Article from the Belfast Telegraph:

The humanist touch

Queen's University, Belfast, has raised eyebrows after appointing as its latest chaplain someone who doesn't believe in God. Peter Hutchison meets new cleric Ruth Yeo.

For many people the term humanist chaplain will seem absurd. A contradiction in terms. Sacrilegious even. They may have a point. It is, after all, a philosophy, a way of life. It is not a religion, although humanists claim it can still be spiritual.

Humanists do not believe in God or the afterlife. This is the only life there is and people must do their best to make it a good one, they say.

In September, Queen's University in Belfast became one of the first educational institutions in the UK to appoint a humanist chaplain.

It was approached by the Belfast Humanist Group who said they should be added to the 15 faiths already represented which included Baptist, Methodist, and the Chinese Church.

The proposal went before the university's senate and Ruth Yeo, who was vice chairman of the group, was appointed.

A spokesperson for the university says: "Chaplains and religious representatives are appointed by the university for the moral and spiritual care of its students. The university made this appointment in accordance with its statutes."

For the former Protestant and retired education officer, however, the first semester wasn't all plain sailing, as she encountered awkwardness and attempted to dispel some myths about the Godless faith.

"First of all, the word chaplain is not very important. I would like people to look beyond that because what I am is really the humanist representative," she says.

"I have found it very exciting and very good so far. I saw my first task as raising awareness because humanism is not out there. Even people who don't believe in God would not often put that label on themselves."

She gathered together a small group of students interested in humanism. Their application to become an affiliated society is expected to be ratified by the student council later this month.

Progress is being made against the odds. As a secular institution, Queen's leaves chaplains to their own devices.

"They make the appointment and give the title but that is as far as they go. They don't provide me with an office and I'm more or less on my own," explains Mrs Yeo.

"The mainstream denominations such as the Presbyterians and Roman Catholics have the wealth of their church behind them so they have buildings, chaplaincies, staff and rooms beside the university. As a humanist I have nothing."

Mrs Yeo did not feel she was welcomed with open arms by some of the other chaplains and felt many were suspicious of her atheist beliefs. "I experienced a little bit of opposition in the beginning from the mainstream churches but nothing terribly overt," she says.

"There was just that wee bit of stand-offishness in September but since then we have got to know each other better.

"I think I experienced a little bit of opposition in the beginning from the mainstream churches but nothing terribly overt. they saw humanists as being aggressive so I'm always trying to show that I am not. We are not out to convert. My idea is to open up the debate and to get people talking.

"When I approached them (mainstream churches) I didn't feel I was getting the co-operation back. It's better now but certainly not at the beginning. It was shocking because to me that is not what Christianity is."

The chaplain recalls one particular incident at the freshers fayre when she was approached by a student: "She asked what humanism was all about. I explained and she looked at me and said, 'I think you are sad. Very, very sad and I'm going to go away and pray for you', and away she went.

"What she did was show me how blinkered her thinking was."

The 64-year-old, born in Belfast, had a strict Protestant upbringing. She went to Sunday School as a child and became a teacher.

In her adolescent years she began to question religion and the existence of God. It took time for her to make the full conversion though, and she has been a humanist for 20 years.

So why did she reject God and what is humanism to her?

"I suppose as I looked around the world, religion hasn't always done good. It has been involved in wars and a lot of bad things have happened in the name of religion.

"There are a lot of people who seem to live a very good life, they go to church, read the Bible, do good works, and yet they'll be struck down with an illness or something terrible happens to them. I couldn't see where this loving God, that I had been brought up to believe existed, was in all of this.

"When I was about 15 or 16 I went to a rally and the speaker said if we didn't come to the front of the hall and sign the paper we would burn in hell. And I remember thinking, once I'd signed the piece of paper, that I was going to be ok and that I wasn't going to burn in hell. That is such a horrific, terrible thing.

"I remember learning about Egypt in geography in school. The teacher said that once a year all the silt from the mountainside swept into the Nile. It was red clay that made the river look like blood. I understood that and liked that story rather than saying God turned the river into blood.

"The scientific logic appealed to me and that was the first time I realised that I liked clear scientific explanations.

"Humanism is about rational thinking. All I say to people is don't just accept everything you've been told. Have a think and even if you come back and say no I'm still happy with God and the Bible then that's fine."

But it wasn't just the clamouring for clearer answers to life's complex questions that drove her to humanism.

"I felt I was living with this guilt and fear all the time that if I didn't do right I wouldn't go to heaven. Humanism for me takes away the guilt and fear that religion gave me.

"The loss of guilt and fear is the incentive for me. I don't have that fear that I will burn in the fires of hell and I don't have the guilt of doing wrong and being a sinner.

"Humanism also takes away hypocrisy. I think a lot of people call themselves religious but all they are doing is paying lip service to it.

"We say lead as good a life as you can. There is still a misconception that because you don't have God or a religion then you can't have any morals. We do have a moral compass and know what is right and wrong."

She also insists that humanist weddings, funerals, and christenings are powerful and poignant occasions. The absence of God and religion makes them even more relevant, she suggests.

Humanist christenings are called naming ceremonies while a wedding could take place in a hotel and would have no references to God.

Mrs Yeo says: "For all these ceremonies the people involved are invited to put together their own service. They would choose poetry, songs, and maybe write their own vows. It would be very personal to them.

"A humanist funeral is a celebration of life.

"Recently I went to a religious funeral and the minister quite blatantly used the opportunity of having an audience to deliver a sermon. It was totally nothing to do with the person who had died. I don't want to hear talk about repentance on an occasion of grief. I want to be told about the person who died and anyone who has been to a humanist funeral will always say that was lovely because it was about the person."

Mrs Yeo believes religion is a personal thing. It shouldn't be in politics and there shouldn't be faith schools. She feels mixed schools where all religions are taught is the way forward and she is hopeful that people will sit up and take note of humanism.

"There are so many people who maybe wouldn't call themselves a humanist but have moved away from religion," she adds.

"In Northern Ireland it is very difficult to stand up and say, 'I'm a humanist and I don't believe in God'. On a personal basis I have had friends who have been quite shocked that I would say that.

"I hope more people will have the courage to say they don't believe in God."

While dealing with a typical intertard commenting on my videos, I was asked, "What makes you think the Earth is more than 6000 years old?"

Okay, I admit it, that single question should have disqualified the person from receiving any kind of response at all. Young Earth creationists are the slime from which no sentient, quasi-intelligent thought can ever emerge. But I plead 'sneak attack' because this was in the middle of several comments about other things which, on the surface, were questions I was happy to answer, and the 6000-year question was sandwiched inbetween some other points in the same post.

So I replied, "Science and scientists makes me believe the Earth is more than 6000 years old, because they provide evidence and proof. Science provides the best explanations we have for the natural world. This is know the world is more than 6000 years old."

I then went on to explain that young Earth creationists (at this point I had not realised the questioner was one himself) not only believe that the Earth is 6000 years old but that all life, except that in one huge boat, was killed by a global flood, around 2350 BC. This timeline shows these ludicrous belief in detail, while this one shows that in 2350 BC Egypt was undergoing its Fifth Dynasty, preceded of course by Dynasties 1-4 (the Great Pyramid of Giza was bult in the 4th) and followed by dozens more, in a continuous, unbroken and distinctly unflooded line of rulers.

Yes, young Earth creationists have shit for brains. You can quote me on that.

But back to the main point I was making: that we rely on science and scientists to provide us with answers which prove that the Earth (and indeed the universe - did I mention the YEC people think the whole universe is young too?) is way way older than 6000 years.

The response was one which, as many times as I hear it, and I've heard this a lot, never ceases to both amaze and disappoint me:

"Science can be wrong. You can't rely on science for answers. The best position to take would be 'we don't really know'."

See what he did there? Alongside dismissing the combined intelligence of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years, he made a lame attempt at sounding 'reasonable' by assuming a position of scepticism, just shrugging our shoulders and accepting that we don't know and, by extension, will never know and should probably give up trying.

Bullshit. This is a stupid argument. Of course science can be wrong. This is how science advances - new discoveries are made, which either refine the knowledge to add more precision, or replace the old assumptions completely, whereby the old knowledge is no longer up to the task. Scientists used to think the Sun orbited the Earth. Now they don't. Observations - evidence - have given us a good understanding of planetary motion, and we can say with great certainty that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Can scientists be wrong about the age of the Earth? Yes, of course. The current figure of 4.5 billion years as the age of our planet could be wrong. Could it be wrong by a factor of almost a million? It could, yes. But, crucially, the likelihood of this being the case is extremely remote because the age of the Earth is calculated by many, many different methods in many and varied scientific fields, all of which coincide and come to the same conclusions: the Earth is a planet of extreme age. If it is only 6000 years old, those many different methods would all have to be wrong. As for the entire universe being only 6000 years old, that would involve so much basic science being wrong that it's not even worth describing why in any great detail. Suffice to say that it's a stupid idea.

This is only one example, but the person making the statement that 'science can be wrong' was also advocating taking up a 'we don't really know' position. The more I read about the history of scientific discovery, particularly science which disproves the teachings of religion, the more I realise that such statements have been common throughout the advancement of science.

Back again to the Heliocentric Model (the Sun at the centre, with the planets orbiting around it). Although Copernicus proposed this idea, Galileo was its most famous proponent. But guess who didn't like this idea? The Church of course. Why? Because it went against the teachings of the Church, which at the time were that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe. The Church didn't like this. In fact it was only in 1992 (and remember that Galileo died in 1642) that "Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture." That's right, in 1992 the Catholic Church finally conceded that the Earth moved around the Sun.

If we allowed religious people to dictate to us what is and is not 'true' and what we should consider as something 'we really don't know' you would probably not be seeing these words today - the Church would have never allowed electricity to develop, or any of the other varied and numerous technologies which have led to such a wonderful communications medium.

To simply assume 'we don't know' is to sit idly on our lazy backsides and be happy as we are, in ignorance. This is, unfortunately, what a vast number of religous people are prepared to do. They actively welcome it - 'ignorance is bliss' as the saying goes. Even Sir Isaac Newton, considered to be the greatest scientist who ever lived, was stopped in his tracks by his own religion:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Well, he was wrong about that because later scientists did explain what set the planets in motion, and added to his work, building a more detailed understanding of the Solar System and the universe beyond it.

We will never get to a point where science has all the answers, but in some cases - the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, and that old favourite evolution - we have vast amounts of evidence, cross-referenced over a number of different scientific disciplines, and not as yet disproven, which give us great confidence in the current scientific position. Yes the details change, but often this is because more data makes scientific theories (aka explanations) even more water-tight and precise (see the Egyptian dynasties table, where later discoveries refined the dates accepted by historians.

Referring finally to the blockhead questioner, who lured me into a futile discussion about creationism, the one thing we cannot do is ever accept that not knowing is the best position to take. If we don't know something, we should do our very best to find out. This is what science and scientists have continued to do for thousands of years. They will not be stopped simply because some crackpot with a Bible says they might be wrong.