Humanism

This page was written by Mike Lake, a local businessman and qualified teacher, who represents The British Humanist Association on the Derby SACRE.

The views on this page are those of the author, not the SACRE.

Note to primary RE coordinators and secondary RE teachers

Many of you may not be totally clear about what a "humanist" is, or even of the differences between someone labelled a "secularist" and one labelled an "atheist" (* see notes below.).

Since humanism is part of the QCA's 2004 "Religious Education: the non-statutory national framework" it is obviously important that you have a clear understanding of what humanism is and what resources are available to help you when presenting its ideas to your students.

I have spoken on a wide range of religion-related topics to local schools, colleges and universities and I would be very happy to speak to you and your colleagues at any time or to help with talks or debates for students.

You can contact me via the Derbyshire Secularists and Humanists web site.

* Notes:

• Secularist: "one campaigning for the separation of church and state" (many religious people are also secularists)
• Atheist: "one who does not need a god, sees no reason to propose one and does not believe in one"
• Humanist: "one with similar moral, ethical and social values to those of the liberal wing of the C of E but free of god and religion."

Page contents

• Before we start - the meaning of words
• Humanists, atheists and agnostics
• Humanist beliefs
• A humanist interpretation of religion
• Humanists, schools, RE and worship
• Humanists and SACREs
• Questions we have been asked

Religion in schools is controlled by Acts of parliament which unfortunately do not define many of the key words used in the Acts themselves or in day-to-day religious education. Many of the words seem obvious but when you stand back and think they are incredibly difficult to define - they would defeat a PhD in Theology let along a school pupil. For example:

• Religion. This used to be simple: "belief in a creator god (or gods) and/or life after death." Even this definition is awkward because the meaning of "life after death" is very vague in many religions and means different things to different people.

  There is an unfortunate tendency these days to attempt to redefine "religion" as any set of beliefs by which people lead their lives. Using this definition we would all be religious - which is obvious nonsense. Humanism is not a religion and humanists see no need to invent a god to explain anything.

• Spirituality. This is incredibly difficult to define especially when used in phrases such as "spiritual development". Ofsted has made some attempts to define it to help teachers but their definitions leave the matter more obscure than when they started.

  The "spirit" part may imply some form of supernatural entity such as the religious concept of "soul" and the word is often used by the religious when claiming uniqueness for their beliefs.

  If it means psychological and emotional health and well being, a recognition of one's place in the cosmos and a form of personal development beyond the simply material, then obviously we all share it - we all have emotions and feelings, believers and non-believers.

  If religious believers want to monopolise the use of the word they must come up with a clear definition that in some way excludes non-believers.

• Worship. This used to mean "praying to a god". In a politically correct world where everyone is afraid to call a spade a spade, it has been stretched to the point where it now means "reflection" or even "meditation" and in some schools we even have "secular" worship.

  There can be no secular or humanist worship because non-believers simply do not need to worship anything.

  Worship is a purely religious activity and when used in schools has to make the glib assumption that there is a god - it doesn't matter which god of which religion - but there must be a god. The god assumption in school worship is something that non-believers find deeply offensive.

• Moral values. This is a minefield since a common statement made by the religious about non-believers is "they cannot have moral values if they are not religious and they do not have a holy book."

  Obviously this is deeply insulting.

  We need common social and ethical values if we are to live together in harmonious communities. Such values emerged long before anyone sat down to make up a holy book.

  Too often religion has bent the concept of social and ethical values into "moral values" which frequently have a sexual connotation and which continue to tear religious believers apart today. One look at the attitudes of religions towards gender, sexuality and sexual behaviour will show how narrow the concept of "moral values" has become.

  The real danger is that if social, and ethical values are associated exclusively with religion, the good may get thrown out with the bad if and when the majority of young people turn away from religion.

• Race. Beyond meaning the colour of one's skin it is almost impossible to define this in any way beyond a discredited taxonomy developed in the 19th century. If you are white and English try asking yourself what race you are? How much of your DNA is Ancient Briton, how much came from Roman soldiers, how much from the Angles and Saxons, how much from the Normans, how much from ...?
• Ethnic group. This is another label a little like race. If you are an atheist of mixed colour ("race") living in Pakistan and leading a Western lifestyle, what "ethnic group" do you belong to? Again, this is a term of convenient taxonomy which fails once questioned closely.

Words can be dangerous and glib - they can lead us to categorise and brand individuals or groups in ways that we did not intend. Can a teacher ever be justified in using a word when its meaning is not crystal clear to both the teacher and the pupils?

Humanists, atheists and agnostics - the god-free

Humanism is not a religion because all humanists are atheists - we don't need gods so we don't believe in them.

We enjoy good and happy lives without god or religion and we find it a truly liberating and mind-enhancing experience to be god-free.

As a Christian chaplain said to me as we went into the Multi-Faith Centre: "Ah, you're a humanist, so you don't do the god-bit then?"

Gods and religions meet psychological and social needs for some people. We don't feel a need for either.

Some humanists ("agnostics") say "the existence of god can be neither proved nor disproved". Others take a harder line and say "there is no god." The god/no-go debate has been going for thousands of years and the seven proofs/disproofs of god are in every philosophy book, but the argument does not really get anyone anywhere since in the end some people need gods, others don't. We don't.

There is a chicken and the egg issue here. Atheists would not exist unless others proposed that a god existed.

Those who propose the existence of a god may feel the need to prove it. Atheists certainly don't need to prove she/he/it doesn't exist - that would be like setting out to prove that unicorns and dragons don't exist - which would be silly.

We have no need for a god and we see no need to propose that one exists. The very idea of a god never occurs to us - it is an unnecessary proposition.

Forget the god/no-god argument - if you really want to examine a fundamental question try instead "why do some people need god and religion while others don't?"

A word about "atheism" - and its non-existence

There is no ideology or set of beliefs called "atheism" and there are good atheists and well as bad atheists - just as there are good religious people and bad ones. The difference is that atheists do not share a common core of beliefs - the only thing they have in common is their disbelief in god.

Humanism is a set of beliefs and all humanists are atheists - but all atheists are not necessarily humanists. (It's the old "all elephants are grey but all grey things are not necessarily elephants" logic.)

Humanist beliefs

Humanism is not new - there have been non-believers since man starting worshipping nature or gods.

Humanists have no priests, no gurus, no holy men, no holy books, no rituals and no special meeting places - you don't have to be a member of anything to be a humanist.

Empathy is one of the most powerful of all human emotions - the ability to put yourself into the position of another person and see and feel the world as they do. We all have to live together as harmoniously as possible and empathy plays a key role in determining our moral, ethical and social values.

Humanists believe:

• that we have one life, here and now so we should put the needs of people in this world first and foremost. We oppose those who say "accept your role in this life because you will have a better life after death." We support those who struggle against poverty, oppression and discrimination in this world.
• that life is here to be enjoyed,
• that personal morality along with social values and responsibilities are necessary for us to live together harmoniously for the good of everyone,
• that we have a duty to be kind and helpful to one another,
• that we should be well-mannered, polite and not inconvenience others unnecessarily,
• that we should treat other people in the same way we would like them to treat us (* see note),
• that we all have our good strengths and bad weaknesses - we need to minimise the bad and maximise the good,
• that no-one is perfect but we have to get on with one another as best we can - within the social rules we set together,
• that life ends when we die and our atoms are recycled by the universe. If a tree is planted on your grave, your atoms are recycled in its roots, trunk, branches and leaves until it too dies and its atoms are recycled. The cycle of life and death continues until the Sun becomes a supernova.
• that key stages in life need to be marked. We have non-religious birth/naming ceremonies, wedding/partnership ceremonies and funeral/death ceremonies,
• that all forms of discrimination based on gender, sexuality, ethnic background, colour and disability are morally wrong.
• that religious groups should not be allowed to opt out of anti-discrimination or human rights legislation.
• that religion should be kept separate from the state. We oppose Church of England Bishops being in the House of Lords and we oppose all forms of theocracy - states run according to the rules contained in religious holy books as interpreted by religious priests, holy men or scholars.
• that our lives should not be controlled by the religious beliefs of others.

* note: some people may be surprised to know that this idea is not a Christian one - it pre-dates all of the world's religions and has been adopted by all of them.

Humanists recognise::

• that some people feel a need for a religion to explain things they cannot explain in any other way.
• that religion can be at the heart of many people's personal and social lives,
• that religion may overcome a fear of death by promising a better life after death,
• that religion can be a force for good for many people. We do not deny the good things done by some religious people.
• that religion can be misused to justify bad things - such as the oppression and sectarian violence we see almost every day on the news.

Humanists do not feel a need for religion, nor do they need god(s) to explain the Universe. We are in awe and wonder at all of nature around us and we take enormous pleasure exploring those wonders and seeking explanations - a task which we hope will be never ending since learning is one of the great joys of life - no matter what your age.

Humanists and science

Many religious people have no problem with science - they can square their religious ideas with those of evolution and all the other exciting discoveries made by science.

Others, the fundamentalists, seem to have a real problem with evolution because it is directly contrary to what is written in their holy books. They spare no effort in trying to blacken the name of science in any way they can.

Science is not a belief system or ideology (it is certainly not a religion!) and humanists see it as:

• looking at the universe around us,
• trying to find explanations for everything we see,
• erecting theories from those explanations,
• testing those theories through prediction, observation and experimentation,
• rejecting those theories that do not withstand testing,
• retaining those theories that do withstand testing,
• taking great joy in the more and more things that we do not yet understand so that the process of learning and discovery can continue.
• Science says: "here is something we do not yet understand, let's try to discover how it works and find an explanation."
• Religion often says "here is something we do not yet understand - god did it."
• Science leaves open all doors to learning and discovery, Religion frequently slams them shut.

Humanist organisations

As mentioned above, you don't have to be a member of anything to be a humanist.

There are two national organisations that represent non-believers in the UK:

• British Humanist Association (BHA)

  The BHA is a charity which promotes humanist ideas, strives for representation wherever religion appears, works to ensure that belief and non-belief are given equal and fair representation in schools and campaigns for a society where religion is removed from controlling our day-to-day lives by its influence on the state.

  Representatives of the BHA serve on local SACREs, like this one, to ensure that the local RE syllabus enables pupils of all ages to be aware that huge numbers of people enjoy good and happy lives without gods and religions.

• National Secular Society (NSS)

  The NSS is not a charity so it is free to campaign politically for changes to the law to remove the privileges and special attention currently enjoyed to religions. The NSS wants C of E Bishops out of the House of Lords, an end to taxpayers' money being used to subsidise religions and an end to segregated religious schools paid for by taxpayers.

  It is because of the NSS that you do not have to swear on the bible when you appear in court. It is because of the NSS that the trappings of religion do not appear by default in public buildings such as crematoria. It is because of the day-to-day lobbying by the NSS in parliament that many of the excesses of religion have been kept out of our legal system.

We still have a very long way to go to keep religion out of the lives of those who do not need it, and to allow people from religious backgrounds to be free to change their beliefs if they wish, but these two organisations are at the forefront of our efforts.

The secular aims of the BHA and the NSS are shared by many religious people, including many in the Church of England. The following is taken from The Guardian of September 25th, 2007:

To a humanist all religions are a response to fear.

• Fear of unanswered questions - hence the desire for a creator god.
• Fear of death - hence the ideas about an immortal soul, life after death, heaven, hell etc.
• Fear of the "different" - hence the fear and persecution of homosexual men and women and the fear of non-believers.
• Fear of change - hence very traditional (i.e. male dominated and patriarchal) views of womens' rights.
• Fear of being wrong - hence reliance on the "rules" in holy books written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
• Fear of thinking for yourself - hence reliance on holy men, priests and religious leaders.

Religion represents a retreat into spurious certainty, into a comfort zone where all members share a common view of the world and where the answers to life's great questions are in easy-to-understand black and white. Those with theology degrees will know that this in not the case - but they rarely pass these doubts and uncertainties on to their flocks.

The real joy of humanism is the tremendous sense of liberation when one is free of the fears that dominate religion.

Thinking for yourself and taking a very critical and analytical view of what others say (reading between the lines and understanding their underlying motives) is a fantastic experience. It allows one to spot the charlatan, to enjoy the company of others, to work for the benefit of society, to help solve some of the problems of society and to examine the multitude of unanswered question about the nature of the Universe.

Being god-free means being free of fear.

Humanists, schools, RE and worship

"All babies are atheists until they have religion thrust upon them."

The "ethos" of a school

The word "ethos" seems to be very popular when discussing segregated religious schools ("faith schools".) The word is never defined (though the dictionary says "spirit of community") but the implication is that there is something unique about the "ethos" of a school run by religious groups.

This is of course deeply insulted to the teachers and pupils of thousands of well-run local authority schools which are not run by religious groups and which are not segregated along religious lines.

A well-run school with a humanist ethos would be very difficult to tell from one with a liberal Christian ethos - though the god and religion side would be unnecessary and it would not have the discriminatory prejudices we see in so many religions in relation to gender, sexuality, sexual behaviour and personal freedom/dignity.

Religious Education

It may surprise many people but humanists are in favour of Religious Education!

We believe it is impossible to understand our history and culture without a sound knowledge of the worlds' religions. How can you understand great art, architecture, literature or music without understanding the religions and beliefs that inspired them or commissioned them?

Equally it is impossible to understand and interpret the world around us without understanding what has been done in the name of religion in the past and continues to be done in the present. We need only turn on the TV or open a newspaper to see the influence that religion, and religious conflicts, have on the day-to-day lives of millions of people world-wide.

A person with no understanding of the world's religions and beliefs is a barbarian - and we are certainly not barbarians!

How can we expect young adults to make an honest decision about which belief system is best for them if they do not have a sound understanding of the world's religions and beliefs?

We would go further: a person with an understanding of, and belief in, only one religion is an ignorant bigot.

How can you claim to believe in religion A when you have no knowledge of religions X, Y and Z? How can you claim that your religion is "best" and "true" when you are in total ignorance of the others?

So, we are strongly in favour of Religious Education that teaches about all religions and belief systems (including ours) in a comprehensive, fair, honest and impartial manner that leaves young people free to make up their own minds.

For this reason we are totally opposed to:

• any form of religious instruction or religious indoctrination.

  We consider this morally dishonest and a total denial of what is meant by education.

• the "god assumption" that runs through a great deal of the material used in Religious Education.
• the apartheid of segregated religious schools - euphemistically called "faith schools".

Northern Ireland alone should show us the disasters than can take place when communities and schools are separated along the lines of religion. We applaud the creation of non-segregated schools in Northern Ireland - a process being carried out against the strident campaigns of both Catholic and Protestant churches.

We favour the return of all schools to the state system, free of any religious control or religious instruction - schools where pupils of all faiths (and none) can mix with one another in an atmosphere of freedom and understanding. This is simple to do, costs nothing (we as taxpayers are already paying 100% of the costs of segregated religious schools) and has been done without difficulty in other countries and regions - such as parts of Canada.

Worship

We are totally opposed to any form of worship in schools.

Worship comes from belief. A decision must be made about what one believes before one can worship.

We are teaching pupils about religions and beliefs - we are not supposed to be forcing them into any particular belief systems or even into a god/no-god decision.

Obviously worship implies a god to be worshipped - but many belief systems do not have or need a god. Worship in schools prejudges what we are supposed to be doing in religious education - it starts from the assumption that there is a god (or gods) - this is totally unfair on pupils who have no belief or who have not yet decided what they believe.

By what moral right do we jump from teaching about things to forcing pupils to pray to something they may or may not believe in?

Worship is a private matter and should take place in the home or in the religious institution appropriate for that religion.

Schools are not religious institutions - they are places of learning and questioning - worship has no place in them.

Humanists and SACREs

I am grateful that I was welcomed as a co-opted member of the Derby SACRE but I am conscious that I am here under sufferance and I am not permitted to be a member of a Committee so I am denied the right to participate fully in the SACRE's work.

Humanists are keen to promote inclusion and social cohesion but the feeling of being a just-tolerated token is upsetting and depressing in 2007.

Humanism is covered in the Non-Statutory National Framework for RE and I hope it will be included in the Derby Agreed Syllabus when it is revised in 2008. So, humanism may be on the syllabus but humanists remain as second-class citizens on SACREs.

Note: this is not the case with all SACREs - some have appointed humanists as full members and their decision to do so has never been challenged in the courts. Derby SACRE has decided to follow the advice of Derby City's solicitors not to do this.

Questions we have been asked

If you have a question that is not answered below please get in touch with me.

How do you think the universe began?

No-one knows for sure.

Many of us think that the universe, in one form or another, has been around forever - it never "began" and it will never "end." Obviously the form it takes changes over time - just as we are born, live and die. Some of us believe in an oscillating universe - one which expands over time until the force of gravity pulls it back inwards to create a new big bang and the cycle starts again.

Anyway, we are totally happy admitting that we are not sure and we enjoy learning about the latest ideas concerning the nature of the universe.

We certainly don't agree with creating a new idea, a creator god, since this simply generates another question: who created god? Our answer is that early man created god to fill in the gaps in his knowledge - the answer to things that could not be understood was then simple - god did it.

Are you afraid of death?

Not in the slightest.

Like everyone, we do not fancy the idea of a painful death but death itself holds no fear since once dead we cease to be conscious and we cease to be. Our atoms are recycled in the universe - just like the atoms of any living thing when it dies.

We believe that we have one life, here, now, in this world and that it is our duty to make the best of it, to enjoy it and to help others along the way.

We do not dictate how religious people choose to die - nor should they dictate to us how we choose to die.

Everyone is entitled to a dignified death in a manner of their own choosing free of interference from religious groups.

Most of us are in favour of assisted suicide and "living wills" which state clearly when no further attempts should be made to keep someone alive. We do not think that people should suffer lingering and painful deaths simply because religious groups pontificate about "the sanctity of life".

Are you in favour of abortion?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Some questions are asked the wrong way round.

We would prefer that women were not placed in the position of needing an abortion - hence our support for open, honest and non-judgemental sex education in all schools.

Pregnancies are far higher amongst teenagers who have had no sex education, who have had bad sex education (sometimes given by those who have had no sexual experience because of their religious beliefs) or who have been forced to swear a pledge of abstinence from sex until marriage.

We support sex education and we totally support a woman's right to choose for herself whether or not to have an abortion.

Surely you will turn to god in times of crisis?

No.

Like everyone, humanists suffer crises in their lives including the death of parents, partners, children or friends. We are also prone to the usually stresses of life: illnesses, accidents, job difficulties, relationship problems, finance problems, mortgages, etc. However, none of these things cause us to consider the existence of any form of external power.

If you ask a nurse at a hospice you will find that two groups of people face death with the least mental stress (as opposed to physical pain which hospices do their best to minimise): the strongly religious looking forward to their life after death and the strongly atheist who have nothing to worry about because death is simply a ceasing to exist in conscious form.

Are you tolerant of religion?

We are happy to tolerate the tolerant but we are totally intolerant of the intolerant.

We are happy as long as religions leave others to get on with their lives free of religious prejudices.

We get very upset when people try to interfere with our lives, and with the lives of others, because of their religious beliefs and ideas. That's not fair - and we don't like it.

Do you respect religious ideas?

No.

We respect people who earn respect, religious or non-religious - people like those who work selflessly for Médecins Sans Frontières or Human Rights Watch for example.

Ideas are abstract - they are not people - though obviously some people take their ideas very seriously. You cannot "respect" an idea - the concept is ludicrous.

Having respect for a religious idea, like a god, would be the equivalent of having respect for every possible idea that people could think up - like the idea that the universe was created in an instant by a dancing Pink Hippo!

All ideas, including ours, should be open to comment, criticism, satire and ridicule. We enjoy having our ideas challenged in any way - and we demand the right to challenge the ideas of others in any way we wish.

We are not attacking (in the verbal sense it must be stressed!) individuals when we criticise religious ideas - we are criticising the ideas themselves. We can separate a person from an idea - many religious people find this a very hard thing to do.

Do you deny that religion is important to some people?

Of course not!

Religion is self-evidently important in some people's live - they have a need for it and they believe absolutely in it.

We don't have a need for it

Do you envy the joy, happiness and support that religion brings to many people?

No.

We feel sad that they cannot liberate their minds from religious ideas and they cannot be free of the shackles of organised religion.

Freedom of thought, standing on your own two feet, being happy with your place in the natural universe, living in harmony with others - that's what non-belief offers - and we feel saddened that so many people deny themselves that freedom.

Do you think that religious people are bad?

Some religious people are good, some are bad - the same applies to non-religious people.

Being religious does not make you a good person.

There are more Christians than atheists in American prisons in proportion to their numbers in the population as a whole. There are more divorces amongst religious people than amongst atheists. Many evangelical Christian preachers have turned out not to be what they claim to be. Many Catholic priests have turned out not to be the good celibate people they claim to be. The Catholic church has now paid out billions of dollars as a result of abuse by its holy men. The Anglican Church is split down the middle about its attitude towards sexuality.

Of course the vast majority of religious people do their best to lead a good life - just as the vast majority of non-religious people do.

Of course good works are done by religious people,. just as they are done by non-religious people.

However, millions have died and continue to die, when religious ideas are used to justify violence.

Do you hate religion? Do you want to ban it?

Of course not - many of our friends are religious!

We promote freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Everyone should be free to believe what they wish and to practice those beliefs - as long as they do not cause harm to anyone else.

We do hate it when religion is misused, when it is used to justify sectarian violence, killing, oppression and discrimination. We get particularly upset when religion is used to justify discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality or used to tell people how they should dress and behave under pain of social ostracism or even death.

Do you want to ban Christmas?

Of course not - we enjoy Christmas - we may even go along to carol services to enjoy the singing! Derby Cathedral has quite a few atheists in the pews over Christmas - not for the god stuff, but for the fun!

Almost all Christian festivals have been overlaid on top of earlier pagan ones. Christmas follows the shortest day (December 21st) which marks the middle of winter so it is worth celebrating that at last the days are getting longer. Easter, with its eggs, marks the resurrection of life during spring as the plants begin to grow and trees begin to show leaves. Lent represents the part of the year when food stored over the winter months was at its most scarce.

Festivals are fun - no matter what religion they belong to - and we are all in favour of fun!

However, like most Christians, we do not like the idea that Christmas has been turning into an excuse for large corporations to make huge profits and for people to indulge in massive debt-laden consumerist binges. When the first Christmas decorations appear in the shops in September we think that things have gone too far! (Maybe we have a little puritan streak running through us!)

Can you prove that god does not exist?

God is not a humanist or atheist problem - we don't feel the need to propose one to explain anything.

Those who propose something are stuck with the problem of trying to prove it - that's the nature of logical thought. If someone proposes that in a right angled triangle the square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides - they must prove it!

As an example, let's take a couple of proposals about The Pink Hippo: The Earth rotates in space on the tip of the nose of an invisible dancing Pink Hippo. The Universe and everything within it, including the Earth, its plants and its animals, were created 6,047 years ago in an instant, less than a nanosecond, by The Pink Hippo when he felt alone and desired to be worshipped. Can we prove that these two proposals are not true? They may be silly, but can we actually prove that they are not true? The proposals go against all common sense (whatever that is) but the question is the wrong way round. It should be "can the person who made these proposals prove that they are true?" Until such proof is available we are reasonable secure in believing that the proposals are not true and are just nonsense made up by someone being silly.

But what if a Hippoist came up with some arguments as proof:

• I woke up one night, saw an intense light and heard a voice speaking to me saying "I am The Pink Hippo and The Messenger I sent to Derbyshire in 1376 has been ignored so I have chosen you to spread my word." The voice spoke for many hours but when it ceased and the light faded I saw that my bedside alarm clock showed that less than a minute had passed. The following morning I wrote down what The Pink Hippo had said and I began my ministry in the Church of Hippoism.
• It is obvious that everything must have a cause - and the cause of the Universe must be The Pink Hippo.
• I have a holy book which shows that the Universe was created by The Pink Hippo.
• I have evidence of a Messenger, a learned man, who appeared on Earth hundreds of years ago and preached that the Universe was created by The Pink Hippo.
• I can introduce you to scholars who can show that the Universe was created by The Pink Hippo.
• I have faith that the Universe was created by The Pink Hippo.
• I have prayed to The Pink Hippo and I am sure that he has answered my prayers.
• I have had a personal experience of The Pink Hippo - he appeared to me and spoke to me.
• I have read about miracles that took place in the name of The Pink Hippo.

Would we accept these arguments as proof - or is the proposer simply making more assertions (statements claiming to be true) to support the original one that the Universe was created by The Pink Hippo?

Like all religions, Hippoism, the religion of those who believe in The Pink Hippo, is a fiction invented by someone using unprovable assertions to validate its "truths".

If Hippoism is an invented fiction, who invented all the other religions - and why?

Humanists and atheists do not have to bother proving that god does not exist - it is simply an unnecessary proposal which we don't find necessary or helpful to explain anything.