By Roy Brown, IHEU President <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In 1811, the poet Shelley was expelled from Oxford for writing and distributing a pamphlet called The Necessity of Atheism. Two hundred years later, his thesis, that we should weigh the evidence before drawing conclusions, is still relevant but perhaps even more urgent than ever. Common sense has never been very common. What got Shelley into trouble with the University authorities was applying his rational approach to the question of the existence of God. But we have come a long way since Shelley’s time. The University that expelled him is now host to some of the most delightfully persuasive advocates of Atheism that have ever lived. Rationalism has replaced creaking Christianity as the established worldview amid the dreaming spires.

Yet Shelley’s argument was not against the idea of God as an all-pervading spirit but against the institution of the Church; against what Christianity had become. Shelley was a pantheist rather than an Atheist. Two hundred years of sterile philosophical argument later, we can still neither prove nor disprove Shelley’s assertion that “The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit coeternal with the universe remains unshaken”. What we can assert with confidence, however, is that as a working hypothesis, Atheism is unlikely to let us down. But my question is this. While Atheism may be necessary as a working hypothesis, is it sufficient as a philosophy of life?

What prompted this question was a conversation I had at dinner last year with an American Atheist. In my working life I have met many American rednecks, but until last year they had invariably been Christians. This man was clearly an Atheist but also a free-market libertarian and a whole-hearted supporter of George W. Bush. He had no problem with ‘My country right or wrong’ because America wasn’t wrong. American had always acted correctly and “see where it got us”. No more Mister Nice Guy. Foreign Aid? Forget it. What have they ever done for us? This attitude is understandably not uncommon among Americans, especially since 9/11, but I find it unsatisfactory.

In trying to rebut his arguments I found myself falling back on pragmatism. “Carry on like you are doing and you will find the whole world against you!” (I don’t usually do prophecy.) And “How can you increase the demand for American goods and services unless there are people out there able to buy them?” But on mature reflection I now realize that I was using my reason to justify my gut reaction. What I had been reluctant to say to my dinner companion, or was shy to admit, was that I care about the poor, the sick, and the dispossessed. My question now is, why should I?

I am sure that even my dinner companion would want to help if he saw a small child in difficulty. There is increasing evidence that feelings of sympathy and compassion towards others have evolved as an intrinsic part of our makeup. We are pre-programmed to provide nurture for our children, support for our families, and help for our neighbours. It is now clear that altruism towards strangers also provides us with an evolutionary advantage.

Equally, though, we have evolved with an emotional mistrust, even an antipathy, towards strangers. We rally to the side of ‘ours’ at the first sign of any threat, and will fight for our tribe against theirs without the slightest hesitation. This tribal loyalty has also clearly given us an evolutionary advantage as a survival strategy and can easily override any feelings of compassion. But I would argue that in an increasingly interconnected world, we can no longer afford to rely on our primitive, negative emotions. We have to be able to overcome them. The fact that we find this so difficult is not surprising given their evolutionary origins, but overcome them we must. This is not to say that we should not defend ourselves. Of course we should. But we should hesitate before striking the first blow. We need to ensure not only that the threat is real, but that there is no alternative to a violent response.

Hans Eysenck defined Humanism as Rationalism in the service of compassion. Humanism provides many of us with a deeply satisfying philosophy of life but without the element of service, of active compassion, it will be little more than a passive, self-satisfied philosophy. Humanists are compassionate. Many Humanists I have met would like to help the poor and oppressed but feel that they personally can do little, or do not know the best way of going about it. Many as a result give money to proselytizing Christian charities. There is an alternative.

What may seem little to a westerner can be hugely important to a poor peasant in, say Benin or Burkina Faso. However little you give, it can seem a large amount to someone with absolutely nothing. I don’t know any western Humanists that would be considered poor by Indian standards. Humanists in developing countries do a lot for themselves but could do far more with just a little help. Who among us would suffer if we gave say just 1% of our income to support Humanism in Africa or Asia?

I want to challenge every local and every national Humanist group to collect contributions from their members to help promote and develop Humanism in a poorer country. IHEU will be happy to put any group in touch with a Humanist group in the developing world. If you wish, we can channel funds through the new International Humanist Trust – a tax-exempt UK registered charity.

Let’s make our compassion and our Humanism active.