I pray that God have mercy on you
Name not given, November 24, 2003
I noticed on the cover of free inquiry that front page the topic was the Great Scandal: Christianity in the rise of the Nazis. Simply looking at the cover page it seems that there is an inference to the whole of Christians as those who supported the Nazi regime. if this is the inference that is being drawn it is fallacious. it is a hasty generalization to assume that the whole of the christian population were pro-Nazi. I am assuming that the Confessing Church lead by Dietrich Bonhoeffer was not mentioned in this article. many people lost their lives in the Confessing Church while they attempted to oust the Nazis. yet only the mainstream christians that had selfish motive as their god was highlighted. I am sure that within the ranks of secular humanism that there are those who are not secualar humanist at all, well in a similar way there are those who proclaim their christianity yet are not in touch with the Christ of christianity.
Name not given, November 21, 2003
Gregory S. Paul did not imply that all Christians were responsible for the Holocaust, though some people erroneously drew that inference. Rather than assume that a certain church was not mentioned, it is always best to READ the articles. After all, it is not wise to judge a book (or a magazine) by its cover.
The main point is that the Nazi regime had the support of the vast majority of Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany. If most of the world's influential Christians had opposed Nazism, there is a good possibility that the Nazis would have never come to power.
It is certainly true that we secular humanists have bad people among our ranks. However, most secular humanists do not feel intellectually obligated to rationalize inhumane beliefs that other secular humanists might hold. Most Christians, on the other hand, will try to rationalize such blatantly anti-Jewish biblical passages as 1 Thes. 2:14-16.
There is nothing in humanism that suggests that we must blindly believe every word from any leading secular humanist. For example, you will never hear a secular humanist proclaim in a dogmatic manner, "it's in HUMANIST MANIFESTO 2000, so it must be true." The CONSISTENT emphasis on critical thinking gives secular humanism a big advantage over mainstream Christianity.
I believe that I read that this council promotes morals...My question is why is that that if you promote free thinking and doing whatever brings life out the best way for you, then what exactly are your morals. I believe that you are contridicting yourselves foolishly and very amusingly. You say you have morals, but yet you promote such disgust as abortion, the open killing of innocent babies, you promote homosexuality, something that just wasnt CREATED to happen, if you look at how parts fit. You are also basically saying that you can promote free thinking without God, so do you discriminate against those who use a God to bring out the best in life? Also, if there is no God, what is the point of living a good life, what do you believe happens when its over, and what proof do you have? Just a couple of questions, thank you for your time, I do not mean to offensivly critisize, i just want some of your ideas.
-KVL, November 18, 2003
To find out some of the ethical ideas we espouse, you should read the Affirmations of Humanism. We share the common moral decencies such as honesty, sharing, etc. with our fellow religionists. Moreover, it is important to understand that you not speak for all religionists when you denounce abortion. Most Christians in the West support abortion rights. Even reactionary Christians such as Jerry Falwell support abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother.
Humanists such as Peter Singer have advocated the killing of babies with severe deformities. However, not all humanists agree on this issue. Just as there are disagreements among theists, there are also disagreements among humanists.
Homosexuality is a very complex issue. However, the bottom line is that consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they please, as long as they are not causing harm to anyone else. How are heterosexuals harmed by sexual relations among people of the same sex? They are no more harmed than homosexuals are harmed by heterosexual relations.
We do not "discriminate against those who use a God to bring out the best in life." We do, however, challenge those religionists that seek to DESTROY the best in life. They would include theocrats, terrorists, male chauvinists, homophobes, and other intolerant bigots that seek to make our lives a hell on earth.
We believe that after we die, we lose consciousness forever. That is why we seek to make the most of this life, and let most religionists worry about a supposed afterlife. In fact, that is the very point of living a good life--because we only have one. We believe that death is final because we have bodies and our minds emanate from our physical brains. A belief in a soul is superfluous. The important question, though, is where is the evidence for the existence of God and immortality? Until such evidence is adduced, we are rationally justified in holding a naturalistic worldview.
Have you ever been to a Christian church? I was an atheist all of my life and have recently accepted Christ as my savior. This is not a religion, it is a relationship...and it is absolutely nothing like what you have described. I don't know where you get the ideas that you have, but I suggest you try it out. I have certainly changed for the better, and now have a hope for my life. There is nothing on this earth better than knowing I am living for something greater than myself.
Name not given, November 17, 2003
Most secular humanists have been to Christian churches. In fact, that is the main reason most of us became secular humanists. We could not believe what the preachers were saying. We have tried Christianity out and found it to be intellectually weak. Rather than live for a supposed higher power, most of us are satisfied with living for ourselves and our fellow human beings.
I have often wondered about atheists that become Christians. For most secular humanists, embracing Christianity would be like trying to unlearn the alphabet. Indeed, most people that were raised in atheist homes only to embrace Christianity later in life, have done so for EMOTIONAL, as opposed to INTELLECTUAL, reasons. In any case, I hope that you do not embrace an intolerant form of Christianity. After all, most people these days no longer believe that "Christ is the only way."
Thank you for your site it has proven very useful as I am interested about Secular Humanism. I am studying the major worldviews and I am curios in how you answer the problem of infinite regression. If I exist in a point in time that had a cause, and that point had a cause, what was the uncaused cause? Furthermore if time is infinite how can we come to this point, because we can not traverse an actual infinite?
Justin Koenen, November 15, 2003
Your question comes from the KALAM cosmological argument, most famously defended by the theologian William Lane Craig. There are many ways to deal with this point, however the best response of which I am aware is from R. Douglas Geivett, an associate professor of philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology.
In the book DOES GOD EXIST?, edited by Stan W. Wallace, Geivett notes on page 51 that Craig borrows this argument from the mathematician David Hilbert. However, Hilbert did not settle the issue. George Cantor "developed the famous diagonal argument that an infinity of infinities involves no contradiction after all, and hence that the existence of such is at least possible" (ibid.). That is to say, the KALAM cosmological argument is just that--an argument. It is a contention to be argued, not assumed.
Craig argues that God exists outside space and time and is in no need of a creator. The only problem is that Craig has no EVIDENCE to back up this outlandish claim. This is a classic case of special pleading. That is to say, Craig makes an extraordinary claim in order to exempt his supposed God from the problem of infinite regression.
Craig and other theologians have no problem with the claim that God is infinitely powerful, infinitely merciful, infinitely wise, infinitely intelligent, etc. Furthermore, prior to the Big Bang, they had no problem with the notion that God is an actual infinite. However, it is funny how science makes the God of the gaps smaller and smaller. Rather than admit that perhaps God does not exist, many theists continue to try to adapt the latest findings of science to fit their primitive religious ideas.
On page 8 of DOES GOD EXIST?, Keith Yandell, the Julius R. Weinberg Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin writes:
...Craig is in no position to hold that God is beginningless, having claimed that it is logically impossible that the universe be beginningless because BEING BEGINNINGLESS entails HAVING EXISTED FOR AN INFINITELY LONG TIME, which Craig alleges to be logically impossible. (emphasis in the original).
In any case, if a possibly existent mystery God could exist uncaused, then why not the actually existent universe? The naturalistic explanations are more plausible. Because there is no strong evidence for the existence of God, we are rationally justified in believing that the universe is in no need of a creator.
I just found out about your organization this morning when I read an op-ed piece by Norm Allen in the Florida Times-Union. First, I was amazed that the T-U printed it, because just last year they were printing opinions of Creationists who were 'challenging' evolution.
Then I checked out the website, and when I saw that Richard Dawkins was writing articles for the magazine, I was elated. I am now a subscriber to the magazine, and I'm going to contact the local Secular Humanist group here in Jacksonville.
Thank You, Florida Times-Union!!
Jon Dehner, November 4, 2003
Please know that my family and I will be praying for all humanists on a continuous basis in the hopes that God will have mercy on you. That the 'veil' on your eyes will be raised so that you may see The Truth. JESUS loves you with an everlasting love and He is teaching me to love you as He does.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and God Bless you!
Lynn, November 1, 2003
You Muslims are a sorry folk. You follow a false prophet and deny the one true God in Jesus Christ. You deny the central person in history and his ultimate sacrifice of dying on the cross. I pray you will open your mind and see the truth and His love.
Tom Peacock, October 27, 2003
We've got to be the worst "Muslims" on the planet!
Hello. I was wondering if anyone affiliated with your organization has ever published a review of the ideas of the late University of Chicago philosopher Leo Strauss. I've read several articles crediting him as the main intellectual influence behind the "neoconservatives" pulling Pres. Bush's strings. Apparently Strauss didn't believe in god himself, but taught that the elite should promote religion as a socially useful fiction for keeping the mob in line (as Plato advocated in "The Republic.")
This raises an interesting line of historical inquiry: Whether the conservative intellectuals who have allied themselves with christian fundamentalists over the last generation have not done so out of genuine conviction, but because they have cynically adopted Strauss's view of religion. In other words, Straussians agree with us Secular Humanists about the make-believe nature of religion, but disagree with us about the desirability of enlightening ordinary people with the truth. If this happens to be the case for a significant number of conservative thinkers, shedding light on their hypocrisy would tend to strengthen the Secular Humanist position.
Mark Plus, November 1, 2003
We have never published anything by or about Leo Strauss. In any case, most non-religious conservatives seem to promote their views without feeling that it's necessary to support or oppose religion. For example, Ayn Rand, Sidney Hook, and many libertarians have put forth ideas that mesh neatly with the agendas of Christian fundamentalists.
On the other hand, some humanists mistakenly believe that George Bush is a closet atheist that merely uses conservative Christians to promote his political agenda. This sounds outlandish to most humanists and conservative Christians alike. It is usually very difficult to uncover people's hidden agendas. However, it seems that most non-religious conservatives do not feel obligated to use religion as a political tool to further their aims.
I am giving many of the worlds possible beliefs intense thought. But I don't understand what you are trying to say by "simplicity". Isn't God more simple? To say "Well, God made it." is much simpler than any explanation I've ever heard dealing with a self-existent world. And how is it possible for there to be a self-existent world? Please help me to understand.
Jim, October 26, 2003
We must not confuse the word "simple" with "simpleminded." To say, "Well, God made it," might be SIMPLEMINDED, however, scientifically, it might not be what is meant by simplicity.
However, the concept of simplicity, paradoxically, is complex. In scientific terms, simplicity means seeking the explanations that do not violate known scientific laws. The explanations must be consistent with known facts and scientific knowledge. Rather than positing a God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, science seeks peer-reviewed theories that draw upon empirical, intersubjective information. Science, though, is not dependent upon mere subjective assertions and anecdotal "evidence." On the contrary, it seeks to limit the number of unsubstantiated truth claims. Most importantly, science recognizes that some phenomena and circumstances defy scientific explanations. Good scientists, however, continue to search for the answers.
To say that the universe is self-existent means that it is self-contained and is in no need of a divine explanation. It runs according to its own physical and biochemical laws. The big bang theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection, and other scientific theories support this notion. These theories have strong predicitive and explanatory power. Most significantly, these are naturalistic theories with naturalistic implications.
Theists, however, maintain that God created the universe. All this explanation does is push the mystery further back. They must show that this idea is more plausible than the naturalistic explanations. They must provide evidence to show how God could be uncaused. They must show why it is more plausible to believe in a possibly existent uncaused mystery God, than in an actually existent uncaused universe. Otherwise, scientists are rationally justified in rejecting this extraordinary theistic truth claim.
intelligent, yet rather narrow minded and quite a sad and hollow philosophy/illusion. i've found that people who lash out at spirituality tend to have lacked love and vision in their own lives and seek to explain away the beliefs and spirituality of others to justify their own emptiness. i agree that there is a need for critical thinking but perhaps you should be just as critical of your own beliefs and not worry about other peoples spiritual lives. maybe you are missing something and there is a god that you have shut yourself off from with your philosophies. I doubt whether a secular humanist would cast his own cold critical eye on himself and admit the possibility that his own theories and beliefs are flawed. to dismiss all religions as being false shows an obvious ignorance and conceit on your part. relying on reason and logic also requires a certain amount of faith because as you may have noticed the 'natural' universe is one big logic/reason defying paradox that science will never come close to explaining.
Telax Rubik, October 23, 2003
It is not unusual for theists to assume that secular humanists lack love in their supposedly empty lives. In reality, however, reason, logic, common sense, understanding, and intellectual honesty have much more to do with why people become humanists, than do a lack of love and emptiness.
One of the Affirmations of Humanism reads as follows:
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
That hardly sounds like a recipe for an empty and love-starved life. Moreover, though humanists are not perfect, we have great respect for science. This puts us in a better position to understand that we might be wrong, because science itself has that built in premise. The three major monotheistic religions, on the other hand, place great emphasis upon blind faith in ancient superstition. This makes many religionists less likely to question their beliefs.
Unlike Jews, Christians, and Muslims, humanists do not go to houses of worship to listen to their leaders tell them how to live and what to think. On the contrary, humanists attend lectures and debates in which they not only listen, but critique humanist spokespersons. This, too, makes humanists less likely to be dogmatic than their religious counterparts.
Finally, while it is true that reason and logic require a certain "amount of faith," they do not require the gigantic leaps of faith needed to embrace theism. Comparatively speaking, reason and logic only require baby steps of faith to get reasonable people where they need to go.
Science will probably never explain all of the mysteries in the universe. However, a reasonable alternative is not to return to the glorified ignorance of milennia past. We must continue to ask the hard questions while refusing to succumb to the temptation to provide emotionally satisfying, though intellectually bankrupt, answers.
I am Nathaniel Freeman from Philadelphia PA. I would truly appreciate if you could answer a few questions for me about the Secular Humanist Declaration you have posted on your website. I am sure that you will consider my views and are educated and reasonable enough to give me a very satisfying answer to each point I inquire of you.
1) If you do not believe there is a Supreme Being that has created this complex universe with it's every intricate detail from DNA to the constellations, the electron to the orbit of the solar system, then what would you as a secular humanist attribute the existence of the universe to?
2) If indeed you firmly believe that "free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition" then why are you opposed to the ideas of creationism being brought into our public schools along with the theory of evolution? It would seem that teaching a student only one idea on such a subject would be an "effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth upon the whole of society" which "is a violation of free inquiry". It would seem that in a society where the "truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions" that we would want to bring both conjectures to the attention of every public school student's judgment. Since neither of them has yet to be truly proven and a significant population supports either side, why do you not support both ideas being given equal ground in a truly democratic society?
3) The Theory of Natural Selection clearly states that we as humans have evolved from lower creatures prone to anarchy such as apes, and that only species that are well suited for their environment survive, the weaker ones soon die off. Why then should we defend "basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? I believe that God created all men equally therefore we should treat all men equally, and have "respect for minority rights". For I believe God created each man for a purpose and looking down on a individual as weak for any reason is wrong. In the humanist society though, it would seem that every man is not created equal but some with advantages and disadvantages, and the man better suited for his environment should survive, and the weaker man should die off. Why should humans in a humanist society be reasonable and tolerant (which I do believe we should be) when we believe that we evolved out of the anarchy and tyranny of natural selection?
4) Since secular humanism "is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values" but it "maintain[s] that objective standards emerge". How should parents "develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character" within their children when "these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith" that upholds these values "before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves"?
("") The quotes are inserts from "A Secular Humanist Declaration" on your website.
I would sincerely be interested to hear your reply on these four inquiries. Though these are a just a few of the many questions I have about Secular Humanism a clear answer to each would certainly increase my understanding of Secular Humanist beliefs.
Nathaniel Freeman, October 19. 2003
1.Secular humanists believe the universe is self-existing, i.e., it requires no divine explanation. It might have always existed. To quote Stephen Hawking in A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
There are many scientists that believe the universe had a beginning, but that time did not have a beginning, and that there still is no reason to posit a mystery God to explain the existence of the universe. In fact, there are several different models of the big bang--a naturalistic theory--and none of them suppose that a Supreme Being is necessary to explain the existence of the universe.
And then there is the "God did it" hypothesis. Theists, however, must confront the ultimate God question: If God exists, how did God come into existence? If they argue that God is eternal, they must provide evidence to support this extraordinary claim. Moreover, if they maintain that a possibly existent mystery God is eternal, why should it be so difficult to believe that the actually existent universe is uncaused and self-existing?
2. Secular humanists are opposed to the teaching of creationism in schools for the same reason we oppose teaching the stork theory of reproduction in the public schools: because it is unscientific. We must not upset our reliable body of scientific knowledge every time some crackpot comes along with an alternative "theory." Almost 100 percent of all scientists accept the theory of evolution, but you will never find a scientist trying to have evolution taught in the churches for "equal balance."
Besides, which creation myth(s) should we teach? There are many of them, and some of them make much more sense than does the biblical account. It is obviously better that these myths be taught by the people that accept them. Pseudoscience has no place in the classrooms of public schools.
3. You will not find a single coherent defense of universal human rights anywhere in the Bible. Human rights were crafted by human beings, as opposed to the divine right of kings that the Bible promotes.
As secular humanists, we believe it is our responsibility to try to create a just society in which there is equal opportunity for all. That is the best way to create and maintain peace and tranquility. In other words, enlightened self-interest is a good basis for universal human rights.
However, our sense of fairness might not be unique to the human species. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, captive capuchin monkeys displayed the same sensibilities found in human beings. When pairs of females were given cucumbers or grapes (the preferred food item) for their tokens, they would become upset if they were shortchanged. Some would refuse to pay and would stop participating in the experiment if they saw other monkeys receiving the preferred food item. Some would even throw away their cucumbers in protest if they saw other monkeys receiving grapes.
According to the researchers, this behavior suggests that the sense of fairness found in humans might be an evolved characteristic that predates humans and might be common in primates, as well as other species in the animal kingdom. In other words, natural selection seems to provide a much better explanation for a sense of fairness than the notion that God taught us to be fair.
4. Many religionists tend to force their children to blindly believe everything in their religious texts. Many humanists, on the other hand, believe that it is only fair to wait until the children reach "the age of reason" (perhaps 12) before they are inundated with religious beliefs. That way they are in a much better position to evaluate their belief systems.
This does not mean that we do no believe in ethical education for children. However, we can transmit our values and ethical ideas to them with education as opposed to subjecting them to the divine command theory, which stifles intellectual growth and creativity.
For more information on these and other questions, visit the Prometheus Books Web site at www.prometheusbooks.com.
I cringed a little when I read in the Oct/Nov '03 issue of the idea to use the label 'Bright' for nonreligious people. Didn't quite know why it bothered me and didn't spend much time thinking about it, but a few days later it hit me - Scientism! I thought Massimo Pigliucci's article earlier this year scolding the scientific community for creating an elitist institution that alienates people from science, and inadvertently drives them to the supernatural, was right on target, and I think the label 'Bright', true as it may be, just throws gasoline on that fire. May I suggest a slight twist that morphs 'bright' with a nod to Carl Sagan's Candle in the darkness: Light, as in "I am a Light"... OK, that may be a little corny but so is "I am a Bright". How about we just stick with "I'm a naturalist" (as opposed to a super-naturalist)?
Bill Hahm, October 6, 2003
Calling ourselves Brights sounds reasonable to me, but I suspect that some of the Dims might take offense.
Hal Rohlik, October 2, 2003
When I read your feedback section, I was shocked when I read the dozens of replies from right wing conservatives who shut out all other options. How sad it is to see such intolerant human beings in our society! I myself have not decided whether there is god or not, but I shall always be open to suggestions and new information, instead of shutting it out as these people have done. I am very pleased at your website. Keep it up!
PS: One more thing. Just because a person is religious does not mean he is a morally good person. Religion and morals are separate from each other.
Name not given, October 2, 2003
a·the·ist (³“th¶-¹st) n. One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. from the American Heritage Dictionary. Haven't you redefined atheism. I always heard it meant one says very positively there is no God, not a skeptic.
Michael Shannon, October 1, 2003
"Atheism" comes from the Greek and simply means "without a belief in God or gods." However, there are different kinds of atheists. For example, there are "strong" atheists that deny the existence of God. Some strong atheists believe that we can disprove the existence of God. "Weak" atheists lack a belief in God because they have found no evidence of his existence.
A good discussion of different kinds of atheists may be found in George Smith's ATHEISM: THE CASE AGAINST GOD. However, members of the Council for Secular Humanism are usually either agnostics or atheists, and most simply prefer to be called secular humanists.
Guy Harrison blames religion for the terrorism in this world and he apparently is not alone. But why blame religion for terrorism? Why not blame science? Science is responsible for the airplanes, the rockets, the explosives and the biotech/chemical/nuclear weapons of mass destruction, is it not? If it were not for science we would not have the tools to attack and destroy the amazing diversity of life on this planet the way western culture has. Is the Sixth Extinction being driven by religion? Ah, you say, but science has been misused by certain of humankind and how can you condemn it for their actions when science has given us so much that is good? And not religion?
The many groups across this nation, for instance, that are organizing continually against SOA, nuclear weaponry, war, poverty,abuse of power and injustice will tell you they do it because of their religion which is based on love. While it is true they may be only small sects, the more committed and effective groups, and the most active, are religious based organizations who do not proselytize but instead "do the work" so to speak. Those who talk loudly about their religion ignore an important tennet of most of them. Then there are those who make a religion out of not having one. As this guys article shows they can be as dogmatic and dangerous as any.
It is not religion or science that is to blame here. Science and religion have both been used to further political agendas of the few who would dominate and violate others. Those who pursue domination, and justify it with either religion or science, are pursuing a destructive political agenda, not any sort of benign discipline. Thus, in such a dumbed down and corporatized culture as this, an illogical, irrational and irreligious jerk can be awarded for excellence in "journalism."
Then should we hate politics as so many say they do? I think not. Politics is a tool, just as science and religion are, and has been misused and abused by certain of humankind for, what they perceive at least as, their own benefit. Science, religion and politics can walk hand in hand in peace, if not our habitation on this planet will surely meet an early end.
Howard Switzer, September 25, 2003
The main difference between science and religion is that science is absolutely necessary for the improvement of life. Countless millions of people get along very well without religion, but it would be very difficult to imagine civilized human beings getting along without science.
Science can certainly be used for both good and evil. But unlike religion, science is not inherently divisive, nor does it promote intolerance. For example, scientists did not burn Christians at the stake, but Christians have burned scientists and other alleged heretics.
You will not find violent schisms among scientists. You will not, for example, find fans of Stephen Jay Gould launching scientific holy wars against fans of Richard Dawkins. Conversely, we will probably never be without religious holy wars.
Religious texts routinely promote sexism, xenophobia, slavery, and other forms of oppression and intolerance. However, though some scientists might promote these kinds of problems, there is no scientific principle stating that everything in any book of science must necessarily be true. The very nature of science makes it highly likely that, whenever controversial ideas arise, there will always be dissent, somewhere and from someone. Moreover, there is nothing in science saying that such dissenters must be labeled heretics or infidels, and punished in the name of science or God.
An appreciation for good science must never be mistaken for a blind belief in scientism. Good science is the best discipline we have for getting through life and understanding the natural world. Without it, we are mere barbarians.
Dear Council for Secular Humanism,
you must for the sake of your souls and for your eternal wellfare repent of these doctrines you are spreading. God exists, and you will meet with the definitive proof of his existance, either when Jesus returns to judge the world in glory or when you pass from this life. Do not make light of these comments my friends, I make them in all seriousness and would have you be saved from the wrath of God on that last day. Submit yourselves then to that God who died for your sakes on the cross and be saved through faith in Him.
Greg Chudy, August 7, 2003
I read the comments by your spokesman Joe Conn in reference to the Alabama issue and I quote “This is just one battle in a larger conflict over whether the U.S. will be a country where all religious traditions are welcome or an exclusionary one where some religious traditions are favored over others,” one is almost given the impression that you favor or welcome religion in our country. Well, I'm not fooled. You and all of your anti-family, anti-moral and anti-any God supporters have nothing but one agenda, and that is to totally radicate God and morality from our culture. What you don't realize is that your sick efforts is mobilizing an army of true americans who want to save our country from moral destruction and I can assure you that as time passes more and more elections will see people getting elected who truly want the best for our nation. They will help to replace the so many 60's left over liberal judges who are still so high on dope they can't see straight. Your type may have one this battle, but the war is not over yet.
Jerry, August 22, 2003
Though secular humanists are certainly NON-RELIGIOUS, we are not necessarily ANTI-RELIGIOUS. Secular humanists have never burned religionists at the stake, attempted to set up a secular equivalent of Sharia law, etc. Moreover, we do not attempt to place the Affirmations of Humanism on public property. We simply understand all too well the consequences of mixing religion and government in such nations as Iran, Sudan, Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and other nations.
It is unfortunate that militant Christians seek to mobilize an army in a war against secularism. Considering the fact that there are numerous religious fanatics anxious to kill in the name of God, such language is careless and irresponsible at best, and downright treacherous at worst.
However, if militant Christians wish to "save our country from moral destruction," I suggest that they start by saving our people from pedophile priests, dishonest "faith healers," murderous anti-abortionists, and other Christian folk. That would do more to save America than posting the Ten Commandments on public property ever could.
Did someone make you watch while they tortured and killed your puppy as a child? It irritates me that "Atheists" have call everybody names to get their point across. You sound like you wouldn't help me if I were stuck in a ditch, why would I want to agree with you?? I want to go where the love is. In your point of view all those tear jerker movies where old yeller dies, and the girl dies in "Love Story", or "Brian's Song", we are all lost in a pool of despair. Sunsets are just sunsets and death is an end. Your world sucks, it's depressing and I wish you would stop trying to take away a Christian's Hope. Your the one missing out. We have nothing to lose by believing in Jesus. You have everything to lose by not giving him a chance.
Robert, August 3, 2003
Theists often assume that non-theists are bitter, hateful people that have had bad life experiences. However, most non-theists reject theism, not due to emotional reasons, but as a result of education and serious reflection.
Moreover, humanists believe in helping their fellow human beings. Altruism is one of the "common moral decencies" that humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz speaks of. Furthermore, not only is altruism not unique to Christians, it is not even unique to human beings. There are numerous instances of dogs risking their lives for human beings, cats risking their lives for dogs, dogs risking their lives for other dogs, etc. It is not even clear that human beings are the MOST altruistic species on Earth. If animals perform altruistic acts, why should we conclude that it is necessary for human beings to embrace Christianity or theism before we are able to do so?
Most secular humanists enjoy life to the fullest. It is only reasonable to strive to do so, considering this is the only life we will ever have in all probability. Moreover, because many of us were Christians at one time, we do not believe that we are "missing out" by embracing a humanist life stance. Indeed, many of us have become happier as a result of leaving behind all of the psychological baggage that comes with Christianity.
Your site is great. Just started visiting several months ago and have found the site inspiring. I've long advocated your very philosophy without knowing Secular Humanism existed. I will continue to visit this site and continue to learn. If there's more I can do, anyway I can promote Secular Humanism, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Dennis Myers, June 25, 2003
I am not yet convinced that there is no GOD.
Samuel Ogunjinmi, June 20, 2003
What a relief to read Massimo Pigliucci's article in the Summer '03 issue on Creationism vs. Scientism! I often find myself avoiding the word 'science' around creationists because of the obvious distain they have for that thing that Massimo calls Scientism. Instead I try to frame the discussion in terms of natural vs. super-natural phenomenon, and the problems inherent in beliefs based on super-natural foundations (Creationists seem very comfortable with that approach). I suspect the best way to attack Creationism is to attack Scientism.
William Hahm , June 19, 2003
I found Britt's "Fascism Anyone" article richly amusing and have been emailing it to all my friends. I would argue it a mistake, however, to regard its 14 points as new developments in this country, particular only to recent events. When you look at events after the civil war, when the US first became a global player, you can point to a good number of fascist elements in every decade, from the nationalism & jingoism that's been characteristic of every war ("Remember the Maine!"), control of the press & the collusion of big business & the military (newspaper publisher Will R. Hearst's famous line to artist Frederick Remington, "You supply the pictures and I'll supply the war"), the obsession with national security (J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI like his own private Gestapo for half(!) of this century, and let's not forget that episode with senator Joe McCarthy), and the unending corporate & government corruption -- I could go on forever really -- but when you look at the breadth of us history in the 20th century you can't help but conclude that either (a) Britt's observations are too broad to be useful or (b) this country's actually been pretty fascist for a very long time. maybe up until 9/11, most of us never really noticed or cared ...
Dave Hill, June 17, 2003
this is a bunch of fucking bullshit. you are really fucking gay to say so much shit about how mother theresa isnt a great person. how dare you. you are all oging to hell and you deserve it
Username: Fook Yu UserEmail: bitemyass492@aol.com UserTel: shut up UserFAX: 1-800-get-lost Permission: granted Date: 29 May 2003
i tend to fully disagree with the statements placed about Big Bang and Atheism. It is a poorly written article and you should check the spelling of your words, and look up what they mean because they were used in the wrong context. Maybe you should pray and ask for Gods help next time you try and use big word, thank you.
No name given, May 29, 2003
As a practicing veterinarian and an amateur evolutionary biologist I have been disturbed by some evolutionary scientist's who seem, sometimes almost admiringly willing to acknowledge the increasingly sophisticated (however invalid) arguments presented by the proponents of "Intelligent Design." Obfuscation may be a clever debate tool but it is not a method of arriving at truth. Rather than focusing on the muddled specious arguments presented by people who have an agenda, we should force the Intelligent Design people to explain the simplest obvious fallacies associated with their belief system in simple words. Don't they ask the same of the science community? Forced to simply clarify their arguments supporting an intelligent designer, they would never have an opportunity to use good science badly to support unscientific beliefs.
It seems to me that the premise that all life on earth wouldn't exist without the intervention of an intelligent designer can be refuted in one word.
And the word is "testicle."
Even the most intellectually challenged recipient of a well placed kick has asked himself the painful yet seemingly eternal question; "What moron came up with the idea to put them, there?"
Richard A. Jacobs DVM, May 9, 2003
You don't realize how sad it is to see someone as foolish as to believe that they can understand God, and therefore misprove him. To misprove God , you must understnad him. Please, rethink your choises. "You have seen me and believed. Blessed are those who do not see, yet still believe". Do not let yourself be strayd by your own self pride. You are not allknowing you know. God Bless, Kathy, a believer in christ
Kathy, May 5, 2003
Can you please tell me how something was created from nothing?
Tanveer Hussain, May 2, 2003
A secular humanist could ask a similar question: Could you please tell me how God was created from nothing? That is to say, theists must learn how to follow the argument wherever it leads. If the universe is in need of a creator, why should we exempt a possibly existent God from the same law of cause and effect? Those who do so are committing the common logical fallacy of special pleading.
In reality, the universe might be uncaused, as many physicists point out. For example, the Brane theory maintains that the Big Bang was merely a small explosion in a bigger universe beyond ours. In other words, the universe could have always existed--the Big Bang might merely have been the point at which the universe began to expand. Moreover, a Big Bang theoretically could occur again trillions of years from now--and could have occurred before the last Big Bang.
These kinds of ideas are built upon good, reliable scientific principles. Theism, however, depends upon rationalizations and wishful thinking rooted in primitive superstition. The universe exists, and is probably self-existing. On the other hand, God, in all probability, only exists in the minds of theists.
To Whom it May Concern:
I believe that a shift in secular humanist philosophy concerning suicide is in urgent need. I consider myself a Secular Humanist; one, because I do not believe in a deity; two, because I believe that morality is a human construct; and three, because I hold fast to the tenets of naturalism; but I am not a proponent of suicide, either personal or doctor-assisted. I believe that every life has moral worth and that suffering is a significant part of the human condition. Instead of ending our lives when we feel we cannot endure suffering, we should all be role models; teaching each other how to endure by living our lives from the moment of conception until natural death. I think that to accept suicide as a tenet of secular humanism is to devalue life by allowing ourselves to become bedeviled by the self-destructive tenets of nihilism. If everyone lived according to nihilism we would undoubtedly become a society in despair because there would be no reason to go on living. I have realized that the "ultimate" purpose in life is to survive---Survival of the Human Species---that being the case, I firmly assert that we should not give up in trying times, in fact, it is during those despairing moments of life that we should lend a helping hand to one another instead of giving up all hope to suicide. Suicide is a bad option! Thank you.
Luis A. Arroyo, April 26, 2003
Humanists differ on many ethical points--including physician-assisted suicide. Indeed, some radical humanists go so far as to advocate suicide for anyone that chooses it.
Voluntary euthanasia, however, is a practice that is designed to put suffering human beings out of their misery. Oddly, we have no problem with this idea when it is applied to animals. For example, if a cat is suffering from feline leukemia, most loving guardians would regretfully put their pet to sleep rather than allow the animal to continue suffering toward an inevitable death. We applaud such people for their kindness. There are probably no animal rights or animal welfare groups complaining that this is an example of cruelty to animals.
When it comes to human beings, however, many of us become squeamish. This is especially odd among humanists, because we do not believe in a soul. Why, then, would a humanist be opposed to granting the wishes of terminally suffering patients that want to be put out of their misery?
A wise man once said: "Not life, but the good life, is to be chiefly valued." In other words, just because we have the technology to prolong one's miserably painful life does not mean that we should feel morally obligated to use it. When we truly value human life, we must conclude that, in some cases, it is best to end it. By coming to this realization, we are not threatening the human species. We are simply re-affirming the value of a life that is worth living.
However, we humanists should not advocate suicide as a way of dealing with problems relating to love, friendship, money, and so forth. On the contrary, we should be there to help our fellow human beings in times of need, as the Affirmations of Humanism suggest. Any conception of humanism that fosters suicide as an alternative to human hope and renewal is not worth many regrets.
you people are wrong
hate@yousuck.com, April 17, 2003
What if you're wrong? What if there is a God you have to answer to?
Ben, April 1, 2003
Response:
When theists ask what will happen if non-theists are wrong, they seem to imply that the evidence for the existence of God is strong. Nothing could be farther from the truth, however. After thousands of years of theism, we still have no strong evidence for the existence of God. This is odd, especially considering the fact that the God of classical theism expects a great deal of us. For this reason, this God would necessarily feel morally and intellectually obligated to provide all human beings with strong evidence of his existence.
In the words of the late soul singer Curtis Mayfield, "If there's a hell below, we're all gonna go." It never ceases to amaze me that most theists are so arrogant as to believe that they will necessarily make it into heaven. It never occurs to them that perhaps they will be punished for their sins. After all, the Bible says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Moreover, most theists never worry about the possibility that they might have the wrong religion. If God is a Sunni Muslim, Christians and Jews might not make it into heaven. If God is a Christian, Muslims and Jews might not make it into heaven. If God is a Jew, Christians and Muslims might not make it into heaven. If God is a Unitarian Universalist, EVERYBODY might make it into heaven. The possibilities are endless. If theists do not spend countless hours worrying about the possibility that they are wrong, then why should non-theists, who do not even take these outlandish claims seriously in the first place?
What if non-theists are RIGHT? If we are right, just think of the millions of people that have been tortured, oppressed, and enslaved in the name of a non-existent God. Think of all the genuine medical and scientific progress that has been thwarted in the name of a non-existent God. Think of the countless lives that have been ruined in the name of a non-existent God. Think of all the untold human misery, suffering, and deaths that have been caused in the name of a non-existent God. Was it all really worth it?
PLEASE FORGIVE ME, BUT YOUR CAUSE SEEMS SEVERELY SCREWED UP.
Name not given, March 26, 2003
You say there is no proof of God, well if you think about it there is no proof that evolution is true either. Through the complexity of our universe, it is impossible there could not have been a Creator. A universe this complex could not form from just the "simple laws of physics."
Jon Pugh, March 26, 2003
Response:
The total lack of strong evidence for the existence of God is inexcusable. The evidence in support of evolution is clear. It is found in the fossil evidence, genetics, physics, and so forth. There is no need to posit a creator to explain the existence of the universe and the natural laws that govern change within it.
Many theists understand this. The physicist Paul Davies, for example, has written that the laws of physics allow for the universe to create itself, i.e., without divine intervention. From the other side, non-theists have written many books and articles showing that the universe is not in need of a creator to explain itself.
In his book NOT BY DESIGN, the secular humanist/physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that it is very common for order (not intelligent design) to arise from chaos, and writes that this is well known in modern theories of physics. Similarly, Big Bang theorists have asserted that the Big Bang "leaves nothing for God to do." It should therefore not be surprising that 93% of the top scientists are atheists or agnostics.
Finally, if the universe is in need of a creator, is not God himself in need of a creator? If a possibly existent God is not in need of a creator, why is it absurd to conclude that the actual universe is self-existing and requires no "Ghost in the Universe" for its explanation?
Edward Tabash, Humanists that support war.
As a long time secular humanist I find it amazing that CSH is not taking the obvious stance against the USA led war against IRAQ.
How can we as Secular Humanists simply drop the rational thought, and over ride our stance to non-violent conflict resolution. Such hypocracy is embarassing to our cause.
Tabash bases his stance on emperical data, that Iraq has WMD and Iraq gassed the Kurds, Bush is not going appoint a puppet leader. That is simply Bushit.
Galen Thurber, March 19, 2003
As an educational organization, the Council for Secular Humanism tries not to be political. However, we do take MORAL stances on political issues. In the spring 2003 issue of FREE INQUIRY, for example, the editors voiced opposition to the war.
We do not profess to speak for all humanists, nor does Eddie Tabash. As advocates of free inquiry, we invite opposing viewpoints. But as a wise man once stated, "where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much."
There will always be disagreements among humanists--and that is as it should be. Just as religionists will disagree among themselves regarding the invasion of Iraq, humanists will do likewise. There are pros and cons on this subject, and there are simply no easy answers. As humanists, we must learn to live with uncertainty and hope that we have made the right decisions. Sometimes, that is the best we will be able to do.
In reading a recent biography of Abraham Lincoln, I came to the conclusion that he was truly a secular humanist at heart. What do you think?
Elaine Graybeal, March 19, 2003
I do not believe that Lincoln was a secular humanist, though he might have been a freethinker. He was skeptical of revealed religion, but he probably believed in a Supreme Being. He called for a National Day of Prayer during his administration, which certainly is not an action that one would expect from a secular humanist. He did, however, embrace some humanist ideals, and is regarded as a hero among many secular humanists.
It is a shame that the SH sees no room for a power greater than themselves. I was an active alcoholic and drug addict for 25 years. It has been only through believing in a power greater than myself that I have been freed from this fatal malady and have been allowed to live a life that is happily and usefully whole. Science has done nothing for me despite some 10 years of doctors and drugs. I am a man of science, I teach science, and I applaud and agree with all of the other values of SH. It is sad to see you limit the power available to you by failing to recognize that we are spiritual beings currently living in a material world. I have experienced many miracles in my life after turning my will and my life over to the care of a god of my understanding.
Unfortunately SH like many religions offers high values but also like these religions insists that to be a member the individual must hold specific views in the area of spiritual experience. If I had come to you seeking help to stay sober I no doubt would have perished from the illness just as I almost did by going to religion for help. Religion is man's way of dealing with God, spirituality is God's way of dealing with man. Regards, Jim Reed
Jim Reed, March 16, 2003
Secular Humanists have "no room for a power greater than themselves." I am happy that a belief in God helped you to deal with your alcohol and drug addictions. However, it is simply not true that people must believe in a higher power to fight their addictions.
Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS) have been successfully helping alcoholics, drug addicts, and others for years. SOS is non-religious, though not anti-religious. SOS representatives have gone into prisons and done much to rehabilitate incarcerated persons.
Theists and non-theists are invited to attend SOS meetings. If you had come to SOS seeking help to stay sober, you would no doubt have received it. SOS is humanism's way of dealing with addiction. For more information, contact SOS founder James Christopher at:
SOS 4773 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90027 (323) 666-4295 (phone) (323) 666-4271 sos@cfiwest.orgwww.cfiwest.org/sos
I am from Australia, Brisbane and am a very happy Secular Humanist. I have only recently come across your site and am very excited about all the information you have and I will log into your site when ever I have the opportunity. Most people I know have very different idea's to myself but with alot of knowledge of Human Evoulution, I have learnt to just talk about whatever they are interested in. I mostly read Richard Dawkins books as I have all of them and I am extremely interested in Zoology, Biology and Anthropology. Scientist's of reason and commonsense are the people that I have alot of respect for, but I am learning that my definition of what is commonsense is not what other people would see as commonsense. I will try to meet up with other people that are Secular Humanist's as having other human's to talk to about life and how wonderful it is would be great! It is so important as we are social animals and need lot's of interaction and company. I have two son's and I will teach them to become Ethical and Intelligent men with all of life's wisdom and scientific facts. Thank you so much for your great site and please know how much you are needed and appreciated. Annelise Mitchell. 26 Years old.
Annelise Mitchell, March 10, 2003
You people make me sick. You are what is damaging to society and must be delt with in a harsh manner for undermining the fundemental principles of democracy and morality.
Name not given, February 18, 2003
You haven't read the Quran have you? Look at what Christianity states: In the Book of Exodus is tells the people to kill, steal, commit adultery, to bear false witness against thy neighbour, covet thy neighbour's house, covet thy neighbour's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, make a graven image, take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. Pretty bad eh? Or am I being thick like yourslef?
Syed Mashhood Ahmad, January 29, 2003
Under God
Debating higher powers we're under Is blowing our diversity asunder. Despite what you've heard It's only a word. Time to correct the '54 blunder.
Clayton L Hogg, January 27, 2003
I don't think I can tell you anything, but I would like to know if anyone has considered some alteration to the brain that would eliminate the need for religion
Rudy Gildehaus, January 14, 2003
Response:
I certainly hope not!
Try to secularize the evil talmudists. They seem to need it much more than anyone else. at least nobody wakes up in the morning and pray "thanks god for not making me a woman, a slave or a goy (gentile = cattles)". You could do humanity a great service if you do that, but it seem that they are the one forking the bill for you in order to exist and therefore they are your masters.
Your scheme of separation of religion and state is an old one, tried by Paul and his evil entourage and was inflicted on the American people for such a longtime. Just see who many drunks and wife beaters got to church every week..and countless child molesters and criminals...and millions of druggies and thousands of bastards born every days...and thousands of rapes ( oh yuh, it's not what the women is wearing but it's a hate crime...do you believe that? be serious!!!). This is the secularized society you are dreaming of?. You and your 32 degreed masters can bury yourselves in hell. It is not working and it will never work...
No name given, December 30, 2002
I have recently discovered that many of my beliefs coincide with Secular Humanism: with the exception of life after death. Can I be a secular humanist if I believe in life after death? I can be if I believe in the big bang theory. What if Roger Penrose's theories are correct and there is quantum physics going on in our brains? This allows for the possibility of "something" remaining after death. If I believe in life after death because I believe that is the way the universe work, can I "be" a secular humanist?
Gord Restivo, December 28, 2002
Response:
Secular humanists are primarily atheists and agnostics. One who believes in life after death might be a religious humanist, however. It seems highly improbable that anyone will retain consciousness after death. As the atheist debater Eddie Tabash has observed, Alzheimer's disease destroys human memory. Wouldn't it seem that death would even do a more complete job of it?Comments
What the world thinks in 2002
According to the Pew Global Attitudes project(a 44 nation survey) among wealthy nations....the US stands alone in its embrace of religion. It turns out that American’s views are closer to that of people in developing nations. 59% of Americans said religion was very important to them, about twice that of Canada, Japan or western European nations.
The project will measure a number of areas including the September 11 terrorist attacks on the attitudes of people worldwide.
>From my perspective, we, the US, gaze out upon the other nations of the world, hoping for changes in their attitudes. Like the “Emperor with no clothes,” we fail to devine that, we ourselves have room for improvement. When the terrorist attacks, the ongoing war in the middle east, and the dozens of armed conflicts, wars, civil wars and skirmishes that are always going on around the world are fueled and flamed by the intolerance, tribalism and mysticism of the worlds’ religions, I would hope future surveys would show us moving away from such mystical thinking and toward secularism, humanism, science and rationality. For the fault, dear brothers, is not in our stars, but in ourselves as well.
Chris Volkay, December 26, 2002Comments
This might be good for what's new:
Mother Teresa
It has been announced that Mother Teresa has moved one step closer to sainthood. She has had one of her alleged healings certified as a “miracle” and now needs only one more to officially become a saint. Gee, do you think they’ll be able to find another “miracle” out there somewhere?
What was done to empower and educate her parishioners? To get them on their feet? Nothing. They were kept weak, ignorant and needy. But keeping people needy is the business of all of these churches, so why be surprised? It’s good for business.
Selfless, self-sacrifice? Please tell me you’re joking. Are these saints or would be saints really “sacrificing” or are they simply racking up points in the big God, eternity sweepstakes? To religious mind the 70 or 80 years here on this Earth is chickenfeed. They’re angling for all of eternity, the big enchilada, at least, this is their belief. They’ll get to sit at God’s right hand and break bread with him for all of eternity. Of course, this is all nonsense, but not to the would be saint.
Oh and by the way, doctors in the area say they treated the “healed” woman with medicine and that the miracle claims are false. Do you think it will matter?
Chris Volkay, December 26, 2002Comments
This is a shocking idea but if you consider and research it a little you will see that is is imperative for Humanists !
We must began to campaign for world reform of the calendar. The primitive calendar now in use by the "modern" world is actually a religious calendar issued by the Roman Catholic Pope Gregory.
A scientific and secular calendar is needed by the world and once established will provide great benefits to all people.
Search library data bases and the web and you will find much work by many people on advocacy for calendar reform.
Please pass this on to responsible officers of your organization for their information.
Thank you.
Eric Dailey, December 20, 2002Comments
You ARE a religion, and you will soon be exposed as such. The fact that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on your state of belief should bring you no comfort. There is no more proof that evolution is real than any other religion...if you believe it, you must take it on faith. I have seen the end, for it is written,...Christ wins! You may control society now, but Christ is coming, like a thief, and your reign is soon to end. REPENT NOW.
Name not given, December 17, 2002Comments
I was just reading "A Declaration of Women's Rights in Islamic Societies" and what comes to mind is that so many women all over the world are the victims of what I call the four Ps of women's oppression and brainwashing: "Perverse, Pernicious, Patriarchal Propaganda."
Christy, December 13, 2002
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