Dialogue

What do humanists think about religion?

Drawing a distinction between the people who identify with a religion (eg Catholics), the religion itself (Catholicism), and the associated institutions (the Catholic Church) can help us when considering this question.

‘We are not anti religion. Anti threats to freedom, personal autonomy, equality, etc, and therefore those aspects of religion that promote that. The rest of religion we have no quarrel with.’

Bertrand Russell

‘Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.’

Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies

‘Toleration is the disposition to fight opinion only with opinion: in other words, to protect freedom of speech, and to confront divergence of opinion with open critical reflection rather than suppression or force.’

Simon Blackburn, Does Relativism Matter?

Dialogue

Many humanists will recognise that religion is not something that is going to disappear; differences in answers to life’s big questions are likely to be with us for a long time. They will therefore see the value in engaging in dialogue. Here Humanists UK’s Dialogue Officer, Jeremy Rodell, provides a humanist perspective.

As well as making a positive humanist contribution to building a peaceful, plural, secular society, participation in dialogue plays an important part in promoting understanding of humanism.

Dialogue is not the same as debate. Debate is adversarial, with each side trying to persuade an audience to adopt one rival view and ultimately to win. It has its place, but it is not the only way to engage. Dialogue is not about winners and losers. The aim isn’t to convince anyone that you’re right and they’re wrong, but to listen, question, and understand their position and help them understand yours. Black-and-white simplifications and false generalisations are often used as weapons in debate. In dialogue, they are enemies.

But dialogue does not mean avoiding areas of disagreement. Mutual understanding means understanding differences as well as common ground. If dialogue achieves no more than box-ticking, photo opportunities, or mutual admiration, it is of limited value. Equally, there’s a big difference between ‘bad disagreement’ – characterised by black-and-white thinking, polarization and conflict – and ‘good disagreement’, which opens contention up in way that enriches understanding and enhances relationships.

One of the outcomes of dialogue is often the recognition that, despite differences in belief, identity, and practice, core humanist values of kindness, freedom, and human rights are widely shared among liberal thinkers from most religious backgrounds. The bigger challenge is between liberals and fundamentalists on all sides.