HERMANN BONDI

SPEAKS AT HUMANIST CONGRESS IN MADRID

At a major Spanish humanist congress in Madrid (20-22 April 1995}, Hermann Bondi, the British physicist and former Master of Churchill College, spoke of 'Ethics, Science and Humanism'. Professor Sir Hermann Bondi is President of the British Humanist Association and the Rationalist Press Association.

THE Congress was organised by the Spanish Association of Rational Humanism together with the Ateneo of Madrid, the Ibero-american Commission for the spread of rationalism, scepticism and humanism, The Academy of Humanism and the International Humanist and Ethical Union. The Congress was titled 'Rational Humanism for the New Millennium'. The speakers included Paul Kurtz (Neo-Spirituality and the Paranormal), Alberto Hidalgo (Entre relativismo y fundamentalismo), Paul Cliteur (A New Approach to Government support of morals), Marlo Bunge (A favour de la intolerancia) and Jose M. R. Delgado (Bases neuronales del humanismo).

Herman Bondi spoke on Science, Morality and Humanism:-

I start with a description of where, in my opinion, the essential border lies between us humanists and adherents of the many varieties of religion.

First we are all struck with awe and wonder when we contemplate the universe around us, whether we think of the depths of space in astronomy, or of the incredible complexity of even the simplest forms of life, or of the structure of mountains, or of ecology, or of the intricate web of human relationships. Anyone not so impressed must be very insensitive.

Second, there are those who feel that all this wondrous world must have a designer, an architect, but one with no particular interest in humans, let alone in individuals. This was for example the view of Albert Einstein.

Third there are some who, while broadly agreeing with this view, have the ill-defined feeling (or hope) that this super-intelligence might, have some concern for us. Some Quakers and some Unitarians take this attitude.

I have no quarrel with any of these three 'levels' and would not wish to object to any of them. Where I think the dividing line comes is with the fourth view, that there exists some special 'revelation', a particular form of firm and certain knowledge. It is this with its assurance of being the ultimate and incontrovertible 'knowledge', that is the foundation of virtually every religion, whether this revelation is the Gospels or the Koran or the Hindu Vedas or the Torah of the thought of the Buddha or Mao, etc. Such a revelation is the basis of virtually every religion. In the name of such a ‘superhuman’ (I would like to call it anti-human) certainly the most horrendous and repulsive deeds have been performed which stain human history. Therefore I am above all an ‘anti-revelationist.’ I therefore find it astonishingly arrogant of those who firmly hold such a faith that they necessarily regard all other religions (which of course contradict theirs) as false. Indeed it is plain that of the numerous religions current in the world that claim to have universal validity, at most one can be true. Thus a vast number of sincere believers must be wrong. Since each of the religions has adherents of the highest intelligence and integrity, the conclusion is inescapable that it is in the nature of the human mind to be likely to be in error on religious matters. Any believers who are unaware of this fact are extraordinarily arrogant and in fact deny the common humanity of those who hold a different revelation to be true.

Our humanist attitude should therefore throughout be to stress what we all have in common with each other and relegate quarrelsome religion to the private domain where it can do legs harm. Thus we advocate secularism.

I tend to think that perhaps the greatest importance of science is that it has taught us that people of different religions, different ideologies, different race or gender can work together successfully in science. This is the case because all scientists accept the supremacy of the empirical test of observation and experiment, and firmly refuse to be swayed by arguments that are based on a 'holy' text of an alleged 'certainty'.

Every one of us in a Western country, I am sure, has met the criticism that in ethics we humanists live on Christian capital, that our moral attitudes are derived from Christianity. I believe this to be utterly wrong and that, on the contrary, what goes for modern Christian ethics is in fact derived from humanist values.

For most of its history Christianity was red in tooth and claw. The unspeakable atrocities perpetrated by the crusaders in the Levant, the horrors of the vicious extermination of the Albigenses, the unbelievable cruelties of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, the rather more low key sickening burning of witches, all these were performed at the instigation or at least with the approval of the leaders of Christianity. It is only in the last couple of centuries that Christian attitudes have gradually become 'civilised' and humane. Why? In my view this transformation of Christian thought is due to the rise of humanism and Scepticism. We have given Christianity its modern face, which often quotes the very nice things Jesus is reported to have said, and carefully omits the nasty sayings such as 'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.' (Authorised version of the Bible, the Gospel according to St John, XV.6.} From the Old Testament the ten

commandments are quoted to us frequently, but not 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' (Exodus, XX.18, XXII.18}.

Of course our Christian friends re-interpret these sayings nowadays into more civilised terms, but the fact is that until the rise of Free Thought they were taken literally and horribly often acted upon. What are regarded as the humane compassionate attitudes now claimed for Christianity are quite modern and undeniably occurred only at the same time as doubt became vocal and respectable.

Our Humanist organisations may be modest in size in many countries but we can take great pride in having transformed the climate of opinion and made our world more humane and less intolerant. May the new Spanish Humanist Association have this influence and go from strength to strength!