You are hereForums / Life, Gods and Godlessness / Humanism / Am I A Humanist?
Am I A Humanist?
From my early teens (pre 1960) I have found no sense in theism.I was content with no religion for 30 years but then some experiences made me realise that there might be more things to take account of in my philosophy but it would take too long to describe all that now. It opened me to the possiblity that something of me might survive death in some form. If this occurs I see this as a natural not supernatural occurrence. It does not require a god or gods. If rebirth occurs in some form then that would be as natural as a caterpillar turning into chrysallis into a butterfly into eggs into caterplillars and so on.
An interest in meditation (which I stress does not need a religion to support it) lead me to Buddhism in 1994. If you know little about this in a nutshell: there is no god; the law of cause and effect is fundamental; things are impermanent; ethical living, meditation and the acquisition of wisdom are the way forward. Two things troubled me at the outset and the same things caused me to stop attending my local group this year. Dawkins book The God Delusion caused me to rethink.
My first difficulty was with ritual. Any rituals can put us into a useful mindset (consider the All Blacks pre match ritual). I felt that ritual was a device to trick the brain albeit in a direction I might want to go. That was not good enough.
The second difficulty was where Buddhism requires faith. I doubt many people would find my nutshell description an unreasonable position to take but to believe that there is a cycle of rebirth and this cycle can be brought to an end by a particular knowledge called enlightenment is a huge leap of faith. I find that latter bit as difficult to accept as offering wisdom to a butterfly in the hope that it will no longer have the need to give rise to a caterpillar again.
What I am left with which may keep us apart is an acceptance of the possibility that some part of us survives death but without the aid of the supernatural.
I would welcome any views about my thought processes and about how close I am to being a humanist.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Subscribe to our feed
Sorry to take so long to respond.
I'm not sure I understand how surviving death in some form could be described as anything other than supernatural. Buddhists (and other religions) believe in reincarnation, where your soul, essence, or whatever you want to call it, takes another form in another life. For some, the form depends on how well or how badly you've behaved during this life. All of this is speculation, however, since there's no proof for any of it.
As a Humanist, I'm really only interested in this life - not in speculating about may or may not happen after we're dead. As far as I'm concerned, when I'm dead, that's it - nothing, zip, oblivion. I've written about it elsewhere - see one of my blogs. In general, Humanists reject the notion of a supernatural, and regard life after death as an oxymoron.
It's true that we may have some things in common with some Buddhists, particularly people from the Western Order, apart from the reincarnation thing. Personally, I don't find all the introspection that seems to go with Buddhism very appealing. I'm more interested in doing than the "be-ing" of Buddhism.
To be honest, I don't think you're very close to a Humanist way of looking at things, though we may have some things in common, as a I sense a yearning for something I can only describe as mystical, above and beyond our mortality. I think some people are just made that way, whether they ever find what they're looking for or not. I'm not made that way, and I don't believe in "rebirth", whatever form it takes. When we die, the stuff we are made of is re-used in other forms, as the chemical building-blocks of life - carbon mainly. I fully expect to feed the worms, but not to become a worm.
Thank you for your challenging reply Margaret which raised in me the following thoughts:
Supernatural. This may be a question of semantics but it feels more important than that. If something exists, whether in this dimension or another, I cannot see how this can be anything other than natural and therefore be capable of being described by science, even if it cannot be at this point in time. The term supernatural seems to imply something like a god which I think we would both agree is unnecessary.
Spritual Yearning / Made That Way: This possibility does concern me. I am aware that a "spiritual" gene has been identified in about 30% of people. It is therefore possible that those who put effort into a spritual life are merely following their programming. This together with the description of cargo cults springing up in the South Pacific at the end of WWII as described in The God Delusion are things that have caused me to question where I am. The latter showed how intelligent but unsophisticated people can go off at a tangent for the want of better information.
Interest In This Life: I agree that the important thing is to concentrate on this life. It is worth living well for its own sake. Speculation about what happens after the point of death can be argued as futile. It will be what it is when it happens. Yet it is interesting. Even those who are adamant that there is nothing more may join Humanist Associations and put just as much effort into thinking/discussing there not being anything else as a religious person. It seems to be a human feature. It would be interesting to know if committed Humanists have that same "spirituality" gene.
Buddhism: Interesting that you mentioned the Western (Buddhist) Order. That was the bunch that I could most related to.
Doing v Being: Terms may be the issue here. There are people who can never stop doing. Its as if they need to prevent themselves having the time to think in case something too painful comes in. (I am a professional counsellor and this is certainly true in some cases). Others may want to sit in a beautiful place and take it in which is an example of just being. To be in balance between being and doing could be argued to be the healthiest place to be but at neither extreme.
Evidence For "Supernatural": I have witnessed a number of things that would commonly be decribed as supernatural. As I sat with my dying uncle, my wife (10 miles away) saw him sit up twice in bed and heard him call her name. He sat up twice just before the point of death having been unconscious for many hours. Another time whilst out with her she had a vision of a friend who was seriously ill and she felt that she had just died. Being checkable I looked at my watch. When I got home my daughter told me that the woman's husband had telephoned 10 minutes before to say she had died earlier. Nine minutes had past. This may be evidence of telepathy rather than survival after death but something odd goes on. If sceptical people checked out a good medium offering nothing of themselves what would they find out? Sceptical people do not do that so their theories are not tested.
Jack
We have a very good speaker next week, who's been involved with Humanism a long time. You're welcome to come, whether or not you can identify with a Humanist point of view.
I thought I had answered you but I must have missed a button!
Thanks for the invite but we host a party on that day and therefore I cannot make it.
However, am hoping we'll have a podcast of Jim's talk on this website soon, if all goes well.