as a Humanist. Thank you for expressing it so precisely, non-combatively, humanistically.
Ashley Montagu, honored in 1995 by the American Humanist Assocation as Humanist of the Year, was my mentor and close friend for the last 30 years of his life. I am the founder and director of Ashley Montagu Institute the mission of which is to disseminate and apply his wisdom. In his 50 books and many lectures, articles and broadcast appearances, he provided the scientific grounds for hope that our species has the cooperative and loving aptitudes to create that better world for which we all strive. My book THE HUMAN AGENDA expresses this basis and adds psychodynamic aspects.
I am also a Humanist Celebrant. Couples who seek me out to officiate at their weddings welcome my speaking openly about my humanist identity which they often share. I am delighted that now in my introduction I can also mention the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard and quote a few words from your most cogent and cheering summation!
Rod Gorney

As for Epstein's comments ... he sure has matured since his old Sweathog days! He's finally talking some sense.

OK I'll promise to quit calling superstition silly if the religionists amongst us will stop calling atheists amoral and evil merely because we don't believe in their superstitions. That's a pretty fair deal too because superstition really is rather silly while most athiests are obviously not amoral much less evil.

I always prefer to work for the common good regardless of religious opinions but many theists just can't seem to keep their religious beliefs (and prejudices) to themselves. Therein lies the rub. They deserve an honest answer to their public claims and the answers seem to hurt them no matter how courteously they are given. Anti-theism is just a natural reaction to the arrogance and insults of so many theists. We should all be civil and polite about our disagreements and work together on the many issues on which we agree.

Hey, I'm doing good, huh, Mr. Kotter?

Wonderful response. Something I've noticed is that many atheists seem to use a "slippery slope" argument in which if a person believes in something irrational like a god, then that person will likely believe in other foolish notions- such as flying airplanes into buildings. Like they sing in Porgy and Bess: "it ain't necessarily so."

If asked if religion is dangerous I would say yes AND no. It can be used to justify dangerous beliefs and can also be used to enhance life in our world.

I think there would be a lot less controversy about criticizing religion if Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, et al would do a better job of distinguishing between dogma and the communities organized around shared values and finding meaning in life. Although the two often go hand-in-hand, those authors are only attacking the former when they use the term "religion." Epstein is talking about the latter, but also calling it "religion."

However, a community based on the naturalistic lifestance of humanism is less susceptible to dogma because our understanding of the natural world is always progressing. The global scientific community is a good example of how such a community can adapt to new ideas through the years. It has its share of dogmatic thinkers, but they are the shunned minority rather than the exalted leaders we see in revealed (i.e. based on revelation, rather than reason) religions.

I commend Epstein's efforts to salvage the religion baby from the dogmatic bathwater and hope that he and the other prominent freethinkers of the New Enlightenment can see past the divisive semantics to their common purpose. Technology has set the clock ticking for when only a handful of faith fanatics will destroy modern civilization, if not life as we know it. Humanity can't afford to let subjective beliefs - including those creating the rich/poor gap - divide itself for much longer. Humanism, reason, and the scientific method offer us the most likely solution; I hope we can all agree on that fact in time...

Angela B:

What the heck are you trying to say?

Mr. Epstein,

Could you please explain to me how did we all get here? Are you an accident or do you believe in evolution? Also, do you really see yourself as a good person. If so, then you really don't see yourself clearly. Have you ever lied; have you ever stolen; have you ever wanted or desired something that belongs to someone else, have you ever gossiped. Do you believe it's more important for the whales and the trees to survive than a human life?

Perhaps, in the defining of "atheist", it would help to realize that it is a non-belief in the Christian god. There is no word for those who do not believe in the Roman gods, or the Greek gods, or the Nordic gods. When we use the term, we are speaking of those who don't believe in the Christian god.

If I don't believe in any of the gods, Christian, Nordic, etc. What am I? Does it matter?

"Now, now. Stop crying and lay down there on my nice soft couch. Feel better? Now tell me all about your childhood so I can identify the cause of your problem."

Bgone,

My problem is that no one indoctrinated me (with their religion) at an early age, so I don't have a personal relationship with anybody's god. If I had been taught (programmed) to believe in my parents' god before I developed the capacity to think independently, I would have been fine.

You would cry too if it happened to you!

I agree with Rabbi Epstein's thoughtful choice to use his precious time on earth to advocate for Humanism, rather than to malign theism.

Thanks for that, Greg! Eloquent and well-considered, as always.

The distinction between atheist and anti-theist, which is growing in clarity and currency, is very useful. My own position is that both the humanistic and anti-theist expressions of disbelief are essential. The life-destroying consequences of religious belief are too seldom acknowledged and addressed. At the same time, people of all perspectives are too often blind to the profound humanistic dimensions of naturalism and to the acres of ground shared by the religious and nonreligious.

Yours is an essential voice in driving home these last points. Hitchens' voice is essential in driving home the first.

Best,
Dale McGowan
Editor/co-author, Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion

http://www.ParentingBeyondBelief.com

I really, really appreciated what (and how) Greg Epstein responded. The initial quote does not lend itself to diaglogue care/compassion about the individuals who are involved with religions. I especially like Epsteins differentiation of atheism and anti-theism. And I also appreciated his focus on Humanism rather than atheism.

If Humanism is acknowledging the ability and the responsibility to develop all that is human within ourselves and others, that includes the various spiritual/religious stages of one's development process.

With Humanism we can promote Enlightenment and push back the anti-Enlightenment forces that some parts of some religions promote some times.

Freestinker:

Pastor Ronald,

When did you first learn about Jesus Christ?

What is your earliest memory of the Christian son of god?

---

Now, now. Stop crying and lay down there on my nice soft couch. Feel better? Now tell me all about your childhood so I can identify the cause of your problem.

I really, really appreciated what (and how) Greg Epstein responded. The initial quote does not lend itself to diaglogue care/compassion about the individuals who are involved with religions. I especially like Epsteins differentiation of atheism and anti-theism. And I also appreciated his focus on Humanism rather than atheism.

If Humanism is acknowledging the ability and the responsibility to develop all that is human within ourselves and others, that includes the various spiritual/religious stages of one's development process.

With Humanism we can promote Enlightenment and push back the anti-Enlightenment forces that some parts of some religions promote some times.

Pastor Ronald,

When did you first learn about Jesus Christ?

What is your earliest memory of the Christian son of god?

I must say that religions are a turn off. It's about a personal relationship with the Son of The Living God. Jesus really did come out of that tomb with great power and glory. Can't imagine anyone not believing in a good God. He gave his best for us to believe Him and have eteranl life. Jesus really did die on that cross. Death could not hold him. The grave couldn't keep Him. Yes, I am a believer in this Christ who really did change my life. Our sins can be cleansed and forgotten by a loving Savior.

Pastor Ronald King

Soja: "How does atheistic humanism and religious humanism differ?"

>The former does not believe in the existence of invisible supernatural beings

"What do they have in common?"

>everything else.

And Blessed be to you...
Yes...we need to live in such a way that we live each day as if it meant the world. It does.

I think it is the difference of seeing things in a linear world view or a cylical one. This view of the universe and our place in it makes all the difference. As I see things cylical what I do makes a huge difference in how I take responcibility for the effects I make in my environment and to those in my community...after all it will return to me.

For those who see life as linear they have a beginning and an end...maybe they see harm they do has dissappearing into the ether and not effecting them personally. They do good for a reward...if they do bad they go to hell. Either way its put off til later. We believe that it is here and now that we reap what we sow. Karma, Kizmet, law of return...

I believe in science...I also know that there is something else here...something that makes us weep at a sunset or stand enthralled at a moonrise, I have cryed at the sight of a mountain. We are more then mind, we are also spirit. The trick is to get both of them to work together to reach enlightenment.

terra

Yep, co-creators who bear responsibility for the consequences of our actions (or inactions). We see things in a different light if this realization informs and directs our lives.

Once given the benefit of the more fully-dimensional perspective of the "hereafter", we generally find that we ourselves turn out to be our own harshest judges.

This is far more indicative of the extreme difficulty of the tasks which we've chosen to undertake, rather than to any inherent unworthiness or fatal character defects on our part. An earthly lifetime is a tremendous challenge in every way. But the opportunity for growth is what makes the challenge worthwhile.

Thus, the imagery of "lightness" or "heaviness" of heart is so very appropriate. For in order to rise higher, we must learn how, through right thought and right action, not to accumulate that excess ballast while here.

Blessed be...

Locomoco,
Yes my tongue was firmly inserted in cheek.Kinda.lol

As far as I am concerned(and only me) as a Wiccan, I am closer to a Humanist then to a traditionally religious(religions of the book) person. I do not believe in the judge in the sky...but I do believe in the forces of nature who we call Gods and Goddesses. I do not see them as toga wearing pretty wingy things...but more as what the old Greeks saw them..as the Titans..the forces of creation that man personalized into myths.

Cultures have given them names and attributes that we as humans can connect to. Gaea/form + Ouranos/Chaos= Big Bang=Chronus/Time.

With the myth of Ma'at I believe the ancients were talking about the person's life is either lived in a way that left them with a light heart that will not be filled with heavy guilt...or will be lived in a way that will weigh heavier then the Goddess of Justice's white feather. Up to us.
We are taught that we are responcible for our actions and how we will be weighed. No Gods, No Devils...we are not puppets, our Gods are not pulling the strings. But we do their work on earth...saving the planet, ensureing a future, spending time in living wholey. We are co creators of the world we want.

terra

I likewise appreciate Greg Epstein's cool voice of reason. It does seem to me that one of the most common dividing lines between "believers" and "nonbelievers" is the issue of what happens after physical death.

The answer to this question hinges on the existence of a spiritual component of our humanity that outlasts the physical body. If our consciousness continues after death, then what?

A good portion of organized religious theology is devoted to precisely that question. Unfortunately, in too many instances it boils down to St. Peter guarding the Pearly Gates, rigorously checking his ledger. Or as the writer mentioned above (humorously, I think), "Ma'at weighing hearts". Grin! A point well made.

I am a believer who discounts most of this sort of dogma. I think it stems from our misunderstanding of "why bad things happen to good people" -- and vice versa. We humans like to see everything tied up nicely with no loose ends. Hence, evildoers in this life are judged in the hereafter and condemned to eternal hellfire; else, "it wouldn't be fair".

Here, we are all kindergartners in Schoolhouse Earth. Hereafter, our opportunities for growth will be just as exciting and fulfilling, although profoundly different -- much less challenging in certain respects (no human infirmities to burden us, nor fleshly lusts to distract us), but with no fixed deadline for the final exam (since we will no longer be held hostage to that dreaded day when our telomeres finally crap out).

And if I see you over there -- fundamentalists and scoffers alike -- I will indeed say "I told you so" ... but with a grin and a welcoming hug of recognition, not a pointed finger of condemnation.

from womb to tomb!!!.
from womb to tomb every mankind is humanist by nature,mankind is civil by nature,no mankind came from his mother womb as anti-humanity or public enemy.no mankind came from his mother womb carrying a bomb!if every mankind became humankind still the issues of humanity are not solved.

it,s part of humanity and humanism to look at life thru larger scop ,this life is not about atheism vs theism ,every mankind is humankind and every humankind is mankind (each according to the means that he or she posses).

mankind or humankind will never ever solve the issues of humanity unless mankind or humankind receive guidance from the creator god of mankind or humankind,the prove is manifest clear,humanity been in existance for long time long long time .
mankind whether they call themselfs humanists or theistists or atheistis or what ever the case of gas is,mankind is not self created nor self sustainer nor self maintainer(let all the humanists and none humanists in this world let them try to create one atom of the air that they breath around the clock). ,so to be real human ,mankind or humankind need to humbel their will and talent and their generosity and their fine sense of humanity to the creator of humanity.

by no means,i,m not mocking at no body but please let harvard and other than harvard answer the difference between humanity and animality?animals coporate with another and generious to one another and doing a fine job not only to this world but to humanity?what is the difference?.did humanists created the womb?or the tomb?how long the womb??? and the tomb?
is this life just a womb and a tomb???or this life beyond womb and tomb?how long the womb will continue to kick?and how long befor the tomb close?.
people please,come to reality come to life.

Dear Chaplain Epstein

A humanist Chaplain? What an interesting concept! Do you conduct some sort of service for the group? What sort of service might it be?

Thank you for highlighting the difference between a-theism and anti-theism (which has been referred to 'New Atheism' for want of an appropriate word). Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and their followers don't seem to be aware of the big differences you point out so clearly. Yes, humanism, we all need it. Atheists and believers must cultivate and practice humanism consciously (although humanism is inherent to every religious belief, even if it is emphasised to varying degrees in different religions, and practised even with greater variability). At the level of humanism, atheists and believers could work together for the common good of man without any conflict.

You do great work in providing a forum for atheists to define themselves in a more meaningful way, which allows for more meaningful dialogue with believers. It became apparent during the discussions on this forum that atheists defined themselves in terms of just non-belief in God. Anti-theists seemed to define themselves only in terms of their hatred or anger against all religious beliefs.

An interesting point of discussion could be: How does atheistic humanism and religious humanism differ? What do they have in common?

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Darin, you say: "Rather than focus on that which divides those holding disparate PHILOSOPHIES [caps added], humanism focuses on the values that many people hold in common"

Important to remember. religion is not a philosophy, it is a belief. A-theism is simple lack of belief. Humanism is a philosophy that may be held by people who are a-theists.

I'd like religious believers to think about what their philosophy is. I suspect many have never thought about that, and I agree, many religious people would have a philosophy similar to atheists, with the only difference being belief in the supernatural. I think it's a dialogue and thought process that won't happen until people separate religious belief from philosophy, and are able to articulate their position on both issues.

PP...
I so love your thinking!
lol

Wiccan...Hi!

We know what we know...but it does not translate well.

Oh BTW...I am back from my Gathering and ohh wow, it was wonderful! Being eye level to an eagle flying is one of those experiences that just do not translate. Looking into a valley in the early morn and seeing the mist like a cauldron full of boiling primordial soup is another...

I have a feeling that after death many will have a great surprise..Ma'at may be weighing hearts.

BB...
terra

What a wonderfully well thought out post that was.

Bravo.

Maybe religion is evolving, (just the ones that believe in evolution).

UU has no dogma.

This had to happen sooner or later with religion and faith becoming synonyms. How about a church without a God. http://christianhumanist.net

Those are good ones but I like this one best of all.
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Traditional religions are really Devil worshipers is what it attempts to prove. I like it because it's a handy rebuttal to Bible based truths.

I'm way too old to be around 50 years from now but can see that there are many exciting things happening. The most recent sub-prime housing mess only signals much larger problems requiring even larger solutions. There just isn't enough food even to go around at the present moment just to name one problem that must be solved, and it can be solved.

Out of the horrors of WW2 many good things happened. Almost everything we have and use today wasn't even available before the war. I only wonder if as much bloodshed and misery will be necessary to solve this population caused problem. Religion seems to be posturing for it, getting out of the way maybe.

The other shoe hasn't fallen yet.

"They still seem to imagine that people who believe differently will somehow survive death to suffer the indignity of 'I told You So!' :)"

ROTFLMAO! And now my boss wants to know what's so damn funny!

MMA, Wiccan! :)

On this:

"At least when you disagree with the atheists, they don't threaten you with hellfire. :-)"

Well, many do threaten you with their own version:

'What Undescribed Horrible Stuff Happens To You When You Die And Are Wrong!'

:)

They still seem to imagine that people who believe differently will somehow survive death to suffer the indignity of 'I told You So!' :)

I long ago just had to figure that it's really impossible to conceive of not having *some* point of view, thus meaning nihilism is essentially irrelevant to life.

I of course took my own take on the 'thorny problem' (which is only a thorny problem if you believe it's *important* to believe (or disbelieve) correctly.)

Namely that beliefs should inform, ensoul, and energize our experience, not *override* them.

Of course, my personal experiences of Gods and the 'supernatural,' were always undeniable, if a bit uncomfortable to my ideals of reason, until I suppose I realized I had too much to do already before making it my job to 'stake' everything on 'absolutes.'

And when we discuss Fundies Vs Hardline Atheists, well, we're speaking of 'absolutes,' ...and rationalistic absolutes at that, a conflict between 'You Can't Prove Anything' and 'We Can Prove Things By Fiat Or Chosen Authority And That's As Much Proof As Saying You Can't Prove Anything.'

This serves neither reason nor spirit.

And I happen to think, also from experience, that spiritual, even supernatural experience is *not* in opposition to reason, ...only, at times to *rational-ism,* and in fact, the weirder things get, the *more* reason one must apply.

We say, 'Discernment.' As many Wiccans well know, exercise of discernment is not antithetical to faith... it is in fact a profound *expression* of a faith that thinking too hard, looking too hard, understanding too hard, will *not* make the wonders of the world *go away.*

These Atheist Vs Book-Believer arguments are in effect two sides of *rationalizing for ready conclusions,* and in the end, about belief, not spirit.

But how many times can you say, "The universe is not an artifact. It's alive, in all and the only ways we can really live in it ourselves. "

The *real* mysteries we treasure don't go away when we look hard. And the *real* knowledge we also treasure, doesn't begrudge us our dreams and stories and souls.

But, we live and learn. Hard or easy, or third road, that's a choice we make, both individually and collectively.

Merry Meet, PP!

I certainly agree with your first statement. Some of the atheists posting on this forum sound just like Canyon or JD, completely convinced that only they have the truth. At least when you disagree with the atheists, they don't threaten you with hellfire. :-)

Great article - sane, humane, non-confrontational. Even though I agree with about 98% of what Hitchens and Harris say about religion, I still think they are missing something. I know people who go to church who don't believe in any of those silly dogmas, but they go for various reasons. Community, culture, music, a time to be quiet and not involved in everyday activities. I think Hitchens throws out the baby with the bath water. Maybe he does this to be better able to make his point, and I agree that it is high time that someone in our society pointed out the more ridiculous and pernicious aspects of religion. But yet I think Hitchens is also missing something important.
It is really all about living sanely as a human being with other human beings.

I definitely think the anti-theist arguments can get, well, nasty...

I suppose in part, certain theists have just been hammering people who believe differently with accusations of being 'Anti-God,' that some atheists have just decided they may as well cut loose with their resentment, if they have to take the societal alienation and disenfranchisement, anyway.

Funny how just before the Bush administration, the media was claiming with a note of alarm that a majority in America were identifying themselves as 'spiritual, not religious,' but now, they're saying of probably the same sample data:

" 80 to 90 percent of people say they are religious."

Maybe it's only the question that changed. Or, the *ahem* corporate owned media.

Well stated, Mr. Epstein.

I particularly like the non-divisive nomenclature of humanism versus the inherent lacking quality lent by the Greek root "a" in "atheism" - without belief in a god or gods. Rather than focus on that which divides those holding disparate philosophies, humanism focuses on the values that many people hold in common. Regardless of one’s belief, there is always a sense of ownership adopted by the practitioner that results in the basic human impulse to defend that which is perceived to be essential to the definition of one’s being, character, or life. Personal experience is all the justification typically required to “rationalize” the validity of one stance over another. Obviously, every individual has a lifetime of personal experiences that differ, often significantly, from those of their neighbors. Paradoxically, this provides the basis for both argument and education, and is the root cause for the heated debate at the heart of this dialogue.

The manner in which one engages in this dialogue is very telling of the philosophies that they most stringently hold dear. Both atheists and theists have within them all the tendencies, frailties, aspirations, and nobility that every human being would hope to find themselves capable of expressing or concealing. However, it is only the manner and quality of this expression by which one may find his measurement among humanity. I see many accusations on both sides of this dialogue, but have only seen a few attempts at true reconciliation. Yours is one of them. The majority of comments seem to be rhetoric congruent with the negative aspects of their ethos. More accurately, it seems that most atheist/theist practitioners, while actively thinking of the admirable qualities of their philosophy, actually vocalize in terms of the negative aspects of their philosophy – the exclusionary aspects. From a consilience perspective, this is most disheartening because it leads me to the conclusion that harmony is not the true intention behind this exchange of ideas. Harmony, it seems, is the oft overlooked tenet of each ethos.

To a humanist, it is human judgment that matters. To a theist, it is god’s.

I see no evidence of god and have had no personal experience that leads me to believe or to feel that there is a god. I know that others have and do and I am happy that it happens. I do not feel the need to be saved. It is this requirement to witness that I think bothers most atheists or humanists. When I am witnessed to, I try to keep in mind that the person is trying to help me according to their beliefs, and I thank them for their loving care. I appreciate their effort, but ultimately walk away feeling humanly judged. And that would be alright with me were it not for the hypocrisy of that judgment.

Well stated, Mr. Epstein.

I particularly like the non-divisive nomenclature of humanism versus the inherent lacking quality lent by the Greek root "a" in "atheism" - without belief in a god or gods. Rather than focus on that which divides those holding disparate philosophies, humanism focuses on the values that many people hold in common. Regardless of one’s belief, there is always a sense of ownership adopted by the practitioner that results in the basic human impulse to defend that which is perceived to be essential to the definition of one’s being, character, or life. Personal experience is all the justification typically required to “rationalize” the validity of one stance over another. Obviously, every individual has a lifetime of personal experiences that differ, often significantly, from those of their neighbors. Paradoxically, this provides the basis for both argument and education, and is the root cause for the heated debate at the heart of this dialogue.

The manner in which one engages in this dialogue is very telling of the philosophies that they most stringently hold dear. Both atheists and theists have within them all the tendencies, frailties, aspirations, and nobility that every human being would hope to find themselves capable of expressing or concealing. However, it is only the manner and quality of this expression by which one may find his measurement among humanity. I see many accusations on both sides of this dialogue, but have only seen a few attempts at true reconciliation. Yours is one of them. The majority of comments seem to be rhetoric congruent with the negative aspects of their ethos. More accurately, it seems that most atheist/theist practitioners, while actively thinking of the admirable qualities of their philosophy, actually vocalize in terms of the negative aspects of their philosophy – the exclusionary aspects. From a consilience perspective, this is most disheartening because it leads me to the conclusion that harmony is not the true intention behind this exchange of ideas. Harmony, it seems, is the oft overlooked tenet of each ethos.

To a humanist, it is human judgment that matters. To a theist, it is god’s.

I see no evidence of god and have had no personal experience that leads me to believe or to feel that there is a god. I know that others have and do and I am happy that it happens. I do not feel the need to be saved. It is this requirement to witness that I think bothers most atheists or humanists. When I am witnessed to, I try to keep in mind that the person is trying to help me according to their beliefs, and I thank them for their loving care. I appreciate their effort, but ultimately walk away feeling humanly judged. And that would be alright with me were it not for the hypocrisy of that judgment.

Well stated, Mr. Epstein.

I particularly like the non-divisive nomenclature of humanism versus the inherent lacking quality lent by the Greek root "a" in "atheism" - without belief in a god or gods. Rather than focus on that which divides those holding disparate philosophies, humanism focuses on the values that many people hold in common. Regardless of one’s belief, there is always a sense of ownership adopted by the practitioner that results in the basic human impulse to defend that which is perceived to be essential to the definition of one’s being, character, or life. Personal experience is all the justification typically required to “rationalize” the validity of one stance over another. Obviously, every individual has a lifetime of personal experiences that differ, often significantly, from those of their neighbors. Paradoxically, this provides the basis for both argument and education, and is the root cause for the heated debate at the heart of this dialogue.

The manner in which one engages in this dialogue is very telling of the philosophies that they most stringently hold dear. Both atheists and theists have within them all the tendencies, frailties, aspirations, and nobility that every human being would hope to find themselves capable of expressing or concealing. However, it is only the manner and quality of this expression by which one may find his measurement among humanity. I see many accusations on both sides of this dialogue, but have only seen a few attempts at true reconciliation. Yours is one of them. The majority of comments seem to be rhetoric congruent with the negative aspects of their ethos. More accurately, it seems that most atheist/theist practitioners, while actively thinking of the admirable qualities of their philosophy, actually vocalize in terms of the negative aspects of their philosophy – the exclusionary aspects. From a consilience perspective, this is most disheartening because it leads me to the conclusion that harmony is not the true intention behind this exchange of ideas. Harmony, it seems, is the oft overlooked tenet of each ethos.

To a humanist, it is human judgment that matters. To a theist, it is god’s.

I see no evidence of god and have had no personal experience that leads me to believe or to feel that there is a god. I know that others have and do and I am happy that it happens. I do not feel the need to be saved. It is this requirement to witness that I think bothers most atheists or humanists. When I am witnessed to, I try to keep in mind that the person is trying to help me according to their beliefs, and I thank them for their loving care. I appreciate their effort, but ultimately walk away feeling humanly judged. And that would be alright with me were it not for the hypocrisy of that judgment.

I went to a politically based anti war fair. At a table surrounded by posters and covered with bumper stickers stood several people with atheist buttons. I asked why, if they did not believe in a God, did they need to create a following of 'atheists'? They said is was needed to offset the power of the churches and provide a forum for the anti religious. I asked if they believed in Atheism? There was a long pause. The answers were varied but the reaction was generally confused. I asked if they were in the process of creating a religion. They were sure the answer was no. Most of the time when I am asked if I am a religious person I say no. I don't believe in a god but I don't believe in a lack of god. I simply make my ethical and moral decisions based on my abilty to analyse and think clearly. When, as in these forums, the argument is about Atheists the focus is directed at a concept that suggests 'being against' god. The word atheism gives the religious community a word and concept that suggests attack on their beliefs. If you don't believe in god it is that simple -- you don't believe. What argument can be directed at my personal decision?

The way I see it, the existence of a higher being is essentially unprovable and largely irrelevant. Would it really change anything? I know I wouldn't behave any differently than I do.

Imagine you're a parent, and you work really hard to help prepare your children for success. Instead of going out and focusing on being successful or helping others to improve, they devote a large portion of their time to thanking you, giving you gifts, hanging out at your house. Nice, but kind of annoying, right? I wonder, if there were a God, wouldn't He feel the same way?

what do you define as good?

E Fav, I've always thought that when you strip away the supernatural hokus pokus from the teachings of Jesus, what you're left with is essentially humanism. I think that most Christians operate with a humanist philosophy, they just don't know it because they're too busy demonizing humanists as the evil "them" to realize that most of their waking hours are guided by those very principles.

A great essay, Greg. Thanks! I wish atheists like you were the most public face of atheism rather than the cranky invective of polemicists like Hitchens. Atheists have good cause to be angry, but it doesn't serve us very well.

Yes, the UU's are great - insipid music, though. I realize this is a minor issue - but good music is a major driver to get me into a church.

Regarding christian humanism - I know the concept exists - but there are no congregations that I know of.

And Mr Epstein - Atheists don't just complain about religions - you know that. Please don't paint your fellow atheists in a negative light just to further your own pet cause of humanism. It's misleading and doesn't help.

Nice to see a real voice of reason here! Thank you so much for this Mr. Epstein.

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

AMEN! Thank you for pointing out that atheism is not a bad thing. A belief in humanity and being the best human possible is the most important part of life. It is interesting that you are the only one that mentioned that....

AMEN! Thank you for pointing out that atheism is not a bad thing. A belief in humanity and being the best human possible is the most important part of life. It is interesting that you are the only one that mentioned that....

AMEN! Thank you for pointing out that atheism is not a bad thing. A belief in humanity and being the best human possible is the most important part of life. It is interesting that you are the only one that mentioned that....

An important contribution and a position I agree with completely. The question is how do we retain the quite proper revultion towards all the harm that has been done by organised religion without losing sight of the good it can do?

This requires both atheists and religious people to take a brave step simultaneously.

ps Christian humanism does exist - see this for example (or a sizeable proportion of people in Anglican churches in the UK I'd wager): http://christianhumanist.net

To E Fav,

Consider Unitarian Universalism. I am an athiest, and humanist and a UU.

Unitarian Universalists welcome athiests, agnostics and humanists, which usually make up a large portion of the congregation. Congregations also usually include Christains, Pagans, Buddhists, and many other religous groups or persons for whom no label fits very well.

UUs have no dogma, only 7 principals.

Our first principal is the inherent dignity and worth of every person.

http://uua.org/

I'm a humanist too - that's my world view or philosophy.

When it comes to religion, like you, I don't believe in the supernatural. Thus, I'm an atheist.

to repeat: humanism = worldview/philosphy
atheism = persepctive on religion

I recently arrived at that and think it would be useful for people with a religious afiliation to figure out what their philosphy is and how it relates to their religion.

By the way, if Chrisian humanism existed as an organized entity, I might consider it - great music, ritual and compassion for humanity, without all the crazy supernatural stuff.

Maybe someday.

Mr. Epstein, I like the way you think!

"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. "

Those are the qualities I try to live my life by. You are right, it is not easy. I do, however, go one step further and do believe in what I choose to call a "cosmic conscience energy". For some reason I am compelled to think that all lifeforce in the universe eminated from there and will return there.