Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
Ethics and Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
by August Berkshire
Does being an atheist or a humanist automatically make a person ethical? If we can admit there are some atheist people and groups that are unethical, small in number though they may be, how does this affect the unity we are trying to achieve?
Two of the greatest concerns, internally, of the atheist/humanist movement are ethics and unity. Unfortunately, these are sometimes at odds with each other. For the sake of ethics, it would be necessary to forgo total unity in our movement; unethical people or groups would be excluded. Alternately, for the sake of total unity, it would be necessary to overlook major ethical lapses.
So which is the correct road to take? I would argue that if we forgo ethics, then religion has already won, no matter how much unity we have. Furthermore, if we do not place a priority on ethics, we loose our standing to critique the ethical lapses of religious people and groups without being hypocrites and losing credibility ourselves. We must be consistent and avoid a double standard.
I have noticed that humanists have tended to put more emphasis on ethics and atheists have tended to put more emphasis on unity. There are traditional and definitional reasons for this. Atheism has been more concerned with critiquing religion and humanism has been more concerned with what kind of life we lead once we have dispensed with gods.
This is not to suggest that people who primarily identify as humanists aren’t sometimes unethical too. The point is that most humanist groups make an explicit effort to address the issue of ethics, whereas many atheist groups have not reached that stage yet.
In addition to traditional and definitional reasons, I believe there is a further, evolutionary reason for this difference in emphasis between humanism/ethics and atheism/unity. When threatened, a social species like humans often seeks safety in numbers. Unity for survival is paramount; ethics are a luxury.
Historically, humanists have not felt attacked the way atheists have. In fact, most people don’t even know what a “humanist” is, often mistaking it for a word that already has a positive connotation: “humane.” This has allowed humanists the opportunity to contemplate issues beyond survival, such as how to live an ethical life.
In contrast, there has hardly been a time or place in the history of humanity when atheists have not been under attack. This has caused some atheists to believe that the ends justify the means in fighting back against religion. Ethics fall by the wayside in the fight for survival.
Is the solution, then, for us all to just call ourselves “humanists,” to get religion off our backs in order to give us a breather so we can better pursue ethics? No, the word “atheist” cannot be avoided because it is an accurate description of who we are.
Because survival is paramount (often expressed as victimization by and anger towards religion), many atheists would rather shoot the messenger who points out unethical atheist behavior than examine the message. While we are right to be concerned about unethical religious activity, should we not be equally upset by unethical activity within our own movement?
Tellingly, those who favor the inclusion of unethical people or groups in freethought coalitions will use words like “unity” or “censorship” to defend their position. However, a word I have never heard them use is “ethical.”
One would think, from a marketing point of view at the very least, that atheists would care more about ethics than they do. After all, it is the number one accusation made against us by religious people: That we can’t be good without god.
By embracing unethical atheist people and groups and bringing them into the fold, perhaps some people believe we can get them to improve their behavior. I have not seen this route be successful. Unity should be withheld until ethical behavior is achieved. Unethical people and groups should be marginalized, not embraced.
Or, do some people believe that by enveloping an unethical person or group in a larger freethought group that we can cover it up? How ethical is that?
To those who believe in total unity at all costs, I say that unethical behavior is too high a price to pay for unity. Are we so naïve or desperate that we have to put up with unethical behavior? I hope not.
The vast majority of all atheists and humanists lead ethical lives. And, since atheism and humanism are increasing, this demonstrates that an ethical approach to atheism/humanism works. So, not only can we support ethics above total unity because it is the right thing to do, we can relax and do so because it is also the practical thing to do.
© 2009 August Berkshire
This essay was published in the January-March 2010 issue of Secular Nation magazine.
God & Abortion
God & Abortion
By August Berkshire [PDF Downloads: Layout A, Layout B]
This essay is available as a bi-fold pamphlet for easy printing in two different layouts.
Many religious people claim that the god they believe in is “pro-life” when it comes to abortion. They also believe in “ensoulment” at conception: that a “supernatural” “soul” somehow enters a human egg the moment it is fertilized by sperm. Let us examine these and other religious claims to see if they make sense and are consistent.
God’s Example
Most religious people believe their god is all-powerful and all-good. It naturally follows, then, that everything this god does must also be good. (Would an all-good god commit evil if it had the power not to do so?)
It is often claimed that this god wants humans to be good as well. If we imitate this god, who is all-good, wouldn’t that make us good too? After all, this god wouldn’t set a bad example, would it?
Now let’s take a look at the human reproductive system. If this god is all-powerful, then it either created the human reproductive process or it allows it to exist. (Humans certainly did not design it or we would, at minimum, have eliminated labor pains.)
This god-designed or god-allowed human reproductive process results in up to 50% of all eggs that get fertilized in the womb being spontaneously aborted – often before the woman even realizes she is pregnant. (This is often the explanation for late menstrual periods.)
From this information we can reach two conclusions: This god is the world’s biggest abortionist. And, humans should have more abortions to keep up with the example that this god is setting.
It should also be noted that if this god knows the future, and if certain humans are destined to go to a hell after they die, then this god should make sure that those are the fertilized eggs that get spontaneously aborted, in order to reduce the future population of hell.
Twins
Identical twins are formed when a single fertilized egg splits in two. This division occurs some time after fertilization. For religious people who believe that ensoulment occurs at the instant of fertilization, this raises some perplexing questions:
Did the original, single, fertilized egg get two souls, so that later each twin could get one apiece?
Or, if the original, single, fertilized egg got only one soul, does this soul later split in two, so that each twin gets half a soul?
Or, if the original, single, fertilized egg got only one soul, perhaps it goes fully to one of the twins, while the other twin gets no soul. (Would this lack of a soul in one twin account for stories of an “evil twin”?)
Chimeras
Not only can a single fertilized egg later split into two identical twins, but two separate fertilized eggs (each fertilized by a different sperm) can later fuse to become a single embryo. Such an individual is called a chimera. (Sometimes this person actually has two different sets of DNA.) This raises the same types of questions that arise with identical twins, but in reverse:
If the two separate eggs each got a soul at the time of fertilization, does the later fused single embryo have two souls?
Or, did each of the two separate eggs receive half a soul at the time of fertilization, so that the eventually fused single embryo would have only one soul?
Or, at the time of fertilization, did one egg receive a soul, while the other egg did not, so that the eventually fused single embryo would have only one soul?
The God of the Bible
In addition to the preceding issues, people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible will encounter other problems with the god they believe in. Time and time again, this god either wipes out entire populations himself (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) or orders the Israelites to do so. Among the dead would have been numerous pregnant women, whose fetuses would thus never get born. The result is no different than if the fetus had been aborted.
Values
Many religious people claim that life (which they define as beginning at conception) should be our highest value. But is this true?
Think of the phrase in the American Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Don’t we value liberty above life? Don’t we admire phrases like “Give me liberty or give me death”? Don’t we have great honor, respect, and gratitude for soldiers who are willing to die for American freedom?
If religious people truly valued life above all else, they would not be willing to die for their faith. And yet religious martyrdom is often viewed as an admirable thing by the faithful.
To deny a woman the right to control her own body takes away her liberty and turns her into a slave of the state and/or religion. Slavery, otherwise known as involuntary servitude, is something we should all oppose
© 2009 August Berkshire
Minnesota Atheists Public Policy Paper on GLBT Rights
Minnesota Atheists Public Policy Position Paper
(Written for Minnesota Atheists by August Berkshire)
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) Rights
Minnesota Atheists supports equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. This support is based on two rules of law:
1. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “…nor shall any State… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Thus the Equal Protection Clause demands that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) citizens be treated the same under the law as heterosexual citizens. We are particularly concerned with countering religious groups that wish to limit equal protection under the law due to their religious dogma.
2. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Establishment Clause has been interpreted in Supreme Court decisions to place the following restrictions on government:
a) Secular laws must have a secular basis.
Any law that would reduce the rights of any class of citizens must have a secular justification. There is no secular reason to deny equal rights and equal protection under the law due to a person’s sexual orientation.
b) Religious tenets for which the only basis is belief in the supernatural should not become civil law. To turn such religious tenets into civil law is to create a theocracy.
Religious arguments against equal rights and equal protection under the law for GLBT people are based solely on belief in a particular type of god who advocates limiting such rights and protections. As we cannot demonstrate that this god exists, much less confirm its instructions to humanity, we cannot base any secular laws on this supernatural belief.
The Principle of Equality in Practice
Minnesota Atheists’ support for equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation includes, but is not limited to, the equal right to a civil marriage, with all the accompanying benefits and responsibilities; equal rights to fertility treatments and adoption; the right to openly identify one’s sexual orientation and serve in the military; and the equal right not to be discriminated against in employment and housing. Minnesota Atheists takes no position on what the state chooses to call its civil marriage contracts (e.g. “marriage,” “civil union,” “domestic partnership,” etc.) so long as the same term is used equally for both straight and gay people.
Creationists Announce New Theory of Gravity !
Creationists Announce New Theory of Gravity !
By August Berkshire [PDF]
This essay is available as a tri-pane pamphlet for easy printing.
Today a spokesman for the Institute for Creative Research (I.C.R.), located in Fault Line, California, announced a new theory of gravity that contradicts traditional scientific explanations.
Dwayne Wish, head of the I.C.R., stated, “This is one of the most glorious days in the 6,000 year history of our universe. Finally, we have a theory of gravity that is just as sound as our theory of creation.”
Wish went on to explain, “Most scientists think all forces – such as gravity, electricity and magnetism – originally came from a single, common force. They’re currently searching in vain for a Grand Unification Theory. But there is no evidence of a common origin! They have never discovered any transitional forces! Where are the missing links?!
“Many scientists also believe gravity is caused by warped space or gravitons,” Wish continued. “Has any scientist actually seen this? Was any scientist there when gravity first occurred? And yet they have the gall to claim gravity is part of nature! It is intellectually arrogant to assume gravity is a naturally occurring, rather than a supernaturally occurring, phenomenon.”
Asked what alternative the I.C.R. proposed, Wish smiled and said, “We’re offering a much more plausible explanation for gravity: the Theory of Angelic Pressure. It should be obvious to any rational person that the universe is filled with invisible, undetectable angels who constantly push objects towards the Earth – objects that would otherwise drift away!
“There is plenty of evidence for our theory,” Wish continued. “For example, in spaceships objects float about randomly. They don’t go towards each other unless at least one of them is pushed by an astronaut. This demonstrates that gravity works by design, not ‘random chance’.”
Asked what research the I.C.R. had done, Wish stated, “In Revelation 8:10 of the Holy Bible it says, ‘And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven…’ This is a clear reference to the fact that angels are responsible for gravity! In addition, many pagan books, such as the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon, are also filled with references to angels.”
Wish went on to explain that although the Theory of Angelic Pressure is supported by the Bible, it is in no way based on it. “That’s just a coincidence,” he declared.
“Our theory of gravity cannot be disproven, so it should be taught in public schools,” Wish continued. “Not to teach it is tantamount to censorship! Moreover, forcing students to believe a secular model of gravity is a violation of academic freedom and freedom of religion! Traditional scientists blithely ignore the axiom that all theories are equally valid.”
When it was suggested there might be other equally valid theories, perhaps from other religions, that would explain gravity, Wish vehemently responded, “We have already discredited the ‘other model’ of gravity. It’s obvious our Theory of Angelic Pressure is the only possible alternative.
“In fairness, students should be allowed equal time to hear our theory. Both models of gravity should be presented, then students can make up their own minds. At the very least, someone should take a public opinion poll to see if our theory is popular.”
Wish explained that the I.C.R. was establishing a special division to further investigate their theory of gravity. “It’s going to be called the Center for Research on Angelic Pressure,” he said. “C.R.A.P.”
© 1999 August Berkshire
Season’s Greetings From The Secular Side
Motivations may vary, but we all can spread joy and goodwill at this time of year
By August Berkshire
Nevertheless, in case you were wondering, here are the plans some of us have for December.
The cards we will be purchasing will not say “Merry Christmas” (or “Happy Hanukah” or “Happy Eid”) but rather “Season’s Greetings.”
After all, the original “reason for the season” is the winter solstice, which has long been appropriated by religious people to celebrate the birth or rebirth of their sun/savior gods. Nowadays, with religion in decline, the reason for the season is becoming merely a time for festivities. What’s wrong with that?
The trees that many of us will have in our homes will have colorful lights, originally symbolic of the post-solstice lengthening of days, but now just a pretty sight.
Of course, we will not have angels on top of our trees. We know this will make us unpatriotic as, in this economy, it is likely to lead the treetop-angel-making industry to seek a federal bailout.
The meals we will share will not have prayers said over them, but we will give thanks to those who provided them and to our families and friends.
The songs we sing will be secular – “Jingle Bells,” etc. But, fear not: Atheists are just as likely to sing them out of tune as religious people, though we will derive no less joy.
And jolly old Santa Claus? Well, the disappearance of milk and cookies left out for him and the appearance of wrapped presents are evidence in the minds of many that he exists. We’ll relax our skeptical standards for a day and leave Santa’s existence up to each person’s imagination.
© 2008 August Berkshire. This essay was published in the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune on November 23, 2008.
