Why I am not a 100 per cent humanist – the BHA’s quiz

The British Humanist Association has a quiz thingie where you can find out how humanist you are. I suppose part of the point is that people who do the quiz may find that they get very high scores, and should therefore think of identifying more explicitly as humanists. That’s fine, so nothing in what follows is meant to denigrate the idea or the quiz itself, all things considered. Good for the BHA.

That said… well I got 90 per cent. I thought I might come out lower, as a matter of fact, because I gave honest answers, i.e. the answer in each case that seemed closest to what I really think. Often, I could see a more high falutin’ (I’m tempted to say “sanctimonious”, but that would be too snarky) answer that I could not honestly give… but which I expected was what they really hoped I’d say.

When I write “closest to what I really think”, consider the first question. I gave the answer: “There is no evidence that any god exists, so I’ll assume that there isn’t one.” That’s not really quite what I think. I have rather complicated reasons for not believing in God, and not just as an assumption in that way. I think there are strong reasons to conclude positively that God does not exist, and they go way beyond a mere lack of evidence – although a lack of evidence may be part of the story. (I tell part of my own story in my essay “Unbelievable!” in 50 Voices of Disbelief. Still, this was closer to what I think than any of the other answers on offer.)

I’ve been wondering what I would have had to change to get 100 per cent. Well, it does look as if some more high falutin’ answers would have helped. For example, one question was about what happens to me after I die.

I gave the answer, “That will be the end of me.” This is, in fact, the nearest answer to what I think. So, I re-did the quiz giving the answer, “I will live on in people’s memories or because of the work I have done or through my children.” This then gave me 93 per cent.

Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Sure, there will be some people who’ll remember me, perhaps fondly, after I die, and some people might still read some of my books if any are still in print. But it’s really sanctimonious (oops, snark attack!)  metaphor to describe this as “living on” – and even if it were a “living on” of a kind, it would be a very attenuated and temporary kind. No, I’m sticking to my bleaker-sounding but more intellectually honest answer.

I also find I do better if I change my answer to a question about what I think when I see a beautiful view. I originally said, “This is what life is all about. I feel good.” That’s my honest answer. That’s more or less how I feel in such moments. But what if I keep all my other original answers, but change this one to, “We ought to do everything possible to protect this for future generations”? This also gives me 93 per cent!

So it seems that those two changes would have brought me up to 96 per cent. I’m not going to track down how I could have obtained the other 4 per cent, though I suspect some of my answers about morality would have done “better” if they’d been less based on the pragmatic sources of morality and more on, I dunno, more idealistic ones.

I’m sticking with all my answers. It would be nice to preserve the Grand Canyon, say, for future generations, but am I really thinking that in the moment of contemplating its awesomeness? Nah, not at all. Sometimes you just have to enjoy the moment, not moralise about it. You can worry afterwards about such aspects as “Omigod, we must make sure future generations can also experience this!”

Or so it seems to me. As always, your mileage may vary.