You are on page 1of 5

Im a Believer

Few things matter more to people than their personal beliefs, and thats true of me and my beliefs. Theyre central to me. I ponder them every day; I nurture and expand them by discussing them with people of similar beliefs; I try my best to live by them in everything I do and I cannot imagine ever changing them. In fact the older I become, the more convinced I am of their veracity. So, Im very denitely, a believer. Those who share my beliefs are the fastest growing segment of society. But, though we share the same beliefs, we dont share the same name, so some of us are called: Atheists, Freethinkers, Skeptics, Humanists, Rationalists or Naturalists which is my own worldview. I dont mind answering to any of the other names though depending on the occasion, but one term I do object to is: unbeliever, because as I said before, Im very denitely a believer. And as a naturalist, many of my views are solid and denite. For example, I believe people are born neither good nor bad, that they become what their genetic inheritance, their upbringing and their lifes experiences shape them to become and I believe that under the same set of circumstances, any one of us would have turned out the same way. I believe there are three main human endeavours in life worth pursuing - the gaining of knowledge, the cultivation of virtue and empowering the powerless. The rest is just embroidery. I believe stances based in ignorance breed cultures of violence and retribution and that these two outlooks have always been the greatest hindrances to human progress. I believe humanity could take great strides forward if only all the women of the world were taught how their bodies and brains work and they avoided being indoctrinated by the many myths and superstition that surround them. I believe friends need to be chosen carefully because good ones can make for a healthy and happy life and bad ones can set us on a path to destruction. I believe scientists make mistakes, that a few of them are corrupt and some are mercenary, despite that, I believe the only way for ordinary people to learn how the world works is for scientists to employ an empirical method of investigation using reason, observation and experiment, and to pass on their results - like smoking causes cancer; human activities are causing the earths climate to change; vaccinations work. All examples of the type of knowledge that can save us from ourselves.

My personal knowledge on how to reduce anxiety helps me through stressful times and the moral code that Ive deliberated over for decades guides my interactions with other people. So, like everyone else, my beliefs help me navigate through life; theyre well entrenched in my brain and all my actions and my future goals are guided by them. It's not a general lack of beliefs then which earn me the epithet of unbelieverrather its because Ive developed a rather cynical mind and I reject beliefs that have no basis in the harsh reality to which we insist all other facets of our life must conform. To live a modern life means being accustomed to questioning everything from a builders quote on our house extension to a consultants opinion about our appendix. We hold these opinions up to rigorous scrutiny and that seems eminently sensible to me. So I have no use for beliefs based on faith alone, for me they have no validity. One compelling reason I reject them is that theyre wide open, theres no limit or exception to what their content can be, and that to me is quite scary. Also, although such beliefs like the effects of prayer or presence of angels repeatedly fail practical tests, their followers continue to endlessly repeat the same claims. This level of repeated failure would spell extinction for beliefs if they were outside the faith zone. This is not to deny such beliefs any currency at all, I understand that many people dont share my approach or apply my demanding criteria to belief claims and they seem quite content and indeed happy to hold beliefs that rest on imsier foundations but that also makes such beliefs attractive to lazy thinkers. And thats ne by me, people ought to be free to apply their own criteria and believe whatever gives them comfort. But the question is, should these untested beliefs be given the same degree of esteem from society that they get? I think its unfair that they do. Worse still, around the world, its people like me, labeled non-believers who are more likely to be treated with suspicion or disdain. If faith beliefs were restricted to the private realm and to groups of similar believers who dont mind accepting premises and ideas on a basis of trust and personal experience, they would cause me and my ilk no apprehension at all. But usually they are not restricted in this way, instead faith followers continuously concern themselves with the morality of others, insisting that me and others like me, live by the same moral codes they have accepted for themselves (or sometimes only publicly pretending to accept while privately behaving otherwise).

The coupling of faith with morality has through time become traditional so faith organizations are often viewed by many as a place of sanctuary. Troubled and vulnerable people are no doubt glad to hear that someone big and powerful loves them and are happy to take refuge under the shelter of faith. But history and modern revelations has shown that there are also charlatans and wrong-doers who use the status of faith as a shield and to nd a safe place to skulk. In any other area of life, people who declared themselves followers of a belief that was patently absurd might be treated with ridicule. But the respect faith is given provides a barrier that stops any scorn in its tracks, so a faith environment still has the ability to provide cover for all manner of snake-oil salesfolk hiding behind its veil of respectability. Even though many faith claims are less about the way the world works and usually more about the way the minds of their individual leaders work. Mind you, this deferential attitude to faith has recently started to crumble, but challengers who demand more equality from the faith institutions are usually swatted away as mere strident or aggressive atheists. So, for these reasons, although naturalists believe in many things we cannot accept a belief just because its traditional. And we dont put much stock in the words of self-proclaimed prophets or miraculous cures. But, we cannot dismiss the beliefs of Sikhs, yet uphold those of Jews, Homeopaths, or Christians. We must subject all claims to the same standards of examination and verication. Nevertheless, because naturalists reason in this way, were often accused of arrogance, for trusting our own human judgment over sacred truths. But, for me this way of reasoning seems modest. I believe it derives from an appreciation of human frailties; a willingness to be self-critical and an attempt to approach the world with honesty and some personal dignity. And to make such appraisals is no easy task, it asks as much of our personal characteristics as it does of our intellect. It requires a open approach when judging divergent viewpoints; it requires integrity to consider our own beliefs by the same standards we judge others; it needs the patience to suspend any judgment until we learn all the facts; it requires persistence to think through difcult issues; it requires courage to insist on evidence before drawing conclusions and it requires exibility to change our minds if our beliefs are thrown into doubt by the latest discoveries.

Of course, setting standards this high, means we need to proceed with caution. People are not altogether rational creatures and the one sure weakness we all share is our fallibility. So we must apply the same impartial benchmarks to our own reasoning as we do to that of others. For naturalists, no old-fashioned holy book gives us a basis to rise to such a challenge, only the book of nature can do that because nature cares nothing for feelings; it has no interest in conrming prejudices or personal impressions. It recognizes no elect groupings and reveals its secrets to any who take the trouble to investigate. On the other hand, claims that are held erect by a faithscaffold and reserved for a select group of believers are forever endangered when cultures evolve to the sway of the contemporary zeitgeist. I say then that people can do no better than to limit their beliefs to natural explanations of life because the basis of naturalistic beliefs is unconcealed; it can be forthrightly proclaimed and spoken about explicitly, there is no need to cloak it in secrecy or mystery and to share it requires no caveats, or promises of specic behaviour. Naturalistic explanations remain valid for anyone and everyone despite their personal input to life. A person can accept the facts that the planet is 4.5 billion years old and that the u doesnt respond to antibiotics whether they are the worlds most fervent atheist or the worlds most fervent god worshiper. On the other hand, religious or other faith beliefs only reward followers, worst still, those who nd they cannot accept such beliefs, even for the best of reasons, are threatened by intimidating sanctions - all without verication that the beliefs are in any way accurate. Championing a naturalistic approach to belief doesnt exclude other routes to lifes fulllment as life has many and varied dimensions - theres the artistic, the sensual, the literate, the athletic, and these are all well-grounded activities that await being discovered either for pleasure, the advancement of knowledge or both. And any of these routes can provide a valuable adjunct to lifes meaning whether we accept a faith position or not. One of my favourite books, Dickens Hard Times, underlines this view. Its a cautionary tale that describes a Mr Gradgrind who constantly churns out to his children facts, facts, and more facts all the while ignoring their desire to nurture their artistic and emotional selves. The moral to the sad story warns readers not to repeat Mr Gradgrinds sterile approach so they may avoid his inevitable heartache. Nevertheless, probably the commonest objection that naturalists hear is that without the supernatural, the universe is devoid of wonder, and can have no meaning, no purpose. Or that by limiting our understanding of life to the naturalistic, we risk losing communion with an immortal god, or a miraculous

healing of what ails us. In some ways they are right, nature provides no meaning or purpose, and the disturbing parts of life, especially its end in death, cannot be overcome or avoided so needs to be faced with honesty, understanding and courage, and not wished away while an imagined eternal perfection takes its place. The bald fact is that life is nite and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. On becoming an adult, each person must assess these competing beliefs and make a decision. To those who say "Id rather be part of something bigger than myself" I say: Its true people are just a collection of atoms, but we are atoms that have self-awareness. Our brains are only matter, but its matter capable of constructing memory, imagination, language and meaning. And its these human attributes that gives each one of us an importance beyond ourselves. In fact, I could say people are the universe personied and looking in the mirror. Who could ask for anything bigger? For most of my life I have chosen to uphold these naturalistic beliefs, to take whatever actions they prompt and to stand by their consequences. I know that I am rm in them because my resolve has often been tested, but, I have consistently refused to accept opposing beliefs even when enticed by instant rewards or threatened by damnation in eternity. These are my beliefs and Im a believer. June Maxwell Glasgow, March 2013.

You might also like