A Chat With Egghead: A Humanist's Impression Of Nigerian Christians



O'Seun Egghead Odewale, a Humanist, is first of four children in a moderate Muslim family of six. He was a students activist, a civil society actor, Personal Assistant and Senior Special Assistant in the Ekiti State Governor’s Office. He is currently a research fellow at the Harvard University researching on Governance and New Media. In a lively telephone chat, Egghead shared his impression of Nigerian Christians. Below is an excerpt of the chat.   

 

Q: What is Humanism all about?

A: I’ve at various points in time been involved with the activities of the Humanist Movement. It is all about humanizing; all about evoking and naturalising human relationships in such a way as to pursue the common good of the general public.

The humanist basically tries to seek a psychological, emotional, ecologically friendly, and if you like, cultural, good of the general public through different activities, attributes, attainments, commitments, and self-preservation that promotes a conscious awareness of the self-interest vis-a-vis the general interest of the public in any given society in such a way that the interests of any individual do not override the common interests of the general public.

Q: Is there any difference between Humanism, Agnosticism and Atheism?

A: I don’t think there is any significant variation in all of these. Actually, there are points of intersections. The Atheist does not believe in the existence of God, and does not believe that there is a supernatural being out there, the agnostic is not quite sure there is a Godhead or any sort of unseen deity, whereas the humanist could actually be in any of these folds.

But whereas the atheist or agnostic can form laws, rules or creeds that are actually tangential to the general good of the society, the humanist seeks to pursue creeds or deeds that promote the wellbeing of the generality of the public. 

It doesn’t really matter what religion, belief systems, cultural systems etc; what mores, norms, that guide society; the humanists has a set of creed that speaks to what is perceived as promoting the general good of the public. I think that is the basic difference.

Also, humanists do not pursue any religious beliefs or any of the ‘standard’ or ‘traditional’ religious beliefs.

These three creeds intersect. You may have a humanist atheist or a humanist agnostic. However, not all agnostics or atheists are humanists.  Humanists can be atheists or agnostics in so far as they pursue creeds that promote the good of the general public.

Q: How strong is the Humanist Movement in Nigeria in terms of numbers? Is the movement growing?

A: I wouldn’t say that the Humanist movement as a group is growing. But I can say for sure that it is a general or global trend.

    People around the world are now shirking religious beliefs and tenets for individualism, self-consciousness, and a sort of religious self-determination. People are now able to consciously prescribe for themselves new norms, laws, and beliefs that they want to adhere to.

   I see this happening in different places, crossing different demography in our society. Basically, I think it is something far beyond Nigeria. It is a global trend.

   Having said that, it is important to note that as population grows, you also have a corresponding increase in the number of those who go to church or mosque or have that attachment to a religious belief or some supernatural being somewhere who helps them resolve their problems, patent or impractical.

 

 

Q: According to some sources, at least 50% of Nigeria’s population are Christians. What is your impression of Nigerian Christians?

A: The population of Christians in Nigeria does not matter; neither does the population of Muslims matter to me.

    What I see is both Christians and Muslims proselytising, trying to conscript folks who do not lean towards their religious alignment into their perception of what the society should look like.

    In the same vein, I see a lot of deception. I see a lot of straightjacketing. I see a lot of peer pressure. In fact, there is a lot of blackmail adopted against those who are not “religious”.

   So, in the whole cycle of trying to find solutions to the myriad of problems that not only bedevils the nation as an entity but also individuals at their different levels, we have individuals who believe that all the problems that they have confronted in life may be resolved by some kind of attachment, or commitment, to some supernatural being, that they don’t have access to, or cannot realize at any particular time.

   They also have this sentimental longing for religious cleansing through those who are perceived to be appointed agents (clerics, on all sides of the divide) for this supernatural being that have been spoken about.

    Again, there is no agreement within Christendom about the nature of this supernatural being that everybody is expected to worship under that umbrella. You see Catholics having variant religious modes of worship from the Anglican; the Orthodox contemplation is in contradiction with the Protestants and those who are moderate Christian followers.

    Then you have Christendom pitted against Islam in many ways including in the means they try to reach this Godhead to which both profess obeisance.

   The Humanist sees all of these as confusion that makes people brainwashed into certain mindsets and colours of thinking that does not allow for some kind of rational thinking, some form of imaginative or creative assessment of a particular problem with a bid to finding lasting and enduring solutions to such problems.

    Rather than work out the solution to a particular problem, [Christians] subscribe to abdicate the solution to that problem to the Godhead that is believed to have all the power to solve that problem but they can only draw the benefits from the Godhead by providing certain incentives that makes him to see them as preferred recipients of auspicious divine intervention in any particular situation that beset them.

 

 

Q: What are the best things that Nigerian Christians have brought to the table in pursuance of the Nigerian Project?

A: I think the things that come out clearly for me is the charity and hope that the Church and Christendom bring to the table. I think the church has done remarkably well in that regard.

    You can imagine a situation where the Church is absent and that charity and the hope that things will be better through the intervention of the Godhead were to be absent. I can imagine the kind of chaos, the catastrophe into which the country could have been plunged. 

    But because we have the Church, we have people who continue to hope their prayers, their supplications, their various spiritual and religious rites would one day be accepted and a magic wand or command statement would change the entire way in which things are done, that things happen in the country. That is a significant thing that Christendom has brought to national development.

   Of course an extension of that charity is the fact that some churches offer opportunities and assistance to those who need it in the society. It reduces the pressure we would otherwise have on the society. Essentially, they offer solace and consolation from the myriads of troubles we face daily as a nation.

Q: The Nigerian Church perceives itself as the moral conscience of society. Do you think it is living up to that perception?

A: It depends on how the society is configured. I think there are lots of contradictions. A society that is secular cannot look up to the Church as its compass.

    A set of provisions as enshrined in the Constitution will determine what will become the reference point in terms of the moral direction for society to follow. Each society will definitely have its norms and mores that it follows within that context.

    It is important to note that there are societies that are fluid in their regard, or alteration, of the Grundnorm. Where society is flexible and open to changes, it is easier to accommodate new voices, creeds, and ethos within its fold. But where a society is xenophobic, it is more difficult and depends on how these, usually foreign, religions are able to co-locate with either the individualistic tendencies within the society or the traditional local religions that is already in existence in that particular society.

 

 Q: What are the things that put you off Nigerian Christianity?

A: As an individual, I have been tolerant of different religious beliefs. I wouldn’t say there is something particular that puts me off Nigerian Christianity. In fairness, Nigerian Christians have been quite nice. I’ll rather be tolerant of their views.

    But one thing that worries me is the newfound inclination towards prosperity in Christendom.

The church itself is political. When you have two or three individuals communing, politics abound, even within the family. So the idea of political Christianity is not bad. If Christendom wants to get involved in politics for the purpose of protecting the group interest of its members, I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Q: Most people I’ve spoken to want to know what Humanists think about life after death, abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, divorce and capital punishment. What are your thoughts on these issues?

A: I don’t believe in life after death. I believe when I die, I die, I go into the ground, I decay and go back into the earth.

  Personally, I don’t support abortion, but I don’t deride or judge those who do.
 

  I am indifferent about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. They really don’t affect me so I’m indifferent about them.

I am a staunch advocate of divorce. If the marriage is not working, I see no reason why two people should magnet each other permanently because the society expects it. So, if divorce has to be the way out, I don’t oppose it in any form whatsoever. I think it should be encouraged provided it will not be abused. I am not, in anyway, a fan of the union of marriage; hence my position on divorce could be rationalized.

I can support capital punishment in some instances. But it depends on the kind of crimes we are looking at here. If the crime is murder, I think I can support capital punishment. If it can be proven that it was committed out of the sheer malice of the individual, not for self-defence or the protection of the life and property of a group, why not? I think capital punishment should be applied for very few and justifiable instances.