Tauya Chinama on Phobias About Humanists

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/13

Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean born philosopher, Humanist, apatheist, academic researcher and educator. He is also into human rights struggles and active citizenship as the founding leader of a Social Democrats Association (SODA) a youth civic movement which lobbies and advocates for the inclusion and recognition of the young people into decision making processes and boards throughout the country anchored on Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, Strong Institutions). He is also the acting president of Humanists Zimbabwe. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, once again, we are here with the wonderful Tauya Chinama. We have been discussing the Zimbabwean context extensively, focusing on humanists, non-believers, and those who take a more critical-thinking approach to what are often seen as unquestioned beliefs in public life. You continually evolve your perspective, even to the point of embracing apatheism at this stage. Today, I wanted to talk about combating phobias against non-believers and humanists. It is an interesting topic.

I see this issue everywhere. It doesn’t matter which region of the world or the people I’m speaking to—it only differs in the flavour, tone, and style of the fear or phobias that people hold. So, in a Zimbabwean context, what have you observed? What do you notice on both a personal level and in public life?

Tauya Chinama: Well, thank you very much for this opportunity. Let’s start by defining a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred of something. In this case, it’s an irrational fear or hatred of non-religious people or humanists. As I mentioned, the fear is irrational. There is no reasoning behind these attitudes, and Zimbabwe became what it is today regarding religion largely due to colonization. The majority of the population about 85% are Christians, but they didn’t become Christians by choice. They became Christians through colonization. When the missionaries came to Zimbabwe, they demonized local culture, branding it as barbaric, backward, and unworthy of preservation. Many people accepted this, and although some resisted, they faced punishment, including being labelled as rebellious. Concepts like Satan and the devil were introduced to Zimbabwe, with people being told that they were doing ancestral worship which the missionaries associated with the evil. So, today in Zimbabwe, before revealing that you are non-religious or a humanist, you need to consider your audience because they might quickly label you as evil or devil worshiper.

Being labelled can have political, economic, and social consequences. Socially, you may start to be excluded, and some people will choose to disassociate with you. Politically, if you are an active politician, you could lose support simply because you are openly non-religious.

Economically, you could lose your job or miss out on economic opportunities. So, the phobia against Humanists and non religious people manifests in different forms. Some people may genuinely fear you due to irrational beliefs forced into them. 

Jacobsen: From a sympathetic or empathetic point of view, in conversations with individuals who hold various supernatural beliefs, extra-material philosophies, or some form of magical worldview, how do these beliefs help them in their local context? How do they fortify themselves against the hardships, difficulties, and challenges, particularly within the Zimbabwean cultural context?

Chinama: Yes, of course it is a fact that religion helps people to cope with certain problems or sometimes allows them to evade responsibility by assuming someone higher than human beings takes care of everything beyond human control, but from my experience, when I speak to religious people, especially those with whom I have a close personal relationship, some will say, “Yes, you’re making sense.” However, they have a fear of reasoning. This is another phobia. They are afraid to reason against a well-established religion because they feel it sounds like blasphemy. That fear leads them to suspect that they are committing blasphemy. So, sometimes, they choose not to reason. I usually give them an example when they accuse me of being a devil worshipper or something similar. I say, “Listen, who created the devil?” They will say, “God.” Then I say, “Well, didn’t He know that the devil would go against Him later on?” They reply, “Yes.” So I say, “The same devil you accuse me of worshipping was created by the God you worship. Aren’t you also aligned with the devil by that logic?” At that point, they start to see the reasoning. Some people, especially younger ones, can try to understand this perspective. However, those who are older, over forty, are much more difficult to convince.

Those below forty, you can have a conversation with them, and they are often more open to listening and understanding. A few days ago, I met a young lady at a salon. She seemed religious but somewhat skeptical. As we talked, I explained how certain scriptures, especially in Leviticus, can be oppressive. She eventually agreed and said that the book of Leviticus should be removed from the Bible.

She said, “Yes, you make sense.” I exchanged contact information with her, but when I tried to follow up later, she didn’t respond. I believe it was due to that phobia, the fear that I might influence her to stray from her beliefs. That’s my experience observing how people relate to non-religious and humanists.

There is often a void left behind when someone leaves religion because it’s extremely scary to be free. The idea that “I am fully responsible for all the problems I face and no one is coming to save me” is terrifying for many.

Jacobsen: I recall, as you know, James Randi, a prominent member of the skeptic community in the United States, once told me in an interview before he passed away that the primary reason behind a lot of religious beliefs is fear. I find that your analysis aligns closely with his.

So, more to the point about phobias toward humanists and the non-religious, like naturalists, what is the experience on the other side—those on the receiving end of this fear you just described? In other words, how does this fear of the religious manifest in the lives of the non-religious, humanists, and others, even those without a particular emotional attachment, such as apatheists like yourself?

Chinama: Yes, the fear that religious people have sometimes challenged the non-religious as well. A good example, though unrelated to Zimbabwe, is a well-known atheist who recently converted to Christianity. I’m referring to Aryan Hirsi Ali, she struggled with the freedom of knowing that nothing external would help her. In an interview with Richard Dawkins she mentioned having a feeling of deep emptiness and thought Christianity would fill that void.

Most of the time, due to the social consequences of being non-religious, people are secluded, left alone, lose economic opportunities, and lose political popularity. It’s a painful experience. It takes much courage to stand firm on humanism. As a non-religious person or a humanist, you may sit down and question yourself: “Am I wrong? Am I right?”

This internal conflict can lead you to become more open-minded or radical. For example, some people are accused of being devil worshippers. Even though they know they aren’t, repeated accusations can push them to embrace the label out of frustration. They might say, “Fine, if you insist, I am,” reinforcing the phobias. In some cases, they might even mockingly say, “Yes, I am a devil worshipper,” just to scare the religious people, playing into the accusations.

I remember telling you about my journey and how I became who I am today. When I was religious, especially while training to become a Catholic priest, I can honestly say I was unthinkingly religious. I joined the seminary to be trained as a Catholic priest, but then I realized I had to pretend a lot and was too honest to continue that path.

Eventually, I became agnostic, and later, I turned into a militant atheist, but I realized that being militant didn’t work for me. Over time, I became more moderate and adopted apatheism. I don’t care whether God exists or not; what I care about is the welfare of human beings.

You laugh when I say I was too honest to be a priest, but that’s true. I tell people that if you sit down with a priest or someone training to be one and if they are honest with you, they’ll tell you that to survive in that environment, you must wear a mask. You cannot be your true self. If you are yourself won’t last long. You’ll either be ejected or you’ll leave voluntarily. I chose to leave on my terms.

I still talk to people who are in the system or have left, and they are honest with me because they know I understand their struggles. At one point, Dr. Leo Igwe of Nigeria and I tried to start the “Excellence Project,” which was meant to help with psychosocial support people who once train to become priests, imams, rabbis, or other religious officials but had become non-religious. Both Dr. Leo Igwe and I share similar backgrounds, we all trained to be catholic priests but eventually left. He understands the struggle of transitioning from religious training to becoming non-religious. We are still in the process of establishing that group. We want to offer psychosocial support to people transitioning from training as religious officials to becoming non-religious. We understand the void they experience and how society will view them. They are normally judged harshly, for example, if you start a project that fails, people will claim, “God is punishing him because he turned his back on God.” They’ll say you failed because you didn’t fulfill your religious commitment. But what they don’t realize is that some of us left because we were too honest to continue as religious officials. To be a religious official, sometimes you have to be dishonest. You find yourself telling people things you don’t believe simply because it will make them feel better. That’s what non-religious people often experience—it depends on how you became non-religious. Still, it isn’t easy to maintain that stance. Sometimes you think, “Maybe I’m wrong.” Other times, you know, “No, I’m right.” For instance, when I’m speaking with Christians, and I don’t want to be judged harshly, I try to open up their perspective by saying, “If you are going to believe in a god, can’t you believe in one beyond the Bible?” I challenge them by pointing out the contradictions in their beliefs. For example, I ask, “How can you believe in a biblical God who doesn’t know which house belongs to a Jew or an Egyptian and needs blood on doorposts to identify them?” Or, “How can a God justify killing the firstborn of every living thing, even mice and flies, just because of a dispute with Pharaoh?”

I try to make them see how irrational some of their beliefs are. I’m glad the Zimbabwean government has introduced “Heritage Studies” and “Family and Religious Studies” in schools, which came from a presidential commission of 1999 popularly known as Nziramasanga Commission, it’s main goal was to reduce the colonial legacy in the  education system. These studies encourage people to reconnect with their culture and view the world from that perspective rather than through an imposed religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

You can only truly understand certain concepts when you view them through the prism of your own culture. Later on, people may start to appreciate the value of their heritage. But if they have abandoned their culture and adopted an alien one—such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam—it becomes difficult. That’s why even some non-religious people, when they face challenges, fall back into Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

Jacobsen: What about using humanist principles to counter some of this public fear? Today, we’re focusing primarily on the social aspects, not legal discrimination, police harassment, or anything else. We’re talking about the internal psychological profiles of individuals who do not understand humanists or other non-religious people in any realistic way.

So, when it comes to conversations aimed at countering the internalized beliefs and misconceptions people have about humanists, you and Leo Igwe are uniquely qualified. Being trained as a priest, you understand religious individuals’ internal dialogue and the humanist point of view. As you mentioned in our previous interview, your love of logic was a driving force for you.

How do you use this understanding of psychology on the other side to facilitate dialogue, reduce fear, and help people understand humanists and others more accurately?

Chinama: Yes. That’s interesting, when applying humanistic values such as helping a blind person or assisting someone who is disabled—the response is often religious. For instance, the person might say, “Ah, you are prayerful. May God bless you.”

Jacobsen: And you convey your message in a way that aligns with their language without necessarily believing the literal interpretation of what they are saying. So, you can communicate effectively without agreeing with the religious connotations.

Chinama: I understand that the person is expressing gratitude. Still, they may seriously believe I made the gesture because I am religious. In reality, I did it because I am human. However, explaining, “I did this because I am human, not religious,” would complicate things.

So, we practice humanistic values. Still, our only real opportunity to express ourselves and clarify that our actions are driven by humanism comes during public engagements. For example, recently, I was invited to the University of Zimbabwe in collaboration with the cultural office of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They were discussing religions in the context of injustice.

At that event, I explained to everyone present, “When you hold interfaith dialogues, why do you exclude us, humanists?” I also pointed out that the theme of this year’s Humanists International Conference, held in Singapore, was Secularism and Interfaith Harmony. This means we are also invested in fostering dialogue between different belief systems. We seek harmony among people, regardless of their beliefs. It’s one of our core values to appreciate diversity.

People need to know that we don’t intend to convert or convince everyone to be nonreligious or Humanists but we want respect for everyone regardless of someone’s religious affiliation. I’m pleased to see how our efforts are evolving here in Zimbabwe. However, our limited numbers are a challenge. I am invited by University of Zimbabwe for another conference on Media against phobias in relation to religious liberties. At the conference I mentioned, the organizers asked me, “How many people can you bring, and how many papers do you want to present?” This shows that they are beginning to see value in what we offer.

Sometimes, I’m invited to radio and television stations. In December, I’m scheduled to attend a high-level event in South Africa on Decolonizing Secularism, where I will present the Zimbabwean humanistic perspective.

As an individual, I’m doing my best to engage with the media and represent humanism. This is part of my service to the humanist and non-religious communities. Besides other efforts, such as helping people, we face phobias locally. We don’t have significant resources to donate as humanists in Zimbabwe. If we go to an orphanage and identify ourselves as non-religious, sometimes our help is denied. This is one of the challenges we face.

Chinama: Sometimes, we might have to donate in silence and not mention our religious affiliation or lack thereof. However, we are progressing through media engagement, trying to make people understand our perspectives. I’m confident that, with time—perhaps in 10 or 15 years—we will see the fruits of our efforts today. We keep investing in our image, in our intellect, and the promotion of humanism. We want people to eventually accept and appreciate the value of science, rationality, and logic while minimizing the harm of irrational superstitions or fearing people merely for holding a different view, like being an atheist.

That’s the idea—we shouldn’t judge or fear people for that. That’s how I see it.

Jacobsen: What about communicating these methodologies to other humanists? What things need to be more obvious to them so they can better understand how to communicate? What areas might conflict arise in understanding what the other side thinks of them?

Chinama: When it comes to non-religious people and humanists, it’s like trying to herd cats. You can’t place all the cats in one area and tell them, “Don’t go here, don’t go there.” Humanists and non-religious people are not sheep—you can’t  force them to follow the same path. So, disagreements will always be there, and that’s fine. That’s part of being a humanist, part of being scientific.

However, the key point we share as humanists is this: we must teach people that science works and that reason works. We need to promote science. The good thing about science is that it’s open to change and accepts anyone—it’s not dogmatic. When we explain that science works, we’re not necessarily telling religious people that their religion doesn’t work. Religion might work for them in a psychosocial sense, and that’s fine. But we must stay grounded in reality and aim for lasting solutions.

Religious consolations, while comforting, are often temporary. For example, if someone prays for money but doesn’t go to work, they’ll remain stuck in the same cycle. It would be best to work to earn money—that’s the reality. So, what we’re trying to teach is that people should be productive, scientific, and rational; that’s the core of our message.

We were planning to meet as Humanists in Zimbabwe in  September, but unfortunately, today is the last day of September 2024, but  it didn’t happen. I hope  we shall meet before the end of the year to unify our message and reflect on humanism from the perspective of our environment and culture. We must figure out how best to package our message to convince others. How you explain humanism in Canada may not be the same way I explain it in Zimbabwe or how someone in India might explain it.

We have to customize it. We must tailor the message to fit the particular society but retain the core values—being empathetic, scientific, rational, and logical, valueing hard work and productivity, and promoting secularism or secularization. We aim to minimize the negative impact of superstition on public policy and individuals.

Jacobsen: How do you balance the eternal struggle between compassion, conveying critical thinking, and understanding while judgment?

Chinama: I prefer understanding over judgment. Check the Humanists International website under the section for Young Humanists 2023. You’ll see that I’m one of the nominees. The title of my story is “I Prefer Understanding Over Judgment.” I always try to understand why people think the way they do because judging people without knowing the reasons behind their thinking doesn’t feel right.

Earlier, I mentioned that the majority of Zimbabweans became Christians through colonization. So, I understand that much of what people believe today is a colonial hangover—a legacy deeply ingrained in society. I always aim to understand. Sometimes, I clash with fellow humanists and non-religious people who accuse me of being too sympathetic to religious people. Why? Because I believe in giving religious people a chance to share their stories. If we listen to them first, we can better share our perspectives. Judgment without understanding won’t go anywhere.

One of the most interesting experiences I’ve had was when I was on a TV program two years ago, engaging with an SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) pastor. I was surprised when he agreed with me. I told him that Christianity is defined by confusion, and at first, he said, “No, no, no, you’re wrong” I asked him to give me time to explain, and he agreed. I said, “Take an Adventist, a Catholic, and a Wesleyan—put them in the same room and ask them to define God. Will they give the same answer?” He thought about it and replied, “No.” I “said,” “Isn’t it confusion?” He eventually agreed, saying, “You’re right; what defines Christianity is confusion.”

The TV program presenter said, “Pastor, you’re ruining the program by agreeing with this guy!” But the pastor replied, “I have no choice—what he’s saying  makes sense.”

I argue that rationality works. Unfortunately, the presenter of that program, who used to talk to me regularly, left Zimbabwe six months ago and is now in the United States. I can connect you with him if you’d like. He’s more level-headed after interacting with people from different faiths, including me. Although he remains somewhat religious and agnostic, he’s more balanced now.

Jacobsen: We have about three minutes left. Any final thoughts based on today’s session, Tauya?

Chinama: Thank you very much. I want to encourage my theistic brothers and sisters, those who are religious. We understand your fears and concerns, which may stem from not engaging with us. Please, let us engage. Let’s reason together. We have no intention of converting you, but we want to see progress for everyone. We believe that science works, and we believe that reason works.

To my fellow non-religious people, I urge you not to shut out religious individuals. They have a story to tell, and we should listen to them. Let’s understand their perspective and reason from their point of view. We can create a diverse society where people respect each other regardless of their religious beliefs. I rest my case. Thank you very much.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time as well.

Chinama: A lovely welcome.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. Take care.

Chinama: Bye. Take care too.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.