Increased awareness of the Giordano Bruno Stiftung has led to numerous critical or even defamatory media reports. In most cases, the harsh criticism comes from the pens of theologians, even though this may not be obvious to the reader, viewer or listener; the prejudiced reviewers hide behind a mask of independent reporters. In this way, various misconceptions have crept in regarding the foundation, reflected in a number of enquiries to the management board. On the following pages, we provide answers to the ten most commonly asked questions.

1. Is the Giordano Bruno Stiftung an atheist institution?

The label "atheist" is very popular with journalists, for reasons of its "smell of sulphur", i.e. strong emotive impact in religious debates, but it is hardly a suitable word to describe the foundation’s philosophy. The gbs represents a naturalistic rather than atheistic position. That is to say, we believe that the universe can be explained rationally, and that there are no gods, ghosts, goblins or demons interfering with the laws of nature. This in turn means that a definition of "God" which does not interfere with laws of nature (this is incompatible with creationist belief or miracles) would not contradict naturalism, even though many supporters of naturalism are happy to do without the "inelegant god-hypothesis". Incidentally, the idea that the Giordano Bruno Stiftung can be reduced to one-dimensional or even dogmatic atheism is disproved by the foundation’s name; it is known that Giordano Bruno was not an atheist, but rather a pantheist (i.e. believed that God and the Universe are one and the same).

2. Is the gbs hostile to religion?

The foundation is critical of religion, not hostile to it. We regard religions as the cultural treasure chamber of humanity, which, as well as outdated views of the world and morality, also contain meaningful aspects that should still be respected today. However, a critical, rational, secular approach to religion is required to separate the valuable elements from the archaic errors and the associated, often barbaric "moral values". Religions are works of humanity, just like all the other products and institutions that our species has created in the course of its cultural evolution. Consequently, religious texts should be regarded in the same critical manner as works of ancient philosophers, especially as the latter were ethically and intellectually superior to the former in many areas.
The basic problem of religions is that they tend to regard imperfect human utterances as "holy" and thus "sacrosanct", which in the course of human history has led to enormous suffering. Even today, the resulting inquisitorial logic, "You will believe in it, or we will make you believe in it", represents a massive threat to the peaceful coexistence of humans. As long as this danger still exists, criticism of religion will remain one of the most essential tasks of enlightenment.

3. Isn’t the gbs confusing religion with fundamentalism?

We differentiate very clearly between fundamentalist and enlightened believers. In the same way that soft drinks are now available without sugar, thanks to enlightenment there is now Christianity without hell and the devil. Such a tamed "light version of belief" is certainly attractive; however it is logically inconsistent. ("Jesus’ sacrifice without hell and the devil is as meaningless as a football match with no opposing team!") Without some effective metaphysical threat, religious belief loses its crucial point, with the result that liberal believers are in decline, whilst fundamentalist groups are growing at a similar rate to those who no longer consider themselves religious.

We may regret that "enlightened belief" is increasingly losing its role as arbitrator between thorough enlightenment and religious dogmatism, but we must not ignore this fact. The reason why enlightened belief is losing its significance is clear: never before has the gulf between scientific knowledge and religious belief been so obvious as it is today. For example, to accept the Christian or Muslim god as creator of the earth, one would have to ignore at least part of our modern knowledge of evolution. This undermines the basis for any enlightened belief movement, the effectiveness of which should in any case not be overestimated. It is a time-limited cultural phenomenon, very largely confined to Western Europe, and in no way typical of what, worldwide, is or was understood by the term "religion".

 
4. Does the gbs promote "scientific fundamentalism"? 

The accusation of scientific fundamentalism, frequently raised by defenders of faith, is a contradiction in itself. Science, in contrast to religion, is by definition open-ended. As a methodology of critical analysis, it neither bases itself on "sacrosanct eternal truths" nor tries to find "unshakeable truth". Anyone who were to believe dogmatically in specific results of scientific investigation would, in doing so, betray the basic principles of scientific thinking.

Apart from this, the gbs does not take the view that an alternative to religion can be founded on science alone. It is not without reason that one of the foundation’s central mottos is, "whoever possesses science, philosophy and art does not need religion". It must be clear that many important questions of life cannot be answered by scientific methods. This does not mean, however, that religions are superior in these areas. Philosophical deliberation produces far more convincing results in e.g. ethical questions. And even where the cleverest arguments of philosophy fail, religion is not needed; this is the sovereign territory of art, which is able to capture the "poetic overhang of life" that no scientific or philosophical analysis can.

5. Isn’t the gbs basically just as missionary as the religions? Doesn’t the book "Which way leads to God?" clearly show that the gbs wants to indoctrinate children too?

The gbs naturally has the aim of reaching people. It wants to convince them that it makes sense to strengthen the values of humanism and enlightenment in society. However, unlike the Pope (for example), the foundation does not claim to be in possession of the "one and only divine truth". Rather, it relies on the principle of critical examination, which demands that false convictions be given up, as soon as better arguments are available. The children’s book "Which is the way to God, please?, asked the little piglet" was conceived as an antidote to the existing and very real religious indoctrination (for example in Catholic nursery schools) and is intended to bring some pluralism into the nursery. In numerous interviews, the authors made very clear that they would take the book off the market if the same were done with children’s bibles, in which horror stories such as the Great Flood are told with all their gruesome details. However, the religious fraction felt unable to agree to this step. Consequently, the little piglet is still on its travels, to free children light-heartedly from the fear of divine retribution.

6. Shouldn’t we respect the religious convictions of others?

As humanists we naturally respect every human being as a human being. But some convictions and actions simply don’t deserve to be respected. We must not overlook the fact that the religious convictions of many deeply religious people legitimize abuses of human rights (such as discrimination against women and homosexuals), and/or explain the world on the basis of nonsensical, totally out- dated assumptions (such as the idea that humanity is the crowning glory of divine creation, which is diametrically opposed to the findings of evolutionary biology). To respect such inhuman or irrational beliefs would be a betrayal of the values of humanism and enlightenment.

7. Surely religions are necessary for us to form moral values?

It is a historically irrefutable fact that the fundamental rights we enjoy in modern democratic societies very largely did not come from religions; on the contrary, they had to be fought for in bitter emancipation struggles against the religions. Many values that we today take for granted, such as rationality, democracy or the right to self-determination, were developed as far back as the time of ancient Rome or Greece, but with the rise of Christianity disappeared for almost a millennium. It was not until the Renaissance, the time when the ancient scripts were re-discovered, that Europe finally began to develop ideas of individual liberty again.

In modern times too, it has largely been individuals with a critical attitude to religion who have promoted the development of values such as the equality of the sexes, ideas of social justice, freedom of speech and of the media and the right to sexual self-determination. For example, the subject of human rights was pushed forward by Thomas Paine, a critic of religion, whilst a whole string of Popes condemned it as "insufferable presumption". Not until 1961 was the Pope of the time, Johannes XXIII, able to bring himself to issue a convoluted recognition of human rights. The Vatican remains, however, the only state in Europe not to have ratified the European Human Rights Convention. This is one example of many which show that a closer inspection of "Christian values" reveals them to be much less than the name suggests.

8. Wouldn’t our social system collapse completely without the commitment of the churches?

Most of the church’s social welfare facilities in Germany (such as hospitals, old people’s homes, therapy centres) are financed completely by the state, the health insurance and direct payments from the beneficiaries. Only in a small segment (such as nursery schools and advice centres) do the churches have to pay a (minor) part of the costs themselves. This amount is compensated for many times over by the billions of Euros of subsidies that the churches receive every year from the state, i.e. taxpayer (over and above the special church tax levied in Germany).

Only very few German citizens realize that the salaries of many bishops, for example, are not covered by the church tax, but are paid for out of general taxes, including those of non-believers. If the unconstitutional privileges of the churches were finally stopped, the state could save many billions of Euros each year, which could be used for social and educational projects.

9. Didn’t National Socialism and Stalinism do far more damage in the 20th century than all the theistic religions put together? And aren’t the latter necessary to prevent a relapse into barbarism?

National Socialism and Stalinism were political religions, with all the characteristics of a belief system: They had "untouchable prophets", who claimed to have privileged access to the "absolute truth", "holy scriptures", which could never be questioned, hierarchical "priesthoods" that proclaimed the gospel, "heretics" who had the courage to question the dogma, and "Inquisitions" that persecuted the heretics without mercy.
Due to the many structural similarities between political and traditional “higher” religions, it is not surprising that established Christianity was not able to prevent the National Socialist dictatorship in Germany. In fact, apart from a few Christian resistance fighters, the church was a central pillar of the Nazi system. Since some bishops and journalists have recently distinguished themselves by blaming atheism for the atrocities of National Socialism, it needs to be pointed out that "belief in a god" was something of a state doctrine under Hitler. The majority of Nazis professed themselves to be Christians, and a minority described themselves as "believers" in the sense of Himmler’s esoteric cult. Atheists, on the other hand, were viewed as undesirable, both in the Nazi Party and in the SS, since being "godless" was deemed to be an expression of the "putrefying Jewish spirit". This had far-reaching political consequences: associations of free-thinkers were outlawed immediately after the Nazis seized power (allowing the Protestant Church to use the former headquarters of the free-thinkers in Berlin to create a "centre for the fight against godlessness"). This was done with the full approval of the Nazis. Nazi Germany signed a fateful agreement with the Vatican, the "Reichskonkordat", from which the church still profits today! In the run-up to this agreement, it was the Catholic Centre Party no less that provided the necessary votes to carry the “Enabling Law”, thus making possible the tyranny of the Nazis.

10. The gbs relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Doesn’t this amount to a legitimization of social Darwinism?

Charles Darwin revolutionized our view of the world more almost than any other single person. It is only since Darwin’s time that we have begun to realize who we are and where we come from. Unfortunately, great ideas are subject to great abuse, and the theory of evolution is no exception. We all know the terrible consequences of social Darwinism, especially in the first half of the 20th century. This cannot be glossed over. However, it must be remembered that social Darwinism, which Darwin himself abhorred, represents a gross distortion of the circumstances in nature. The natural world does not by any means involve just the ruthless enforcement of selfish interests at the cost of others; altruism, solidarity and empathy can also be found here. Apart from this, social Darwinism is based on the so-called naturalistic fallacy, namely the ill-considered notion that the survival of the fittest in the wild (what is) is also "what ought to be", i.e. supposedly implies a "right of the fittest".

Anyone familiar with science will know that the theory of evolution is not in any way an attempt to say how the world ought to be, but rather an explanation of how the world is, and why it came to be that way. How we as a human society should use the theory of evolution is not contained within that theory. This is not a question of empirical science, but of philosophical reflection, and this is precisely where evolutionary humanism comes in.

Evolutionary humanists interpret the knowledge of evolution in a humanistic way, and are totally opposed to all models of social Darwinism, which are an abuse of Darwin’s groundbreaking research, used in an attempt to legitimize inhuman actions. In agreement with the renowned evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary humanists firmly hold the rational conviction that Homo sapiens does indeed possess the potential to be a particularly gentle, clever and creative animal. So let us put everything into unlocking this positive potential! We do not know if we shall succeed in changing the course of humankind from a history filled with long episodes of inhumanity to one that in future develops in a more humane fashion. One thing we do know – from evolutionary theory in fact – is that the world is in a constant state of change. For humanists, who do not simply accept the suffering in the world, this can be seen as a genuine source of hope.