Monday, October 18, 2010


British Humanist Association.

I was very amused today to receive a recruitment leaflet for the British Humanist Association; spelling mistakes aside it is quite hilarious to see one's own beliefs are misconstrued by those who think they know better. I needed a good laugh. Thanks!

One of the many unsubstantiated assertions made in this literature is the assumption that a belief in God is irrational. I do not accept that premise. I believe that it is perfectly rational to believe in God. Nor do I accept that the BHA has the monopoly on rationality it supposes.

What a bizarre world the BHA lives in if it assumes that people like myself believe what we do for no readily apparent reason. Surely a rational human being would conclude that people like myself must have their reasons for believing what they do even if one doesn't accept those reasons oneself? I would argue that I have a coherant philosophy of life which accords with the world I experience.

I think what the BHA is trying to say is that they believe that life, the universe and everything can be explained in purely material terms. They would regard that as a simple statement of fact. But to say that one does not believe that it can all be explained in purely material terms is regarded by them as a "faith statement" when grammatically they are equivalent clauses. Why interpret one clause one way and make out the other to be of an entirely different order? There is an unexamined presupposition there.