Skip to main content

Inspired by "Is religion a force for good in the world?" - the debates with Christopher Hitchens

Let's compare general religious tenets with general humanistic tenets: I assert that to be a good humanist you must follow the rules.  To be a good religious person you must break the rules.

Religious:                                            Humanistic:
love thy neighbor                                 love thy neighbor
do good works                                     do good works
live according to the scriptures            live according to what can be drawn from evidence (science)
try to follow the dictates of god           try to figure out the best dictates for existence

A "good" religious person (by today's standards) must give up some of the dogma and retain the moderate tenets .  Indeed, fundamentalist following of  the most barbaric demands of scriptures is discarded by most modern believers.  A "bad" religious person follows those tenets.  Even the Westboro Baptist Church leaders rationalize why they don't follow all of Leviticus and only focus on the anti-gay verses.

 (I saw an explanation from an adherent of the WBC claim that those parts of Leviticus that forbad wearing clothing made from two different cloths, or stoning your neighbor if he worked on the Sabbath, etc. were rules pertinent to the times rather than laws of faith.  I wonder when the times changed.  No one that I know of ever said god made it known.  Did it happen on Oct. 4, 1103, or July 22, 671?  When I was a child, I was told that eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin, punishable by eternity in hell.  Then came the Vatican Council II of the 1960's.  I believe it was when I was in 7th or 8th grade at St. Bernadette's Catholic school that eternal damnation was removed from that equation. In fact, it was no longer even a venial (lesser) sin).  

So, fundamentalists must figure out ways to reinterpret the "divinely inspired" verses that are completely out of place in today's world, rather than letting them go.

A "good" humanist can have beliefs.  For example, I believe that it is better for the economy of a nation to have 40,000 millionaires rather than 1 person with $40 billion.  It is rather difficult and subjective to prove that, thus it is a belief and not a scientific truth.  If an economist were to demonstrate to me that I am wrong, then I should change my belief. 

One of my newly favorite aphorisms is this:  When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest.  A good humanist is one who follows the tenets of humanism.  A "bad" one is one who doesn't, precisely because one of the principle tenets is that a belief should be amended or discarded when evidence shows it to be wrong.

It seems that religious people are free to go either way.

- PeteBarkett.blogspot.com
07/15/18

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to End Gridlock in Washington, DC

How to End Gridlock in Washington, DC      I'm calling on all Democrats to end the gridlock in Congress.  The plan is theoretically simple, perhaps a bit more difficult to achieve.  Here's what you do:  register to vote as a Republican.  "Are you crazy?," you say.  Let me explain.      I first conceived of this idea after the umpteenth election where a Democrat led in the polls, then was defeated handily in the election, due to voter suppression, redistricting, racial and political gerrymandering, and blatantly biased election laws, not to dismiss the possibility of tampering with unaccountable and hackable voting machines.  I thought that if Black, Latino, Asian and other minority voters registered as Republicans, it might make it more difficult to unethically suppress their ability to vote.      But then, thinking back to the days of Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats who beginning around ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Let's Play Spy Games

Let's Play Spy Games      We've recently learned that a US asset inside the Kremlin had to leave Russia and come to live in the US.   This started me thinking in the most simplistic terms about international intelligence activities.   Of course, I have no credentials in this area, so this is just the speculation of a curious citizen.      We know that Vladimir Putin was formerly head of the KGB, one of the main intelligence agencies of the former Soviet Union.   As such, I would be surprised if he did not surveil everyone in his administration.   I'm guessing that this would entail giving false information to select people, then seeing if any of that info later turned up in some other countries' news, thus pointing directly to a particular person in his confidence.        Of course, US intelligence agencies are aware of this type of play, and have ways of countering it, or using it to our adva...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Coronavirus

On Coronavirus   On July 28th, in his corona virus update, President Trump said that there are large areas of the country that are free from the virus.   He was immediately attacked for that statement.   That attack was unfair because, contrary to his normal struggles with integrity, in this case he was exactly correct.   Three undeniable examples confirm this.   Firs29t, take deserts for example.   The high deserts of the northwest states combine with the Mojave, the Sonoran, and the other southwest deserts to comprise an area of 200,000 - 300,000 square miles which are almost completely plague free.     Add in Alaska, almost all of which is covid free, and which is nearly one third the size of the contiguous states and you have an extremely large area.   Second, lakes.   The Great Salt Lake is great.   Don't forget Lake Tahoe, a million lakes in Minnesota, and the Everglades and other swamps.   Then there are the ...
Post a Comment
Read more