Cosmopolitan Humanism: Tauya Chinama on Apatheism, Theology, and Dialogue

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/19

Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean freethinker, educator, and advocate for human rights and cultural preservation. Trained in philosophy and theology, he transitioned from religious study to humanism, emphasizing intellectual honesty, dialogue, and heritage-based education. As a teacher of heritage studies, he works to integrate indigenous knowledge and languages into learning systems, arguing that language carries culture, history, and identity. Chinama is active in Zimbabwe’s humanist movement, contributing to interfaith dialogues, academic research, and public discourse on secularism, ethics, and education reform. He champions the preservation of Shona and Ndebele while critiquing systemic barriers that weaken local language education.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Tauya Chinama on evolving from apatheism toward “cosmopolitan humanism.” Chinama uses a phenomenological method—bracketing assumptions to understand beliefs from within—valuing theology’s role in meaning-making while maintaining humanist ethics. He favors dialogue over debate to build trust, yet sees debate as a useful secondary spur to critical thinking. Interfaith collaborations, including upcoming publications on jihad in Zimbabwe, deepen his literacy and credibility. Chinama accepts agnosticism about deities, prioritizing human relationships and responsibility. He argues humanism must practice moderation, humility, patience, and prudence: persuade, do not coerce; minimize harm; and speak with care, context, and timing and nuance.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You think deeply about philosophical issues—epistemology, ontology, and inevitably theology. You’ve moved through positions such as agnosticism, atheism, and apatheism, which shows your willingness to reflect and change your mind. Many of the issues you revisit touch on theology in terms of definitions and meaning. Have you changed your mind again? If so, why? If you remain an apatheist, why does that position still resonate with you?

Tauya Chinama: I’ve made a bit of progress. I’m still grounded in apathy, but I now consider myself more of a cosmopolitan humanist. By that, I mean I understand the reasons behind each worldview. Having held various positions enables me to approach phenomena from both external and internal perspectives.

What I mean is this: in the phenomenological approach, I bracket out my prior assumptions about an idea. I then try to understand a phenomenon from the perspective of those who hold it. I’m less concerned with the factual authenticity of a belief and more with its impact on the individual. For example, what does it mean for someone to believe in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam? Belief systems serve as meaning-making structures, and I must treat them with care.

Of course, I have the privilege of viewing these systems from the outside, but I also try to step into the believer’s shoes when engaging in dialogue. I’ve observed that this approach is practical. At times, religious people feel I sound like one of them, and at other times, they sense I am not. The same goes for non-religious people. Why? My focus is on valuing humanity and understanding why people believe what they do and follow the paths they take.

Even humanists are often shaped by religion. Many of us are pushed toward humanism because of religion itself. It is rare to find a humanist with no interest in the study of religion. My own area of research is religion and human rights, and I expect to graduate with a program in this field, depending on the effort I put in between now and next April.

Jacobsen: Where do you see theology within this? Clearly, there’s value in understanding religious texts to grasp the history of ideas within world religions. It helps us know where others are coming from. But what about theology on its own terms? Do you see it as a worthwhile intellectual pursuit or as less relevant compared to contemporary philosophy and science?

Chinama: It’s worth studying because theology anchors the morals of many people. If we dismiss it, we risk creating chaos and irresponsibility. Some people cannot live without a guiding framework, and for them, theology serves as a master.

Freedom can be frightening. If people are told there is no punishment or reward for their deeds, some may feel free to act as badly as they wish. It takes a great deal of growth and responsibility to do good for its own sake.

Because I once trained to become a Catholic priest, I have many friends who are theologians. Some of them are very serious about theological discourse, and I partner with them on projects. For example, I recently collaborated with a Dominican Catholic priest from Zambia on a paper about the concept of jihad and how Muslims practice it in Zimbabwe. We are at an advanced stage and expect to publish it in a Zambian journal from the University of Zambia within the next month. We also have plans to publish with journals such as Philosophia.

Working with theologians gives me a deeper understanding. When I sit with them, we listen to each other. If they can entertain my ideas, why should I not take their ideas seriously as well? Theology provides the foundation for institutions like churches; without theology, their doctrines would lack a solid foundation. So it is worth discussing and debating. If you do not understand theology, you cannot convincingly address its contradictions or absurdities. You must understand it first to explain it, even to those who believe they know it better than you.

For me, theology is a discourse of meaning-making. It helps shape worldviews, cosmologies, and perspectives on reality. When combined with my humanist knowledge, it makes me a better person and, at times, an admirable figure in society, someone worth inviting to interfaith dialogue. What makes me happy is that recently I have been asked to share platforms not only by Muslims but also by Pentecostal and mission churches, especially the Catholic Church. The Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference often sends a representative to these interfaith events. Their willingness to invite me shows that they recognize I can engage in genuine theological discourse.

Jacobsen: Do you enjoy a debate format more or a dialogue format more?

Chinama: I enjoy both, but I prefer dialogue. Dialogue gives me time to convince the person I’m engaging, and it gives them time as well. Often, dialogue occurs without an audience, which allows for a deeper understanding. Debates, on the other hand, usually require a larger audience, which can sometimes lead to misrepresentation or labels.

Dialogue, however, builds trust. When I engage someone in dialogue, even if they disagree with me, they can still explain my views reasonably to others in my absence. That makes dialogue a powerful tool. Debate is also essential because it can provoke people to think more critically, but I see it as secondary. First, we build the foundation with dialogue, and then—if the audience is balanced and respectful—we can move into moderated debate.

Jacobsen: What feedback have you received about debates and dialogues? How have these helped you improve your approach?

Chinama: Sometimes the feedback challenges me. It exposes loopholes in my arguments or in the way I engage. That forces me to keep learning and improving. Occasionally, I receive private messages, often on Facebook, from people who say they watched me debate or engage with someone and appreciated how I presented my ideas. They ask me to explain things further.

For example, during a dialogue organized by Muslims, some secondary school students were eager to hear about my worldview. They invited me to their Islamic school, Fatima Zahra, because they wanted to know why I identify as non-religious and what had led me to that perspective. I gave them a preface, and at one point I joked, saying, “I’m simply a product of my parents’ union.” They laughed, of course, because it’s a biological fact. 

Then they asked, “Where did your parents come from?” I said, “From their parents.” They pushed further: “What about the first person?” I told them honestly, “We don’t know.” I emphasized the importance of honesty—if we don’t know, we shouldn’t assume. That approach convinced the students, and even their teachers appreciated the explanation. Experiences like that show me how patience and humility are essential for being understood.

Jacobsen: What has been the strongest argument you have heard from a theologian or a believer in God or gods? Was there ever a case where you found their reasoning compelling?

Chinama: Yes, there was a moment when someone told me: “The God of the Bible has many problems—He is limited and portrayed in human terms. But what if we think of God beyond the Bible?” I had to admit that this idea made sense. If you present a God that is not confined to any book, then I can at least follow the reasoning. The books often limit the grandeur of such a being.

As a humanist and a scientific thinker, I am not outright dismissing the possibility of a deity. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. In specific contexts, I lean toward agnosticism, although I remain a humanist in my moral outlook. For me, morality does not depend on whether a god exists. Now in my thirties, I spend little time worrying about whether God exists or not. What matters more is how we relate to one another as human beings, because that is what truly enhances our lives.

Jacobsen: Are there areas where humanism could improve, either as a philosophy or in how it is practiced? For example, are there places where we lack enough evidence to establish firm humanist positions, or areas where those who espouse humanism fall short in practice?

Chinama: Moderation, humility, patience, and prudence should always guide humanists. If we neglect these, we risk falling into the same trap of power—wanting to force everyone to live by our standards. Instead, we should aim to convince, not coerce. Humanism can cause harm if it is not practiced with humility, patience, and prudence.

By prudence, I mean knowing what to say, and when and where to say it. Without that, you might create enmity or cause harm that cannot be undone. Some humanists claim, “It is not my responsibility to avoid harming others.” But if we take the spirit of humanism seriously, then it is our responsibility—not only to avoid harming others, but also to avoid harming ourselves. We should care for others and ensure their welfare, because that is part of what it means to live responsibly as a humanist.

Jacobsen: Which parts of Zimbabwe are the most humanistic?

Chinama: Usually, the urban areas. In cities, people have better access to information than in rural areas. The majority of humanists are in the capital, Harare. According to census estimates, we think there are about 10 percent non-religious people in Zimbabwe, which would actually mean they outnumber Catholics. Examining the WhatsApp groups for humanists, it is evident that most members are from Harare. Unfortunately, we don’t meet in person often, but it is high time we started holding humanist meetups. We should push for that as soon as possible.

Jacobsen: Do you think access to technology could help bridge the gap for rural areas—something as simple as a generator or a power line with chargers for phones and laptops, so that people could get online? If so, do you think widespread access to accurate information is still far off for rural Zimbabweans, or could it become a reality in the near future? That way, people would have a second perspective on humanist ideas alongside more traditional, Christian, or Muslim viewpoints—or supernatural ones in general.

Chinama: The problem with Zimbabwe is that it is still heavily a Christian country—around 80 percent of the population identifies as Christian. In rural areas, access to information is severely limited due to unreliable electricity and poor network coverage. Even when I visit my rural home, it feels like a sabbatical from the digital space. People there are cut off. The only access to broader information is at business centers, where you might find some connectivity.

So, in rural Zimbabwe, people are primarily exposed to one-sided information. I call it an epistemological dictatorship. By contrast, in urban areas, it is challenging to prevent people from accessing diverse perspectives, as social media platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and WhatsApp are widely available. In the deep rural areas, however, people live away from the digital world. That can be positive in some ways—sometimes it is good to step away from digital life—but it also keeps them isolated from alternative viewpoints.

Jacobsen: Do you see changes in how people practice religion as access to information grows? In North America, for example, once the internet became widespread, people encountered a wide range of views they had never heard before. That led to a wave of secularism, freethought, and humanism. Would something similar be happening in Zimbabwe as access to information improves?

Chinama: Yes, it is definitely happening in Zimbabwe, and demographics play a role. Most people who are becoming open to humanism are young people, particularly those in higher education. Exposure to a more diverse society broadens their minds. Of that estimated 10 percent of Zimbabweans who are non-religious, the majority are young and have attended universities or colleges.

It is rare to find older humanists in Zimbabwe. I am not aware of anyone who is over 60. Most of the people recognized locally as humanists are under 40, and nearly all of them have had some higher education.

Jacobsen: How are people being introduced to non-religious ideas in Zimbabwe today? Is it mainly through education, the internet, or peers—maybe even platforms like TikTok?

Chinama: There are many channels. Through the curriculum—particularly the heritage-based curriculum—students are now exposed not only to Christianity, but also to Judaism, Islam, and indigenous religions. If they have a teacher like me, they will also learn that there are non-religious people. I teach heritage studies, and I ensure that I include this perspective.

Additionally, people are introduced to humanistic ideas through radio programs, television appearances, podcasts, and online discussions. Still, there is much more to be done. Many Zimbabweans have never even heard the word “humanism,” mainly because they have never encountered it in school, the media, or in conversation.

If we accelerate our discussion of humanity, I am confident we will foster a more open society. Another challenge is that very few humanists engage in politics. Without political power, we cannot influence laws or institutions, such as the police. Similarly, very few humanists have economic power. Yet, with financial resources, one can also influence society.

So we need both political and economic power. How do we get there? By participating in business and politics. That way, we can influence laws, institutions, and public advocacy.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tauya. 

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.