Why do humanist reject god?

Answer 1

Humanists regard the Holy Bible as what it appears to be, given all observable factors; a compilation of texts written by other humans (the only species known to write), and thus worthy of the same respect as all other works similarly of human creation. This is to say that we, in fact, do not reject The Bible so much as read it without neglect of our reason and critical thought.

One of the fundamental principles of humanism is the understanding that the characteristics of the human race, especially our capacity for rational thought, are sufficient to extrapolate morality, and to gain a robust (if incomplete) understanding of nature.

For mores, we begin with the ethic of reciprocity (known in Christianity as the Golden Rule, as per Matthew 7:12, but archetypal since it appears worldwide) and extrapolate from there. If one were to look at the contemporary Geneva Convention, one can see the progress we've made towards offering equal regard to every human being. Granted, getting everyone to follow this convention has proven more than a challenge.

But note also that some of codes in the Geneva Convention contrast to how the biblical god commands, and how He conducts Himself. The hard passages are numerous, and in them He commands mass genocide, utilizes weapons of mass destruction on entire cities, punishes families for the acts of a single person, smites subjects for the deeds of a king, commands capital punishment for meager crimes, discriminates against gays, other races and women...and so on. The events chronicled in the Bible do not describe peoples or a deity that respect the ethic of reciprocity to the same degree we have determined it should be honored.

So for this reason (amongst many) Humanists are obligated to regard the bible as other than literal truth inspired directly from a just creator. We have to examine it on more naturalistic terms.

The most obvious one: the Bible is not necessarily the divinely inspired word of a deity, but more likely the imaginings by authors as to what those words would be. In psychology, this is a technique by which one accesses his or her wise mind, and we often can transcend our own lack of objectivity this way. Since the the mores and natural observations in the Bible match how they were believed to be at the time they were written, this seems like a fair guess of what the Bible really is. Hence, we make what use of the Bible we can in this context.

Some biblical stories, for example, make excellent allegories, such as the eviction of Adam and Eve from Eden. This resonates with the ascension of humankind to intelligence (by eating from the tree of wisdom, no less). It was not so much the dismissal from paradise, but the discovery that life as a simple beast is far from paradisaical. In this regard, much of the Bible can be used in the same way that we use classic myths (such as the encounter between Perseus and Medusa, or Theseus and Procrustes) or even modern ones (such as Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings), providing tales that resonate with, and have applicability to contemporary situations.

And some stories we regard as an actual historical chronicle, only not as we would describe events in this day, rather as they would be described and interpreted by the men who observed those events. Did Moses truly part the Red Sea? Or did he assemble a band of men from his refugees to ambush Pharaoh's army at the Reed sea? Biblical scholars and archeologists are still trying to ascertain the events of the Exodus, how they happened, and how they were landed on papyrus to match what we read.

So, in answer to your question, Humanists do not reject the Holy Bible so much as they reject the validity of an unflinching literal interpretation of the bible. By comparison, Humanists equally reject the validity of an unflinching literal interpretation of any given article in the New York Times purporting to be an unbiased account of factual events. The human race is unique amongst all (known) terrestrial creatures in its ability to imbue complex thought with permanence by writing it down, hence all script has to be regarded in this context, with consideration of the author that originally wrote it.