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

 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see conces...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Post a Comment
Read more