“Humanism” and the Nature of Faith
Posted in Seeking Religion on May 29th, 2008Faith is something which is often misunderstood. By the way, do not be fooled by the image that this is a “modern” issue - people rejected the Prophets from the beginning of time, yes, even the illiterate, “unevolved” peoples of the past. The reasons may change but the reactions don’t.
Today people often ask you to “prove” that God exists. You can tell them that you cannot and that they should prove He does not exist. The fact is, no one can prove either side in this question (although foolish people on both sides sometimes think they have). The existence of God is a matter of faith. While it is true that belief in God cannot be ILLOGICAL or INCOHERENT (self-contradicting), people on both sides of the issue of theism in fact have “faith”. One has faith God exists, the other has faith he does not. The atheist often claims his viewpoint is the “default” viewpoint - that he should not believe in God until he is shown that God exists, and to an extent he is correct.
The point where he is incorrect is to think (again, like many theists) that belief in God is a logical point (aside from the stipulation, like any in life, that it is within the realm of possibility). What most people nowadays have forgotten is that the universe, everything in existence, is not approachable by one method alone. A classic example of this is love. Certainly love is something that cannot be bound by rules - it cannot be seen, it cannot be dictated. One does not approach love scientifically (and if one did, one would indeed be a nerd) for it simply does not fall into that realm of study.
Similarly faith is something that is not definitive - it is possible not to believe. If it were the case that it was possible for either party to “prove” their assertions about God, believe me, you would own a copy of it for $9.99. Faith is something based not upon proof but upon signs.
Some of the signs that the assertion of those who say that the universe is a complete accident, that it is impersonal (unguided), detached, purposeless, etc. are:
1. The fact that we tend to personify nature - we marvel at “Nature’s” efficiency, ingenuity, etc.
2. The fact that we wonder where we came from (why not just find ourselves alive, struggle as animals to survive, and perish). Who cares how we got here? It doesn’t benefit us technically or materially.
3. The fact that we wonder what is the “purpose of life”. None, you idiot, none. Now try to get as much pleasure as possible or if you suffer a moment of pain, exterminate yourself and you shall find relief.
4. The fact that we feel “awed” by nature - why look at a tree, one of the most “boring”, plentiful things on the planet, or the moon, a mere “rock”, and feel awed and moved to tears?
Now, I want to make a note about “humanism”, sometimes called “secular humanism”, or as one guy explained it, “belief in science” (which I found quite funny since I also have a “belief in science”). Forget about the fact that it does not adequately address many of the above points, but can you not see that the very existence of such a philosophy is precisely due to the fact that there is a human NEED to have a “purpose” (again, pointless from a biological point of view - you need not be conscious of your purpose), to say “Here is what life is all about!”. I suppose someone asked a humanist “Oh, yeah, you have a better idea?” Guess what - if you believe in the philosophy of “humanism” you may as well have a religion, which also provides answers and guidance on life (albeit, you may have less fun and be far less stylish). So the atheist by in large falls into his own trap - his actions show that indeed he does not believe the default viewpoint is absolute, stark reality. Which is fine - after all, he is only human.
Just remember that life is expansive - science asks the question “how” - through it we advance medically and technologically. Religion (or the lack thereof) asks the question “why”. Neither by itself explains all of existence sufficiently. And of course, there may be even more to life than the apple and the orange. It is a humbling thought.


Recent Comments