tt.humanist :: forum :: articles :: baldeosingh :: philosophy

Lecture on Humanism

Kevin Baldeosingh • 29 May 1998 •1033 words

"The person who questions everything and gives short shrift to absolutes is not easily fooled by politicians and is usually tolerant of others' beliefs and lifestyles."

Basically, humanism is a belief system which holds that man is the measure of all things - woman too. It is synonymous with several other terms. Philosophically, it is "scientific." Politically, it is "secular" and socially it is "liberal." The distinguishing characteristic of humanism is that it gives no credence to supernatural sources of knowledge nor does it place reliance on so-called spiritual "laws" as a means of human progress.

This is only common sense. Even if supernatural knowledge exists, it must still be filtered through our brains and there's no way to know if such knowledge does not in fact originate within our brains.

In terms of human progress, the same rule applies. Humanism holds that all problems have identifiable causes and effects and must be dealt with by practical methods. The saying "God helps those who helps themselves" makes God unnecessary when it works and becomes untrue when it doesn't.

Now it is possible to be both a believer in religion and a humanist in practical terms. But it is not LOGICALLY possible, because the humanist belief system contradicts religion on fundamental grounds, just as the different religions contradict one another. But, even if you disagree with the humanist view, I don't recommend teaching any religion as the literal Word of God. Doing so either leads to confusion in the students' minds or encourages negative attitudes which may already be in place.

All the Holy Books, for example, discourage independent thought. The Qu'ran in Surah 2, Verse 120 says "He who chooses disbelief instead of faith has gone astray from a plain road." These books also defend the status quo, even if it is an oppressive one. The Bhagavadgita, for example, upholds caste distinctions. In Ch. 18, text 47, it says "It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly." Of course, such occupations are determined by birth and this text thus ensures that the ruling classes remain the ruling classes and meritocracy is never adopted as a principle. And the Bible, if followed literally, even justifies murder, because Leviticus Ch24:V. 15 says, "When any man blasphemes his God he shall accept responsibility for his sin." and the punishment is death.

So we are lucky that most people don't take their religion too literally, even when they say they do. In fact, for most practical purposes, people act as humanists, including religious fundamentalists. When Pastor Cuffie gets hungry, he goes to KFC - he does not open his mouth and pray to God to drop fried chicken into it.

When it comes to teaching the humanistic perspective to your students, though, the practical perspective most human beings adopt is your only advantage. There are two main difficulties you will face. The first is our culture, which encourages superstition and a belief in the existence of things which cannot be proven. It is because of this culture that Play-Whe, Lotto and Yesenia Adams make so much money. This cultural perspective affects both your students' mindset and your own in respect to teaching humanism and religion.

However, the second difficulty impacts more directly on you as a teacher. This is the problem of an educational system which does not really encourage what is supposed to be the core purpose of education: to teach people to question everything. Yet in teaching humanism, this is what you will have to teach your students to do: to question EVERYTHING, including yourselves.

Now such an attitude is completely antithetical to all the great religions. In John Ch.8, Verses 13&14, when the Pharisees pointed out to Jesus that, in claiming to be the Son of God, he was a witness in his own cause so his testimony was not valid, Jesus said, "My testimony is valid because I know where I come from" which is a really silly answer. In Ch4, Text 41 of the Bhagvadgita, it says "Ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed Scriptures have no happiness either in this world or the next" , but I am pretty happy in this world despite this, so I suppose I'll pay for it in the next. The Qu'ran is even more threatening, with many verses like that of Surah 2, v. 29: "Those who disbelieve or deny our revelations, such are rightful owners of the fire. They will abide therein."

But, despite all this, I still think it is particularly important to try and inculcate a critical attitude in your students. When a person has the habit of questioning everything, they come to realize that nothing in life is absolutely certain (except the fact that nothing is absolutely certain.) And, when you look at history and even the present, you'll realize that most of the problems and most of the suffering in this world are caused by people who think they know absolute truths, whether these truths are religious, political or academic.

The person who questions everything and gives short shrift to absolutes is not easily fooled by politicians and is usually tolerant of others' beliefs and lifestyles. Consider how T&T, and the world, might be different if most people adopted just those two basic tenets. Issues such as birth control and teenage pregnancy would be handled in a practical manner, not just by telling people fornication is sinful - an argument which hasn't worked in the entire history of humankind, anyway. Even crime would be dealt with more effectively, because neither citizens nor politicians would be concentrating on irrelevant matters like the death penalty, but instead would be looking at basic causes of crime such as the gap between rich and poor and the defects of the educational system.

You see, a real humanist is constrained to apply certain standards to whatever issues he deals with, these being empiricism, logic, open-mindedness and tolerance. But such standards require a lot of constant effort - it is much easier to look for divine guidance and absolute laws - and I suppose that is why humanism remains so unpopular. As teachers, you can help change that by influencing young minds, but whether you choose to do so is entirely up to you.