Vaughn's article on the ten commandments shows just how simple some people are. The ten commandments are moral codes which everyone should try to live by. Circumstances through a persons life sometimes takes them away from those code's. That is what being human means. But when it comes down to it, repeatly violating those codes is what destroy's society. How can a free society survive if the members within that society have no moral or ethical convictions towards each other. That is what the ten commandments are written for and tries to teach us. If Vaughn is so simple minded that he can't see that how can he teach his children what is right and what is wrong? How did he learn what is right and wrong? What does he base his moral and ethical views on? Does he beleive people are born with good morals or do they have to be taught them? Since he has enough insight on this matter to point the finger at the ten commandments and say it is unrealistic, maybe he could answer some of the questions I have just asked.
Name withheld by request, October 10, 2002
Are you unaware that religious people are as committed as you are to the Theory of Evolution? Naturally we believe in intelligent design. We don't consider it science and we don't care to make others believe in God but we do and intelligent design is the logical consequence. Are you trying to throw us into the conservative camp. We won't be thrown in with those Yahoos. We simply don't believe in mere randomness. But we do believe in Evolution. As much as you and without Deus ex Machina baloney. We really are just as rational as you.
Bruce LeBaron, September 2, 2002
You rightly condemn those who have abused religion but Secular Humanism is surely open to the same abuses. Marx cited Humanism as an integral part of his theory. However, one only needs to look at how dictators like Lenin, Stalin and Mao treated their own people to realise that abolishing religion is not an answer to ending bloodshed.
History is bathed in blood, regardless of whatever political, religious or philosophical beliefs have been held throught the ages.
Surely it's obvious by now that the problem lies within man's own being, what a Christian would call Sin. It is, I believe, because of the metaphysical nature of this problem that secular humanism is doomed to fail and why an understanding of God and original sin provides us a more appropiate basis to unravel the ancient and unchanging forces at work in man.
Blaming religion for most of the world's problems is naive, one could equally blame it on secular agenda's such as US foreign policy or multinational corpratism. The real agents of darkness or the workings of men's hearts ie. hatred, lust, greed etc.
Steve Clarke, August 26, 2002
With all due respect to your humanity, I beg to differ with you about your positions. If your positions are based on evolution, scientific naturalism, then your whole system is built on sand, as evolution is very much a failed system. Are you, in your search for TRUTH, willing to examine all of the errors and hoaxes proposed by the very scientists who tried to pull the wool over people's eyes? There is a large group of evolutionary scientists who now are saying that evolution is collapsing. Just though you might be open to the TRUTH. By the way, God IS real whether you choose to acknowledge Him or not. I hope that you are willing to take a hard look for all the evidence that He has given to us. Great Book: New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. Thanks for your time, Ike Riddle
Ike Riddle, August 16, 2002
Response:
The theory of evolution has withstood scrutiny for 150 years. By the "errors and hoaxes" perpetrated by scientists, you are no doubt referring to the Piltdown man. Piltdown many from the beginning was hailed as a major discovery by some scientists and seriously doubted by others. It was hardly a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community. Moreover, good scientists—not pastors—uncovered the hoax, which is what one would reasonably expect. Science is by its nature cumulative and tentative. Its hypotheses may be strengthened or discarded altogether.
There is no "large group of evolutionary scientists...saying that evolution is collapsing." You probably mean that evolutionists argue over HOW evolution works, not IF it works. Moreover, good scientists have evaluated the "evidence" of creationists such as Josh McDowell and found it to be very weak, at best.
Science demands strong evidence, while all spirituality requires is strong faith. After all, you will never hear a reputable scientist say anything like, "Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it." In science, if it does not stand up to critical examination, it has to go. In religion, a belief in God must be rationalized by any means necessary. Which is the better way to arrive at "TRUTH?"
Thanks for being here. Just wanted to say as a Secular Humanist I have not seen a non-secular march on Washington. I'm sorry but I can't be involved in something that has no definition and does not clearly state its goals. I will support a secular humanist march or a moment of science method march (something positive) but Atheism is just a tool. From my limited perspective focusing on a lack of believe in someone elses philosophy will tend to hurt the cause rather than advance it.
Mike Gross, August 16, 2002
I came across your website and realized that you people have more faith then me. To believe that we are the be-all, the center, etc. and we will have no one to face in the end is remarkable. As smart as all of us are; Jesus said we only needed the faith of a mustard seed to believe in him. A mustard seed is borderline micro-scopic compared to the vastness of our brain, and yet our intelligence fails us to see. This is why we must come to Him by Faith. The unsure, scarey,intimidating, step of faith. When we do, then the proof is like Niagra Falls. So incredible! So awesome! If I went back to believing like you precious folks, I could never look upon the face of Jesus when I die and say, "Who are you?" When you step out in Faith, Jesus steps out in proof. Then you really realize that this big beautiful world has a purpose, your life has a meaning and that you were tailor made by a God who loved you so much that he sent his only son to die for you on the cross so you could share eternity with Him. An eternity that makes the grandest houses on earth, look like dog houses in heaven. The streets of Heaven, (gold) many will go to hell for. Don't let zipperhead (satan) assalt you with his cabinet full of tailor made weapons (of which unbelief is one), that he uses on you daily. zipperhead delights in the fact that no one believes in him anymore. he wants to rip you off because he lost out on heaven because of the sin of pride. he wanted to be God. He forgot he was gods creation. zipperhead knew that most of the people on earth would follow him this is why when Jesus was tempted in the desert, zipperhead offered him the world if he bowed down to worship him. Once again zipperhead forgot he was a creation, not the creator. You can only fight zipperhead through Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light". Stir up your mustard seed and come join us. We need people like you! Eternity is forever---and this life is just a vapor compared to it! Love you! Jan
Jan Leary, August 7, 2002
Comments:
I don't have anything profound or earth shattering to say, except that I am impressed with your site. There is a great deal of information here, that is going to take me quite some time to "assimilate" (Of course, that's what we atheists do)
A couple of things I just cannot figure out is:
In light of the 9-11 attack, this country is undergoing a "Religious Revival"? It seems to me, it should be more of a slap in the face at just what religion and their fundies are capable of. (No matter what religion)
There are actually many more that suddenly come to mind, and I believe this isn't the venue for them.
I am extremely frustrated and quite frankly frightened by religion. Perhaps more than I need to be, but that's a separate topic.
Anyway, I enjoy your site and look forward to visiting often and getting involved if I can.
Sean
Response:
Some people believe that America is experiencing a religious revival in reaction to the tragic events of September 11th. According to some researchers, however, this supposed revival is greatly exaggerated, and many Americans are returning to their pre-September 11th levels of religiosity.
In any case, it should not be surprising to find that religiosity increases as fear and uncertainty increase throughout a population. Desperate people are looking to attain some real or imagined control over their lives. For many, a secular worldview is not enough to deal with the many frightening problems that human beings encounter throughout their lives. A belief in God gives many people peace of mind.
On the negative side, however, perhaps you do need to be frightened by religion. After all, the events of September 11th were part of a faith-based initiative. Moreover, most of the wars that are being waged throughout the world today have a religious component. Indeed, the Qur'an and the Bible are filled with passages condoning violence against unbelievers, foreigners, and other "sinners."
Violence is not the only threat that some religions pose to humanity. For example, the Council for Secular Humanism has recently come out in opposition to the "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act," H.R. 2357, and its companion bill H.R. 2931. This proposed legislation would allow churches in the U.S. to become involved in politics without taxation, auditing and accountability. This would be a devastating blow to church/state separation, and could be a giant step toward the establishment of an American theocracy.
In order to combat these kinds of threats, we have to be "eternally vigilant," in the words of Eleanor Roosevelt. Religious extremism will not grow if we decide to stand united in defense of liberty.
Comments:
Hello! I recently discovered your interesting website and have been watching your cable program for some time. I am not conventionally religious, but am not an atheist. I feel that dogmatic atheists accept the supposed non-existence of god and an afterlife as blindly as fundamentalist Christians accept the literal truth of the Bible and the notion that the earth is only several thousand years old. When you say that you do not find sufficient proof of God or an afterlife, you fail to realize that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
Response:
It is true that dogmatic atheists are often as dogmatic as their theistic counterparts. However, you seem to assume that all atheists are dogmatic. This is not true. Rational atheists do not claim to know for certain that a supreme being does not exist. They can rationally defend their atheism, however. (Remember, atheism simply means without a belief in God or gods.)
For example, the problem of evil makes it highly probable that the biblical God does not exist. This God is supposedly omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent, yet evil exists. Evil, however, cannot come from that which is PERFECTLY good. At the same time, evil could not have originated without the knowledge of this omniscient being and outside his presence. Moreover, regardless of how evil came into the world, an omnibenevolent God would have destroyed it at its inception. (If not, why assume that God is omnibenevolent?) If the perfect biblical God exists, evil could not exist. Even the Bible--and human experience--makes it clear that evil does exist. Therefore, it is highly probable that the biblical God does not exist.
You might accept a God with limited powers. As God's supposed powers recede in the light of scrutiny, however, so does the probability of his existence. Atheism is therefore rationally justified.
Finally, though it is true that "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence," a total lack of evidence for theism is problematic, to say the least. Like it or not, in the world of thought and ideas, evidence is queen, and faith is but a homeless pauper.
Comments:
Dear sirs or madams:
I don't believe it is wise or correct to oppose religious groups who chose to exercise their religious options either in schools or in government. A cursory review of our history clearly shows this was and remains a nation tied to religion and the Constitution sought to prevent any particular religion being sanctioned by the state - it did not outlaw religion nor did it prohibit it in governmental institutions and its affairs. We should understand that in a nation fraught with stupidity, especially among our young parents, most of whom are single, religion can play a significant role in maintaining their morality so that it does not conflict with the rest of society. They will not learn these essential lessons from us, obviously, so we must depend on their traditional fear of God to keep them from stealing from and killing the rest of us. In addition, we should not suggest a national day of rational though in opposition to the national day of prayer, instead, it should be in addition to in order to suggest our position of tolerance rather than arrogant superiority.
Regards, Elliott Alhadeff, San Clemente
Response:
What do you mean when you claim that religious groups should be allowed to "exercise their religious options" in schools and government? Should a member of the White supremacist Church of Jesus Christ Christian be allowed to exercise his religious option of harassing or harming Blacks or Jews? Should extremist Muslims have the freedom to exercise their option of waging a violent holy war? Should conservative Christians in positions in government exercise their option to discriminate against gays? No, of course not.
Religious people do have the right to pray in public schools, but they do not have the right to force others to join a group prayer. For Christians, however, this should not even be an issue. Matthew 6:5-6 clearly states:
And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
Could it be more clear than that? If more Christians would stop being hypocritical and pray in their rooms where they belong, this discussion would not even be taking place.
The U.S. is a secular nation, though most of its citizens are religious. (For more on the secular nature of the U.S., see , second edition, Edward M. Buckner and Michael E. Buckner, editors, Freethought Press, Atlanta Freethought Society, 1995.) Religion is not illegal, but government buildings were not made to double as houses of worship. Those that truly want a God-centered government, however, might want to try living in Sudan, Iran, or northern Nigeria.
Though it is true that "religion can play a significant role in maintaining" children's morality, it can also play a major role in destroying liberty by merging church and state. Parents are free to send their children to the church, mosque, temple, synagogue, or secular humanist center of their choice. Furthermore, public schools teach the common moral decencies on a regular basis. However, we do not need to bring religion into public schools. To do so would be disastrous, and could lead to religiously inspired violence fomented by extremists.
It is highly insulting to claim that young single parents are stupid, and that they must be kept in check by the (ig)noble lie that God will punish them if they do not behave. Moreover, it is not certain that a belief in God will keep theists from "killing the rest of us." If the tragic events of September 11th do not put that myth to rest, then what will?
Finally, it would be self-defeating to celebrate a Rational Day of Thought "in addition to" a National Day of Prayer. The former is advocated largely in response to the latter. In the words of Robert Green Ingersoll: "Hands that help are better far than lips that pray." Amen!
My name is Michael Johnson and I am writing in response to Mr. Allen's comments on afrocentricity. I have never thought of afrocentricity as a type of fanatical religion where everyone who subscribes to it is domed to be destroyed or lost to ignorance. Contrary to what you may believe Negroes are more intelligent and less gullible than your article is giving credit for. Eurocentric thinking needs to be undermined as a sort of secondary language because that is exactly what it is when compared to the rich heritage Negroes have in Africa and America and other parts of the world. We should not treat our culture or our heritage with any less importance than they treat there own heritage, to do so would retard our allready slow progress as a people coming into their own. To me Afrocentricity means a deep love and pride in the Negroe past not his-story because his-story is what slowed us in the first place. Lies on top of lies they gave the world concerning the Negroes place in the world historically and in the present. Negroes need to learn to love themselves again and expect more from this world than we are being given like we did when we built great civilization in Africa and the Middle East and colonized Europe transferring our once great culture to others freely. Western culture, Eurocentric thinking is the real danger because its all about economics and individualism which both have their place in things but it has also prescribe deeply to the tenets of racism that still runs rampant in America and abroad. Don't be against blackness because you better believe whites ain't against whiteness. Response from Norm Allen:
Mr. Johnson is responding to an essay of mine that is posted on our Website ("Blind 'Afrocentricity' Likely to lead Blacks Astray").
It is disturbing to see that in the 21st century, Johnson still refers to Blacks as "Negroes." Time prevents me from dwelling on that point, however. No where in the essay did I state or imply that "Negroes" lack intelligence, or that we are particularly gullible. Moreover, I did not condemn Afrocentricity (also referred to as Afrocentrism). I constructively critiqued its excesses and stated the importance of critical thinking in examining its claims. We certainly should not regard our heritage as less important than that of any other group. At the same time, we should not feel obligated to emulate White supremacist scholars by embellishing our accomplishments. We can—and must—learn to love ourselves with intellectual honesty and good scholarship as our guides.
Finally, it is the height of absurdity to equate criticism of Afrocentrism with opposition to "blackness." Afrocentrism is but one of many schools of thought among people of African descent. Moreover, no school of thought, religion, philosophy, or worldview should ever be deemed sacred. One may loudly and proudly profess love for Black people. However, that does not incur in us an obligation to accept that person's errors.Comments:
I read your essay on the improbability of god and has not convinced me that there isn't one. Whoever/whatever made these laws of physics and commenced the first "random", evolutionary step is God. There been or there still be one. Response:
This writer is referring to Richard Dawkins' excellent article "The Improbability of God" (FREE INQUIRY magazine, summer 1998).
Philosophical naturalists see no evidence to substantiate the extraordinary claim that natural laws must have been put in place by God. The physicist Victor Stenger believes that the laws of physics probably came about spontaneously after the universe began to cool and expand following the Big Bang. (See his article "Was the Universe Created" in FREE INQUIRY, Summer 1987.) This certainly makes more sense than the claim that God "made these laws of physics."
The ultimate question, however, is this: If God exists, how did he come into existence? The debater/theologian William Lane Craig claims that that which begins to exist in space and time requires a cause. He cleverly argues that because God exists OUTSIDE space and time, his existence requires no cause.
Unfortunately for theists, Craig has no evidence to support his outlandish claim that God exists outside space and time (whatever that means). Moreover, even if there is a force existing outside space and time, why could that force not be a NATURAL or quasi-natural force? Furthermore, it is not clear that that which exists in space and time must have a cause. Indeed, most advocates of the Big Bang theory that Craig embraces contend that the universe is uncaused. What is worse for theists, according to the Wave Function of the Universe theory—a theory with impressive predictive power—it is HIGHLY PROBABLE that our universe is uncaused. (See "Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism: Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists," in FREE INQUIRY, Spring 1998.)
It is time to let go of the God of the gaps. All of the major gaps have already been closed by science. Comments:
I am a 15 year old Christian who does not understand what on earth you are trying to prove. Mate, get a grip on yourself. What is your life ambition? To annoy Christians? If you don't like Christians, leave us alone! We win in the end, just you wait and see. The glory of the Lord is our rear guard, and we will strive through what you throw at us. I came across an article by Mr. Till about prophecies and probabilities. Unfortunately, he has stated things wrong. There are more than 50 prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled. Those 50 are just the main ones. Talking about a child massacre by herod - have a look in the records of Judea, and you'll find a decree for that. There'll be records involving The crucifixion and persecution of Jesus. Matthew was not the only recorder of this, but the main one. Other relions are based on visions of some sort - maybe some Hindu had a vision of Christ, and mistook it for something else. The Bible is right - guarenteed. I've read enough books to proove it. Also look at current events today, especially in Israel. They are linked to other procephies in the Bible.
Response:
One of the most impressive claims among Christian apologists is the claim that God has fulfilled biblical prophecies. Upon scrutiny, however, most of these supposed prophecies were intentionally vague so as to have numerous possible interpretations. In other cases, the prophecies have been utter failures.
In Isaiah 17:1, the prophet foretold the imminent demise of Damascus. Damascus, the capital of Syria, is standing today. Yet we are told that biblical prophecies are evidence of an omniscient being.
The greatest of all failed biblical prophecies, however, was that the last days would occur during the lifetimes of many of Christ's followers (Matt. 16:27-28, Mark 9:1, 1 Peter 4:7, and so on). Sadly, over 2000 years later, Christians are still waiting for the Apocalypse (despite the recent Y2K fiasco).
We do not have conclusive evidence that Herod ordered a massacre of children, or that Jesus was persecuted and crucified. Indeed, it is not even certain that Jesus existed. In , Earl Doherty discusses numerous ways in which Christianity could have come about without a historical Jesus.
It is not enough to simply read the Bible. One must study it in the light of reason. For as Thomas Paine long ago observed: "The Bible is the most widely read and least examined book in the world." When the reader examines it, however, it quickly loses its ability to impress.
Your web site is very informative. I do agree with all of your points except the concept of God. I think it is very possible that there is such great power/intelligence/creator; however, it does not make any sense to relate that creator to the available religious books. Religious books shows considerable amount of inconsistencies, and do not reflect on a highly intelligent writer, hence a super intelligent creator could not have contributed to these writings. The three most popular religions; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all appear to have originated at the Middle East, which makes it difficult to imagine the super being is unfamiliar with China and India as a major population centers on this planet.
I observed that among the world’s philosophers who signed your document, there was not even one single Moslem person out of the one billion persons that adhere to that religion on this planet. Is that a reflection of the Moslems intolerance, or lake of intellect, or both?
Response:
It is certainly POSSIBLE that God exists. Secular humanists maintain that it is highly IMPROBABLE, however. The universe is best understood by pursuing naturalistic methods of investigation, as opposed to blind dependence upon supposed revelation.
It is not absolutely certain that there are no Muslim signatories of . If there are none, however, this should not be surprising. After all, this is a HUMANIST publication. It would be just as unlikely to find Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religionist. In any case, there are quite a few individuals of Arab ancestry that signed the document.
I'd like to respond to the "Humanist Manifesto 2000," which you wrote; specifically, to section "III. Scientific Naturalism." I myself am a naturalist, and while I respect humanists in general, I have noticed a widespread tendency among them which I'd like to bring to your attention.
Here is the paragraph in question:
III. Scientific Naturalism The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism. Most world views accepted today are spiritual, mystical, or theological in character. They have their origins in ancient pre-urban, nomadic, and agricultural societies of the past, not in the modern industrial or postindustrial global information culture that is emerging. Scientific naturalism enables human beings to construct a coherent world view disentangled from metaphysics or theology and based on the sciences.
Many humanists these days want to say that they hold to scientific naturalism, and yet refuse to try to understand religion itself as a natural phenomenon (through psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.). They instead want to use the physical sciences to refute the truth claims of religion (which itself is fine) and stop there, not examining either the nature of the human mind which produces religion or the nature of the religious conceptual frameworks produced by that mind. To me, this makes their claims of being committed to scientific naturalism ring rather hollow, since they are being very selective as to which natural phenomena they are willing to examine scientifically. To me, being committed to scientific naturalism means holding that *all* natural phenomena are subject to scientific investigation, whether it's physical (biological, astronomical, etc.) or mental or social (psychological, anthropological, etc.). And it means being genuinely curious about all these things, and not closing your eyes and covering up your ears to modern research in these areas because you're uncomfortable thinking about them. Unfortunately, many humanists these days are.
Paul Hanley
Response:
It is certainly true that many—but not all—humanists are more concerned with examining the truth claims of religionists. On the other hand, many humanists do draw upon psychology, sociology, anthropology, and other disciplines to understand religion.
For example, Francis Crick—awarded the Nobel Prize for the co-discovery of the structure of the large DNA molecule--is author of the book . He draws upon neuroscience to study the hypothetical mortal soul.
In the Wings of Illusion and , John Schumaker discusses the psychological origins of religious belief. Paul Kurtz and numerous others have drawn upon many disciplines to study religion as a natural phenomenon.
Perhaps some humanists are primarily concerned with examining religious truth claims because it is considered a taboo to do so. By challenging this taboo, perhaps it will be easier and safer to do unfettered research into the other areas of human concern.
I am sorry, but I feel I have to comment on Gina Allen's comment that religion damages self-esteem. In reality, a number of scientific studies have shown that religious people (and children raised in religious households) actually have higher self-esteem than usual. It is ironic that while Allen claims religion closes people's minds to scientific knowledge, she's perfectly content to throw science to the dogs when it doesn't suit her purpose.
Response:
It is true that some people—both religious and nonreligious—only accept findings that confirm their biases. In the case of religion, the topic is very complicated. In some cases, religion will raise self-esteem. For example, the idea that one is special in the eyes of God, and that God watches over everyone, is a source of comfort and confidence for many.
There are other religious teachings, however, that are very damaging to one's self-esteem. For example, some people never get over the idea that they are born into sin. They feel bad about themselves and are plagued by guilt feelings.
Women and gays are two groups that religious teachings have disparaged. The Bible blames the woman for leading the man into temptation in the Garden of Eden. God then curses women and says that men shall rule over them (Gen. 3:16). This is hardly a prescription for healthy esteem-building among women, to say the least.
The Bible also deems homosexual activity sinful and worthy of death (Lev. 20:13). It is no wonder that many gay teens have such low self-esteem and such a high suicide rate. Even with gay liberation, many gays are still struggling against homophobia, and courageously trying to maintain their dignity.
After all is said and done, most religions are filled with disturbing contradictions. Depending on the teachings to which religionists are attracted (or forced to accept), religion can build or damage self-esteem.
If you have comments, positive or negative, from a secular humanist perspective or from some other point of view, please let us hear from you.
Copyright notice: The copyright for the contents of this web site rests with the Council for Secular Humanism. You may download and read the documents. Without permission, you may not alter this information, repost it, or sell it. If you use a document, you are encouraged to make a donation to the Council for Secular Humanism.
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription