Humanism, Ultimate Reality, God and Gods

The one thing that most people know about humanists is that we don’t believe in gods or goddesses. In fact, as the most recognisable non-religious worldview, you could say this is one of our defining features. But Humanism is a positive lifestance – It is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognising that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.

Most humanists find that the concepts of gods or goddesses simply don’t make sense – the idea isn’t relevant in daily life and the decisions we take.

Humanists come in many forms – some of us are atheists, a term which originated from the Greek atheos, meaning ‘without god(s)’ and some of us are agnostic meaning ‘without knowledge’, but many of us choose to describe ourselves humanist because we want to define ourselves by our positive beliefs (‘I am a humanist’) rather than by a negative term (‘I am not religious/I don’t believe in gods or goddesses’).

While humanists reject the belief in gods or goddesses, many humanists want to understand why some people believe in them and if this should this impact on how we live our lives.

The origin of gods and goddesses

Throughout recorded human history many people have used the idea of the supernatural to explain the workings of the natural world around them.

It’s not surprising that people might explain natural phenomenon using supernatural ideas – without greater knowledge of the natural world it would have been difficult to explain why the sun rose and set, or the tide moved. A lot of these explanations, especially sun-worship, have influenced modern religions such as Christianity (for example, the symbol of Sol Invictus, the Roman Sun-God, becoming the halo over Christian Saints at the order of Constantine, when he moved the holy day from Sabbath to SUNday).

Humanism and ‘Ultimate Reality’

Humanists turn to science when it comes to thinking about whether there is an ultimate reality or truth about existence and whether that might ever be known by human beings. The term ‘ultimate reality’ has religious overtones (some definitions state that it is a supreme or fundamental power reality or else hint that it is something beyond the natural world – that it exists in a supernatural world or there is a second layer to reality). Humanists use evidence and reason to understand the world around them, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is some supernatural ‘second layer’ to reality. We can use science to measure, understand, and explain the world around us in terms of it being a natural place. Some might say this is a materialist view of the world – a view that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena (like our thoughts) and consciousness, are the result of material interactions. However, all the impressive advances in science of the past century have found no evidence whatsoever that there is anything beyond the physical universe. Even the strange theory of quantum mechanics, so often wrongly invoked to explain all manner of pseudoscientific and paranormal nonsense, does not propose any deeper layer of reality beyond the physical, even if that reality at the microscopic level is forever beyond the grasp of our scientific instruments.

Humanism and science

Through scientific enquiry our knowledge and understanding of the natural work and the universe has increased, and with this many people’s view of gods and goddesses has altered. Many religions have changed their explanations of fundamental subjects such as the origin of humans or the movement of the planets, and most people have a natural view of how the universe began and how life on earth evolved.

Of course, some religions and people still firmly adhere to a supernatural explanation of the world – for example, young earth creationism ignores evidence that proves that Earth is over 4.5 billion years old. However, increasingly people are adopting a natural view of the world, and fewer people today believe that religious books are literally true.

What do we mean by gods or goddesses?

The word god means different things to different people. Some may think it means a loving ‘Father’, others a universal spirit, or a force that set things going. Some think gods and goddesses can and will intervene in our lives if we pray, meditate, or sacrifice.

Some say that there is a common denominator: a single god about whom the various religions have different beliefs. But that does not seem to be the case in practice. If people believe different things about god – for some god is male and a person; others say that god is a cosmic force and sexless; some say god is loving and good, some say god is purely celestial, while others think god is human or superhuman…. then the god they believe in is not the same god, and their beliefs contradict each other.

We cannot discuss whether or not gods or goddesses exist until we are all clear about what is meant. Some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god are below, with a humanist perspective on the argument.

Argument 1 – The Argument from Design

“Surely the regular movement of the planets and the arrangement of the cosmos must be the work of an intelligent designer?”

This argument is usually called ‘The Argument from Design’. It comes from ancient Greece, especially Aristotle, but was taken over by Christian thinkers such as St Thomas Aquinas, and Catholics have been taught it ever since.

This argument has big problems. Firstly, there isn’t much order in the universe, but an increasing tendency towards chaos. The universe is also expanding, rather than keeping to a particular design.

Secondly, this argument assumes that order has to be designed, and can’t just occur naturally. But the way things happen to be will give them some characteristic features, which may appear as order.

Very often, patterns follow from the nature of the thing in question. We know that a spider doesn’t have a planning intelligence – the pattern of its web has arisen through millions of years of evolution by natural selection. A shaken jar of soil and water settles to a highly ordered pattern with larger particles at the bottom, then finer particles, then liquid – and no designer is involved at all.

Argument 2 – The Ontological Argument

“If you are able to think of a perfect Being you must believe in his existence, because if he didn’t exist he wouldn’t be perfect.”

This argument is usually called ‘The Ontological Proof’. Ontology is the study of the philosophy of being. This argument is similar to saying: because something is, it is. We have to be on the look-out for arguments that go around in circles and actually prove nothing. Words such as ‘ontological’ can make something sound profound , but beware!

This argument comes from St Anselm in the 11th century. St Thomas Aquinas rejected it… so not even all the Saints were in agreement. Later, Descartes revived it, and it has been taught ever since.

It’s the sort of argument that will convince those who desperately want to be convinced. If we think about UFOs in these terms: if you can think of a perfect UFO, then it must exist, because if it didn’t exist it wouldn’t be perfect.

Another version of the argument says, ‘Because god is perfect he must have all possible attributes.’ Presumably then god is bad as well as good visible and invisible… This idea is full of contradictions.

Argument 3 – The ‘First Cause’ Argument

“Everything that happens has a cause. But something must have happened in the first place to start the chain of causation moving. This ‘First Cause’ is what we call god.”

This argument is usually called ‘The First Cause’. God created everything and started it moving; created the ancestors of all living species…  (In 1996 this was suddenly updated by the Catholic Church to incorporate evolution).

So, do we need a First Cause? And if so, how do we know it was god?

Logically, if you argue that every cause has a cause, you must face the question: what caused the First Cause? In other words, who or what made god? The Christian response is that god created the chain of causation when he created the universe. God did not need a cause, since causes are something he created.

But if god didn’t need a cause, perhaps the universe didn’t need one either. If god had pre-existed for an infinite time before he created the universe, what was it that caused him to change his mind and create it? If the pre-existing god was perfect without being a creator, why did he decide to become a creator?

Even if we did decide to say there was a First Cause, what reason would there be for thinking that this was some kind of god, rather than a great explosion, or cosmic matter or energy? What evidence is there that such a First Cause would have carried on eternally and still be in existence today? The fact that science hasn’t explained everything about the origin of the universe is not a reason for assuming a First Cause and calling it god.

Argument 4 – The Moral Argument

“Because morality exists, there must be god.”

This argument is usually called ‘The Moral Argument’. The philosopher Kant demonstrated that the previous three arguments weren’t valid, but cautiously supported this one. He said that our moral nature makes it necessary for us to believe in god – he carefully avoided saying that morality means that god exists.

Modern research looks at ‘evolutionary psychology’ and is getting closer to a full account of how our values and moral systems arose from the evolution of human nature.

Argument 5 – Argument from Belief

“God exists because people believe in him.”

By the same token, god doesn’t exist because people don’t believe in him. Everyone has their own ‘reality’, and where groups of people share their belief about what is real, then it gathers more force. From a theological viewpoint, however, it makes little sense to look at the existence of god merely as a matter of opinion, as this argument does.

Sometimes the argument stresses the number of people who believe in god or goddesses (whatever the sort they believe in). It’s about consensus of opinion, and it’s a weak argument.

Enough people have believed in Santa Claus during their childhood, but it didn’t have any bearing on his existence. Years ago, almost everyone believed the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe… but this didn’t make it true!

If there is evidence, we can say it is a widely-held rational belief – such as believing in icebergs… I’ve never seen one, but I’ve read reports of them from people I trust, seen them on television, know what they are made of, and have seen similar lumps of ice in drinks.

Argument 6 – The Personal Argument

“But I’ve had a religious experience.”

This argument is usually called ‘The Personal Argument’. Many research projects have examined religious experiences. So far there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that such experiences reveal consistent evidence about gods or goddesses.

These revelations about gods or goddesses are often mutually exclusive – they cannot all be right, though each person is convinced that their personal experience has shown them the true path.

Argument 7 – The ‘purpose’ Argument

“Without god there’s no purpose to life.”

As it stands, saying that without gods or goddesses there’s no purpose or meaning to life is neither evidence nor proof. There is also plenty of evidence of intelligent beings (people) giving meaning and purpose to their lives without help from the supernatural.

Argument 8 – God’s Test Argument

“God won’t let us discover proof of his existence, because he wants us to have faith.”

Based on an argument from the philosopher Kant, this seems to be only an opinion or a clever way with words. Like many other arguments, it isn’t evidence and it isn’t proof. You could also say that faith would be even more important if we proved that gods or goddesses didn’t exist.

Argument 9 – God as ‘force’

“God is a force beyond time and space, creating the underlying rationality of the universe.”

You will find that many scientists who study the universe are agnostic or atheist, and humanist. But there are some who believe in gods or goddesses. Their view is very different from the gods of religions’ scriptures, and is often abstract. Again, I would not see this as any sort of proof. Of course there are many things that we don’t yet know. But where the religious physicists put the word ‘god’, humanists are happy to leave a question mark. The more abstract the concept of god – ‘beyond time and space’, ‘cannot be described in terms that humans would understand’ –  the less it can be said to be a proof of god’s existence.

STOP! Just look at the suffering in the world…

Apart from the lack of evidence for gods or goddesses, the strongest arguments against their existence is the whole question of evil and suffering. Many religious people have times when they seriously doubt their faith in gods or goddesses.

When they consider horrific events like the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in 2004, they find it difficult to believe in a god who is all-loving and all-powerful.

Perhaps god is either not good, or not powerful? But that would go against the teaching of most religions. And if god is cruel, why should people worship? Do they want a cruel god to bring about more cruelty? Perhaps god simply doesn’t intervene in human lives? This is like the belief of ‘Deists’, who think that god never reveals himself to us, and so won’t intervene to stop bad events. In this case, there is little point in prayer or worship.

Perhaps god doesn’t care about us? Once again, why worship? Why pray? This is a debate that could go on for pages.