The Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard

With Trust in Reason,with Compassion for Humankind - Since 1974

Click Here for Partial Text of our Christopher Kirchhoff Debating God's Existence ...

"There is only one world, the natural world, and only one truth about it; but this world has a spiritual life in it which looks not to another world but to the beauty and perfection that this world suggests, approaches and misses." George Santayana

Humanist Heritage:

Humanism at Harvard began with our 17th century founders' love of truth, learning and the Greek and Latin classics. The tradition continued with seminal thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, William James, and George Santayana as well as advocates of pluralism, democracy, and science such as Professors George Wald and E.O. Wilson.

The Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard serves the entire Harvard community, and especially the many students, faculty, and staff who identify with the ideals of rational, secular, and democratic humanism. It appeals to the skeptical inquirer and students of an agnostic or atheist inclination.

Since 1974 when Tom Ferrick founded the chaplaincy, it has encouraged more than a generation of students to consider themselves and humanity in an earthly and evolutionary context.

"Harvard's Humanist Chaplaincy enriches student life as it sustains a community of college freethinkers. It was great to have the support of the humanist chaplain throughout these years."
Derek Araujo

The Chaplaincy Today:

During their first week on campus  freshmen are welcomed to the Chaplaincy open house where they meet the chaplain and student leaders of the humanist community. Throughout the academic year the Chaplaincy offers counseling for students and their families, lectures and discussions on topics of humanist concern, and support for humanist student groups.

Tom Ferrick, the Humanist Chaplain, has long been an active member of the United Ministry, the chaplains' corps at Harvard University with offices in Memorial Church. He is available at all hours for counseling or just congenial talk. He performs weddings and memorial services for Harvard community members and alumni. He leads seminars and maintains a library open to inquisitive students.

In 1996 the Chaplaincy achieved national attention when John L. Loeb, a magnificent supporter of the University, started an endowment for the Chaplaincy. Mr. Loeb explained his support for the Chaplaincy as follows: "I've sort of been a humanist ... deeds, not creeds, appeals to me. This a small step in having someone professors and students can talk to."

"In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, we will understand only what we are taught." E.O. Wilson

Tomorrow:

The Chaplaincy seeks additional support to broaden its work. Chaplaincy plans include:

• Humanist Student Center.  Currently the humanist chaplain works in a small office in the basement of memorial church. The Chaplaincy would like a center that will support a range of student activities, including counseling, seminars, films, research, and social activities.
• Assistant Chaplains.  With student participation growing, the Chaplaincy hope to engage assistant chaplains to support the work of Tom Ferrick.
• Internships.  The Chaplaincy will offer qualified graduate students and recent graduates the opportunity to participate in the work of the humanist chaplain. Interns may become career chaplains at Harvard or other schools.
• Pension for the Humanist Chaplain.  Tom Ferrick served as humanist chaplain on a volunteer basis from 1974 through 1996. He now receives a modest salary, but his retirement is inevitable. When that time comes, the Chaplaincy feel a moral obligation to provide him with adequate support.

  ---

"The world thinks it must raise itself above humanism, that it must look for a more profound spirituality. It has taken a false road. Humanism in all its simplicity is the only genuine spirituality. . . And humanism is the most precious result of rational meditation upon our existence and that of the world." Albert Schweitzer On receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952

The Important Details:

• In 1992 the Chaplaincy was organized as a Massachusetts non-profit corporation. It is managed by a board of directors consisting of Harvard alumni and affiliates.
• The Chaplaincy is seeking both unrestricted gifts and gifts dedicated to particular purposes.
• Contributions to the Chaplaincy are deductible for federal income tax and federal unified (estate and gift) tax purposes.

For additional information please contact;

Tom Ferrick
Humanist Chaplain
Office of the United Ministry
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 01238
(617) 495-5529
thomas_ferrick@harvard.edu

You may also contact the Chaplaincy Treasurer, : Joseph_Gerstein@masshumanists.org

"It is my hope that a chaplaincy such as this will one day serve students on every campus in the country"
Thomas Ferrick

---

Debating The Exitence of God
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:
Christopher Kirchhoff

Good evening.

In the Divinity School Library there is a book titled Who's who in hell: a handbook and international directory for humanists, freethinkers, naturalists, rationalists, and non-theists. In the hopes of being added to the next edition, I've taken the liberty of composing an entry for myself. It reads:

Christopher Kirchhoff -- In elementary school, asked Pastor too many questions during children's sermon. During confirmation classes, failed to fully appreciate church doctrine. In college, twice argued against God's existence, even after house struck by lightening during summer of 1996. Also took Moral Reasoning 54 with Prof. Jay Harris and decided that all was permitted.

At the risk of eternal damnation, Shankar and I are here to take issue with the idea that a belief in God is justified. From the very beginning, we had a suspicion that something about God, in my case, and the gods, in Shankar's case, was a bit fishy. Before we explain why, I would like to advise that you to fasten your seatbelt. The rhetorical ride from here on out might be a bit rough. Shankar and I do not observe the 11th commandment: thou shall not question. Instead, we treat religion with great suspicion, and often times moral condemnation.

We are here this evening to argue that there is no rational justification for a belief in God. Many Christian seem to agree with us. Pastors, priests, and other clergy spend hours preaching about the virtues of believing on faith, how great it is, and what wonderful rewards await those who care the least about having reasons for their beliefs.

We hold that faith itself is immoral, and that theistic religions, however well meaning, are castles built on foundations of sand.

A benevolent God, it seems to us, is not only an implausible construction in logical terms, but also an unnecessary and insufficient explanation of the world. Instead, it seems that the notion of a benevolent creator who intervenes to, say, help the Israelites win battles, arose to fulfill the needs of a particular people at a certain time. The notion has hung on for reasons easy to understand. However, justifying God's existence in advanced scientific society is an arduous task.

We no longer consult Genesis for knowledge about natural history. Nor do the astronomers take advice from the Pope on whether or not the earth goes round the sun or vice-versa. And despite the efforts of thousands of promoters of the supernatural and the entire Fox TV network, miracles have all turned either to be bogus, unverified or to have less than miracles explanations. As a result, many Christian theologians have retreated from making claims about the natural world. Instead, they offer religion as a guide to living in it, justifying God's existence on believers' experience of God in their lives.

But this approach has also run into problems. Reasons for God-beliefs have been plainly elucidated. The single most robust indicator of one's religious belief, for example, is the religious belief of one's parents. Religious fundamentalism correlates negatively with level of education, income, and scientific literacy, leading to the conclusion that fundamentalism is, to some degree, a product of ignorance. And psychologists have uncovered mechanisms underlying the propagation of religious belief, including the effects of socialization, social support and coping structures, stereotyped response sequences, and fundamental motivators such as the fulfillment of authoritarian needs and the reduction of anxiety.

In the eyes of many, the social-scientific study of God-beliefs have matured to a point at which comprehensive explanations demonstrate no distinction need be made between religion and other types of human experience. Perhaps the most damaging evidence against the argument from religious experience comes from the human brain. Preoccupation with religious matters, mystic episodes, and sensitivity to religious symbols, terms or icons has been linked to activity within the temporal lobe. In fact, spiritual experience can be artificially induced in atheists and theists alike by stimulating certain regions of the brain with electro-magnetic energy. If spiritual cognition can arise from artificial means, it seems implausible to attribute the experience of God to an external or divine source. Moreover, it has been found that personal religious history influences what people see and feel in their electro-magnetically induced God experiences. A Muslim raised in an Islamic society will likely see Allah; a Christian, Jesus; a Jew, Yahweh; and so forth. One would be surprised to hear of the Hindu god Shiva appearing to believers at Chartres. 

That religious experiences are contingent upon one's background is particularly salient to this evening's debate. If religion is historically determined, religious experience cannot be uniquely authoritative. Believers claiming authority from their own religious experience would have to grant the same authority to others. This would quickly lead to a religious relativism within which mutually exclusive claims could not be resolved. Unless God has multiple personality disorder, it is hard to reconcile the diversity of religious experience with a unique divinity.

In the face of all this, our opponents still hold on to a belief in God. Attempting to show how an all-loving, infinitely good creator would allow starvation and drought, the suffering of innocent children and infants, and the worst of human horrors, is not an easy task. Instead of spending our time attempting to square circles, Shankar and I hold that the idea of a benevolent creator is an unnecessary and woefully complicated idea, that it is much simpler and more reasonable to conclude that the universe is indifferent to human sufferings and human joys, that life on earth is indeed a mixture of the two, and that because arguments for a benevolent creator are incoherent, illogical, and implausible, belief in such a God is unjustified. 

BURDEN OF PROOF

We would also like to say a word about the burden of proof. Take, for example, a person asserting that aliens molested them. Because an alien abductee posits the existence of aliens, the burden of proof is clearly on them to provide credible evidence that aliens exist. Eyewitness testimony or unverified reports will not suffice. It is thus improper for the alien abductee to justify his or her abduction on the grounds that it cannot be proven that aliens do not exist. The logical possibility that aliens could exist is not sufficient justification for the belief that anal probe-wielding little green men run around abducting humans. 

Likewise, it is inappropriate for theists to justify a belief in God on the grounds that the nonexistence of God cannot be proven, because the logical possibility of God's existence does not prove that a belief in God is reasonable or sound. The burden of proof, and of definition, thus falls upon our opponents. To assert atheism, Shankar and I only have to show that Rich and La-ra have not presented sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God. And justifying that belief, in this day and age, is awful difficult.