Letter to a Christian Nation
By Ryan

It seems that the evangelicals' hatred of the ideas of equality and egalitarianism is born out of religious convictions. I thought it appropriate to discuss those convictions in this topic, for the benefit of everyone. Everyone is welcome to comment.

1. Christians claim that their god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, and that despite the requirement of this belief that he preside in the energy that produces every atom of every object and process in the universe, he is never considered responsible for evil. Interestingly, though he is considered the creator of everything and possesses control over everything--including all evil acts and people--he is still not claimed to be evil. As the Greek philosopher Epicurus wrote in consideration of this contradiction:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

2. According to Christian belief, even though their one god is acknowledged as the only entity that allows each individual life and appoints the time for each person's death, abortion, suicide and murder are considered sins generated by people alone. These acts are attributed to a free will, thereby freeing their one god from all responsibility.

3. Despite all the processes and the resulting objects of the universe--including human life--being initiated, controlled, maintained and ended by the direction of one all-powerful, universally-present and all-knowing god who exists outside of time and is claimed by believers to see all events in time, human beings are said to have free will. How can humans truly have a "free" will devoid of all influences of such a god if they must exist within a world controlled by the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology--all of which he is supposed to have created and without his constant presence and maintenance would not exist? It is a contradiction of belief. If such a deity exists as most Christians understand it, then all aspects of birth, life and death are determined and free will does not exist.

4. Because each of our lives would have to be predetermined by this god, all sin would be predetermined and done through this god's rules, essence and direction--the same way as all events in the universe are described by Christian belief.

5. If this reality and the unchangeable processes of nature were not created and maintained by this god, then this god must operate within these rules and would therefore not be omnipotent as claimed by the Christian religion. If a god is responsible for this, then there can be no free will.

6. If this god were not able to see the future or the choices of every human being before their births, then he would not be omniscient.

7. If this god does not exist all places throughout all time, but only exists at different points along the span of time--no matter how complicated or numerous the arrangement of points--then he would not be omnipresent.

8. If this god were omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, being all that we are composed of; creating and controlling all the rules we must follow; thus, not only allowing all which is considered "evil" but also actively participating though these powers and influences throughout all of time--and yet still sent people to suffer for eternity in hell for the lives he chose to give them against their will, indeed without allowing them a will--then this god is malevolent and cannot be a god of mercy or love.

9. If this god is not all-knowing, not all-powerful and not ever-present, then why is he called "god" and given the above titles? This is not truth.

10. The Christian god is also said to act through humans, though throughout time people have done things that oppose supposedly god-directed acts of other followers. Whether or not an action may be considered "righteous" depends on the reviewer's position in society, history and culture. Either the Christian god is fickle, or his followers are acting on their own beliefs and whims without supernatural guidance. If god is only attributed to some of these acts and proclamations and not others, then one must ask who has decided what was god's will and what was the will of a human? No matter what situation is considered from the Christian perspective, it will always yield a completely subjective conclusion.

11. If the "road to hell is wide and the gate to heaven narrow," implying that the majority of people will go to hell; and, all unborn children are indeed innocent, then a merciful Christian should prevent the eternal torture of vast numbers of souls by encouraging abortion--thus preventing that which Christians perceive as a soul from the overwhelming likelihood of going to hell after death. In other words, the possible life gets a "free ticket" to a glorious paradise where this soul would worship the Judeo-Christian god for all eternity instead of chancing the likely afterlife of eternal torture to his supposed displeasure!

12. However, if life is defined as beginning before birth, then all aborted fetuses possess sin and must end up in hell, as "all have sinned." All miscarriages and accidental in utereo deaths attributed to god-controlled and directed natural processes must necessarily end in eternal suffering as well. It is argued by some theologians that these souls would be offered a fair choice between serving god or denying god, though there is no biblical evidence supporting this--it is a manufactured story to explain the curious lackings of manufactured strories. If either point were true, then the Christian god would be niether merciful nor honest.

13. As follows, if such a god truly prescribes all life and all death, and all that exists is composed of his direction, then he is responsible for all life and all death--including abortion. If he holds total control and participation in the universe as required by Christian belief, then a soul's eternity would be his predetermined will as well. If we are to declare that this particular death was the will of god, but this other death went against his will, then he is either chaotically malevolent or he is not omnipotent.

14. In the Roman-assembled, oft-disputed, and heavily-translated text we call the bible--a collection of books that were not written until after all characters had been dead for quite some time and placed together in one text much later--we are told that "all have sinned" and that "all sins are equal in the eyes of god." This implies that no children are innocent to the Judeo-Christian god; and, that if abortion is a sin, then it is equal to lying which is equal to looking a woman with lustful thoughts which is equal to using the Christian god's name in vain, which is equal to planting two different crops in the same field, etc.... The emphasis of concern which Christians place on this act or that act is not biblical, but entirely subjective to their denomination's doctrine and/or culture. Either the great majority of Christians are hypocrites, the bible is contradictory, god is far more sadistic and cruel than often imagined, or the various books of what we call the bible are flawed replicas of the original manuscripts if such manuscripts ever existed.

15. Though often used to make the concept of war acceptable to Christians, Jesus is provinding an answer to the question of taxes when he states "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's," and all other inferences are drawn from culturally and selfishly conjured conclusions about the meaning of that statement. It is notable that most politically-conservative Christians are more vocally upset about the act of paying taxes (which is never defined as sin in the bible) than they are about the act of killing (killling of actual people, not imagined). The act of killing--according to the supposed account of the teachings of Jesus--is defined as a sin no matter what the circumstances may be. Therefore, most Christians have contradictory beliefs that result in a hypocrisy that has continued to allow terrible violence--or god's will is different from his rules forcing humans to fail and suffer, and he is sadistic. It's a good thing killing is equal to lying, is equal to...etc.

16. Let us also note that taxes gathered during the time of Jesus were primarily used to preserve and increase the size of the Roman Empire through violence. Universal health care, support for the impoverished, universal education and other social support systems benefiting all members of a society were either nonexistent or of very low importance. Large armies and luxuries for the richest members of society were the primary uses of tax revenue.

17. Since the bible used by western churches tells us to give to the poor, to not kill and to help each other, it is another example of hypocrisy by politically-conservative Christians that they primarily support tax revenues to be used for purposes similar to those of the Roman Empire, while simultaneously opposing the use of tax dollars for obviously Christian purposes such as health care, social security and education. It's funny how the very things which would make a society more conducive to rearing children are also the very things opposed by those who claim to care the most.

18. In any event, if Jesus did separate the practices of a Christian life from the acts and requirements of governments, then political action by Christians is in contradiction to the supposed teachings of Jesus.

19. Jesus also is supposed to have declared that: "Who of you is without sin may cast the first stone." And, "Do not judge, lest you yourselves be judged." Though free will cannot exist and all sinful acts must be predetermined under an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god, if a free will were somehow allowed to exist within Christian doctrine the choice of whether to commit sin or not must be freely allowed so that each person can make a personal choice to follow Christ or not. These choices must not be restricted by laws or penalties so that people can exercise there supposedly god-given free will. If this is not so, then the choice to not sin is not a choice made of one's free will, or god does not allow free will, or Christianity's understanding of Jesus' teachings are flawed--or simply ignored.

20. History as the western world accepts it--most of which being recorded by Christian people, it should be noted--shows us that various forms of the Christian faith have vigorously resisted science. Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means--"the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"--which is what separates it from faith, therefore appearing to the faithful to be at opposition with most religion.

21. The achievements of science in biology, medicine, chemistry, engineering and physics have increased the availability of food, have reduced disease and increased longevity, prevented disasters and plagues, and have led to a world with far fewer hardships.

22. The achievements of science have also led to terrible weapons of war and methods for environmental destruction. Science has also collectively worked to reduce these risks to humanity.

23. Christianity has historically opposed things accepted by science, such as the idea that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that disease and debilitating conditions are not the result of some penance the afflicted must pay for their sins but simply natural processes that affect both those people considered pious and those considered sinners. However, Christianity has at times embraced monarchy, tyranny, genocide, the use of weapons of mass destruction and the death penalty.

24. Science strives to be neutral in its value judgments, and creates things that fall along the entire spectrum of what we consider good and evil, leaving people to decide what to do with its discoveries. In western culture, primarily Christian societies have applied these discoveries to increase and to decrease suffering. Since the goal of science is the acquisition of further knowledge through the application of current knowledge by human reason and mathematical logic, it is not a process of faith.

25. Faith is the absolute belief in things which cannot be tested or observed; and, when things previously attributed to the magical forces of a god become testable or observable, then a crisis has always inevitably erupted within Christian thought. When intelligent people within the Christian faith finally realize that a new discovery is indeed irrefutable, religion begins to accept that discovery and incorporates it into belief. This often occurs after many years of protest and opposition.

26. Science has been described by many Christians as being anti-Christian, however the goal of science is to develop knowledge and then test that knowledge. Through previously discovered laws of the universe (claimed to be established by the Judeo-Christian god), science has repeatedly tested the theory of evolution and as more information is gathered this theory has been amended and has become more sound. Unlike the idea of creationism, the theory of evolution was developed after evidence was gathered and ideas tested. Creationism, on the other hand, is an idea that was developed on faith before any investigation had taken place; and, as expected, it has had to repeatedly concede previous assertions to irrefutable fact. Much like previously accepted ideas of Christianity (such as the placement of the earth at the center of a static universe) evolution will likely be embraced and accepted by Christianity after much opposition. Conservative Christians often mock the term "theory" failing to understand what the word means within the scientific community; yet no credible Christian opposition has been mounted against the "theory of gravity." Evolution is only a point of contention because--like the archaic ideas concerning the structure of the universe--it conflicts with current interpretations of the Roman bible. Scientists who research evolution do not try to disprove creationism; on the contrary, they try to develop a greater understanding of natural processes using natural mechanisms. If the Christian god is to be considered responsible for all natural mechanisms and physical processes, then the choice to deny knowledge developed though the observation of these mechanisms and processes is to deny the attributed powers and influence of god. Of course, accepting them means that those who fabriacated the ideas in the bible were wrong.

27. Ignorance is defined by one's refusal to recognize something obvious--to intentionally disregard fact when presented with overwhelming evidence. Since the bible directs the faithful to question their beliefs, Christians should closely examine the arguments made against their doctrines before becoming angry and refusing to listen to the challenges of reason. If the Christian tradition as Christians have been told to understand it is what they believe it to be, then thorough scientific examination should strengthen their faith. However, it is more likely that actually taking the mental effort to fully examine their beliefs in an honest attempt to disprove themselves would likely lead them to a different view of their role in life and the universe. The bible does not demand ignorance (most of the time); rather it supposedly requires the opposite. Despite this, ignorance is proudly practiced by the Christian religions most vocal supporters who mistake it for "steadfast faith." "Steadfast faith" (ignorance) allows Christians to hold and promote contradictory beliefs and values.

28. When an act of prayer is considered to be answered, Christians consider this the miraculous influence of their god. However, when a prayer seems to be left unanswered and hardship, disease or death befalls the object of the prayer, then it is excused as being "god's will." Studies have shown that people who do not pray have the same chances of surviving or succumbing to disease as those who do pray. If there is a god that operates as Christianity believes, then his will is fulfilled regardless of prayer, or he provides no greater benefit for the faithful, or (most likely) he does not exist.

28. When good and bad things happen to the "faithful," Christians describe the events as prayers being answered or god's will being done, respectively (for Christians cannot declare god to be malevolent). When good and bad things happen to people who do not pray or who have no faith, we call these fates "coincidence." When good and bad things happen in equal ratios to both Christians and non-Christians, Christians call this "coincidence." Coincidence as it applies to this argument is defined as: "A remarkable occurrence of events, ideas, etc., at the same time or in the same way, apparently by mere accident."

29. If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god of good controls all processes of the universe exists as Christians describe, then nothing happens by accident and there is no such thing as coincidence. Therefore, either prayers have no influence on god's will and the many authors of the bible were wrong, or there is no god as described in Judeo-Christian belief.

30. Theists argue that if there is no god (as they explain a god), then what holds society together? What is stopping us from doing whatever we please if there are no penalties for our actions? And, where does a conscience come from? It is excellent that these questions are raised, because all have answers that must be understood in order for people to make choices that produce a sustainable, peaceful and mutually-beneficial society--which was the original intent of the development of religion in ancient societies.

31. Like other social animals, humans require social structures, collected knowledge and cooperation to live. Even those who have exemplified "rugged individualism" required the technology and knowledge others had assembled before them. Rugged individualism alone, however, cannot implement those technologies and distribute that knowledge on a level which benefits human society. Our collective survival and comfort through civilization have always prevailed over the alternative of "every man for himself," and various political systems have been established, fallen, reestablished and amended in the progression of history to address the basic needs of humans (including food, shelter, protection and social interaction). This is an important point, because conservative Christians champion rugged individualism over the ideals of collective support and cooperation--though the authors of the gospels tell us that Jesus promoted the latter and not the former.

32. One cannot be both politically conservative and a Christian if one is not willing to hold contradictory beliefs and therefore make themselves a hypocrite. Promoting universal and democratic freedom could be considered a Christian virtue if other biblical contradictions did not exist, since Jesus is said to have instructed his followers to not control the actions of others--including actions which directly threaten their lives--but to try instead to persuade others through disseminating his message of love, cooperation, tolerance and peace. Certainly, the repeated actions of conservative Christians to increase military and police power, promote war and the death penalty, and to push for legislation restricting the personal actions of others (all things which restrict individual freedom) are not actions which fulfill these instructions. Simultaneously, conservative Christians oppose universal health care, social security, accessible education, and exhaustive diplomacy before military action--objections which have no foundations in the teachings of Christianity.

33. When approached with such questions, conservative "Christians" argue that a society must defend itself; that their wealth should benefit only themselves or only those they choose to benefit. They also argue that the personal actions of others (actions done only by willing and supposedly free-choosing participants--alternatively, actions which must be predetermined by a god if he is as Christians describe him) must be controlled because they conflict with these "Christians'" conservative and contradictory values. In doing so, conservative Christians fail to follow their own beliefs, and become examples of both the rich man who would not distribute his wealth to follow the path of Jesus, and the Pharisees who condemned and persecuted all who did not accept the values they interpreted as being god-given.

34. Monarchy is the only system of government promoted by the bible, and historically monarchs have been considered by Christians to be granted power by their god thereby legitimizing their governance. This belief in god-given rule readily extended to heinous and sadistic tyrants who, like todays conservative Christians, promoted and enacted policies under the banner of their god's will--policies and practices which either had no basis in biblical teaching, and/or which directly profaned the biblical necessity (though impossibility) of the exercise of free will.

35. Freedom and democracy are human-developed ideas that oppose the biblical concept of monarchy. Literalist Christians cannot promote both democratic freedom and literal biblical teachings without contradicting their beliefs. If the argument is made that due to the corruption of monarchs, god intervened by providing an alternative system of government, and--of course--no biblical support for such an argument exists. This argument is also subjective to interpretation, and could be used to support Nazism and Stalinism since no biblical support exists for either of those systems and all forms of government--including various theocracies--violate different tenants of Christian teaching.

36. If the statement, "all things are possible with god" is true, then it must be possible that god is evil, a liar, a homosexual, a flying spaghetti monster, etc. etc., or nonexistent. If this statement were true, it would also be possible that sin is good and righteousness evil, and/or penalties in the afterlife could be arbitrarily dealt to the deceased regardless of their faith or actions. It would also be possible that this reality could be heaven or hell, or that there is no heaven or hell. If it is impossible for god to be or do any of those things, then all things are not possible with god, and such a god must exist within a set of rules that supersede him, or the statement is false, or god does not exist at all.

37. If the statement, "all things are possible with god" concerns humans in relation to god and not god himself, then sin and evil could be rewarded and righteousness punished. Indeed, anything that is considered the opposite of Christian belief could be true. If these things were not possible, then all things are not possible with god, and such a god must exist within a set of rules that supersede him invalidating the Christian belief in god's omnipotence, or the statement is false invalidating the Christian belief in god's omnipotence, or god does not exist at all.

38. All human actions are selfish actions--actions that place the the self above all else--including those labeled as being altruistic, or selfless. When a person appears to place the concerns of others before their own, it is because of personal values concerning what they want their world to be. If someone sells all their belongings and distributes resulting money to the poor, that person is doing so to make their world a better place according to their convictions. Accordingly, a world where all people are provided food and shelter is not only a better world for the less-fortunate, but also a better world for those who strive for such a community of humankind. Concretely, suffering, crime and hatred are reduced when people are fed, sheltered and happy, thus the byproducts of achieving the goals of such philosophies benefit everyone in that society. Allowing a few to live in gross luxery while others struggle to meet basic needs leads to conflict, crime and hatred and never benefits a society; indeed, the concentration and pursuit of individual wealth is the worlds greatest cause of violence and suffering. Religion--often intertwined with the pursuit of wealth--is the second greatest.

39. Though there are people in each congregation that must struggle to properly clothe and feed themselves and their children, and cannot afford to maintain their less-than-modest vehicles if they even own one, almost all pastors live in well-kept houses and have little trouble eating what they please, buying new suits and driving reliable vehicles. Though these poor members often work 40 hours a week or more and still fight to make ends meet, they are asked to contribute money to their beautiful churches and the coffers of their preachers each Sunday while the clergy need only to speak two days a week from a stage and give a few consultations in offices that offer more comforts than the homes of some members of their churches. This is an injustice and hypocrisy at its worst and most apparent.

I guess when you have plenty of money and nothing to do, you have to create fanciful problems to pass the time, like *gasp* the "dangers of gay marriage" or "the genocide of clumps of dividing cells" or "we're not using limited resources fast enough," and so forth. I guess if the religious zealots achieve their sadistic goals, a lot more money will be coming into the churches. "How's this," you may ask? Let's look at the anti-choice movement, for example. Since social support systems like health care and education won't be properly funded, and since it's far more difficult to raise an unplanned, unwanted child if you're working for the average pay of a young woman and unable to go to school without shelling out more, a society which prevents women control over their own lives and bodies would lead to increased church attendence and revenue. People are moved to desparate measures when you purposely leave them no where else to turn.

Our opponents don't hide their true intentions very well. It is obvious the anti-choice movement, the homophobia movement, the anti-rational creationist movement and other related campaigns desire one thing: theocracy. A world governed by contradictory requirements and interpretations of a religion that has no relevance to contemporary civilization other than as a peculiar anachronism of less-enlightened periods of human history. Our fight in my state of South Dakota is more than a fight to preserve an embattled but comparatively-fairer status quo--our fight is one to preserve freedom and democracy. In a theocracy such as the ultimate goal of the evangelical Christian movment, there are two entities that hang from the cross: liberty and humanity, each from a respective rope looped about their necks. And that, my friends, is a world I wish to prevent.

Dear Believer, I know that you are just a tool of those who indoctrinate others to attain their personal goals. Like any follower of a cult, be it the Branch Davidians, Al-Qaeda, Baptists, Aryan Nations or the Weslyans, you're a foot soldier who blindly follows his programming. I don't blame you, but people like you must someday recognize what is being done to you.

Once that happens we as a society can again begin moving forward towards a brighter world.

Note: This is aimed at the general idea of an afterlife, focusing most specifically on heaven, and is not a general attack on any other aspect of religion. Nonetheless I hope it fits the category:

~

Generally speaking, no one desires death; we all wish to prolong our lives and avoid death at all costs. Even the most depressed and hopeless among us would still flinch with fear if faced with sudden death. Surely, part of it is instinctive: a morbid and perpetual fear of dying (or, inversely, a perpetual yearning for continued life) is essential to a species' survival. We have an ever-present libido for life that runs through the entirety of our being, just as all creatures do.

Human beings, however, have an added psychological burden when it comes to our fear of death. We do not, like 'lesser' creatures, have a mindless adherence to preservation that is entirely detached from any emotional subtext. We do not fear death strictly based on instructions in our DNA. Rather, we have strong emotional attachments to our own existence that make the concept of death haunt us more so than it could ever haunt the mosquito or the worm. We are the only beings on this planet that have the ability to fully contemplate death.

This may seem like an unfair burden for us. The gift of our sentience and intelligence is countered by the curse of understanding the inevitability of our own demise. But wait--not so fast! We are also gifted with imagination, and using our imaginations we humans have more or less successfully remedied the problem of death.

How? Well, we've outright done away with it, of course! We've convinced ourselves that death is not, contrary to its logical implications, an end to anything, but merely a transition into something else, something better.

How's a first-class ticket to a shiny kingdom of ethereal towers, majestic landscapes, and neverendingly blissful delights sound? And, as an added bonus, once you get there you'll be reunited with all the loved ones who died while you were still in the dreary realm of the living, and, to top it all off, you'll be permitted to stay for an eternity.

Yes, I'm referring of course to that strange fairytale concept of Heaven (in its various flavors), where the majority of the world's population expect to be heading to once they complete their century or so 'warm-up' here on Earth.

We have, through our superstitious religions, remedied the fear of death by eliminating its finality. We have made ourselves, in our own minds, out to be immortal. And those who do not exactly subscribe to the more absurd notion of a heavenly kingdom still have some vague idea that there will be some sort of 'afterlife', some sort of continued existence beyond the decay of our brains, beyond the shriveling up those neurons that help make us who we are. People less dogmatic in their religious upbringings still ponder on the great 'mystery' of the afterlife. What will it be like? Will we be reincarnated? Will we become roaming ghosts? Will we enter another dimension of existence, reach a higher plain?

I am sorry to inform the deluded, but there is no great mystery at the end, unless the conclusion to this particular mystery novel ends with a blank page.

For that is precisely what death is: a blank page, an end to existence. Our personalities, our memories, our thoughts, our sentience, are all the products of the amazingly complex biological structure of our brains. Like information developed and stored on a hard-drive, the information that makes up who we are is purely physical. The bits on a hard drive do not transcend the physical structure of the drive, no matter how complex they are. Symphonies, movies, games, incredible 3-D imagery--all is purely physical information within the drive. There is nothing supernatural or transcendental about it. And just as when a hard-drive is incinerated, the information in our brains, upon its disintegration, is lost. Forever. It can not be recovered. It does not evaporate into some invisible essence called a 'soul'. It simply ceases to exist. That may sound depressing, but I assure you, it's only depressing in foresight. You won't have much to sweat when it actually happens.

Nonexistence, nonetheless, is a difficult concept to swallow. Just try to envision nonexistence. Contemplate it deeply.

It's difficult, isn't it? Anything that we perceive lies within the context of existence. The very act of trying to perceive nothingness depends on us being something (for the moment at least). The closest one may come is to envision total and absolute darkness, a complete vacuum. But even this seems unreliable. Is darkness not a product of perception, which is a product of existence? So darkness or blackness does not suffice. Nothingness goes beyond that. We have always, as far as we have existed, existed. We have never directly experienced nonexistence, of course. So to ponder nonexistence, to me, is futile.

But that does not make the concept invalid as a fact of what will occur at the point of death. The fact is, of course, that for the majority (the great, vast, overwhelmingly monolithic majority) of time, we did not exist. A typical lifespan does not even register as a blip on Time's vast radar. We were not experiencing nonexistence, because 'we' did not exist yet, but nonetheless, there was no us.

So while it is difficult to comprehend, it is clearly logical that when we die, a state of nonexistence will be returned to. Why all the calamity over this fact? Some may feel that without an eternal afterlife, our lives as they stand become meaningless. Futile, even. But that is absurd. What we do in our lives is made no more meaningless by the fact that it will one day end than a symphony or a novel is made meaningless by the fact that they both come to an end as well. If anything, life being temporary and fleeting should only improve our enjoyment of it, making it more precious to us and each moment more profound.

Just think: a billion billion individuals who could have been, weren't. We are of the privileged few gifted with the opportunity to experience existence in the Cosmos. We are at the recent end of a four-billion-year-long chain of very lucky survivors in the evolutionary battlefield. Only because trillions of creatures before us, be they our primate ancestors, or going further back, microscopic entities swimming around in some kind of 'primordial soup', all survived in the exact manner that they did, and in the exact order that they did, do we exist as we now do.

How is this fact not more riveting than some fanciful idea of a spiritual playground where angels sing while we sit around playing chess with our dead relatives for all time? Is it truly worth sacrificing a realistic perspective for a bit of extra comfort?

A Humanist Treatise

On a Fourth of July, shortly after the turn of a new millennium, I sat amongst friends of past present and future, sipping domestic beer on the deck of an enduring summer cottage. I broodingly gazed over the Russian River, shaded beneath stately Redwoods. She was steady in her current; placid brown water stood in high contrast to gull grey pebbles littering her shore. The summer cottages lining her path through the valley stood as a testament to the deep rooted connection we have to bodies of water; we gravitate to them as if to pay homage to our home of antiquity, the mother which gave birth to all life on this planet. Before the debated topics turned to Harold and Maude and existentialist philosophy, our host felt it fitting to allow us to engage each other in a lighthearted discourse, putting forth the question, “If you could be any animal, what would you be?” Around the table, we introduced ourselves and described what animal we would choose. In turn I stated, “A human.” Most took this as imaginative way to evade the question. However our host, nodding in acceptance, stated, “Yes, yes, humans have it going on.” I couldn't imagine being anything less, for a human may push all envelopes, shatter all barriers, travel faster over land, dive deeper in any ocean, fly higher, further than any other animal, breaking the strong bonds of gravity, traveling through the vast inert vacuum of space to set forth on a foreign celestial body. We are truly free. Humans, of all the species on Earth, may one day break the chain of extinction and bring unity to the order of the universe. Shall we embrace our destiny and realize our common bonds, the universal truths that transcend all perceived divisions, to reach our full potential? Or shall we follow the pattern of virtually every species that has risen from the non-random natural order and end in extinction? The choice is ours, which of itself makes us the most unique and complex species ever to exist.

The quarrel of this treatise will be to adopt a Secular Humanistic construct, to cultivate and implement unifying philosophical principals, the most significant pertaining to the human condition. The dissertation will deal with Humanistic belief in the temporal realm; a call for unity through the core Secular Humanistic principles of science, reason, and freedom of thought in the unending quest for truth.

Before the definition of Secular Humanism can be discerned, it is imperative that one bears in mind the relationship between belief and non-belief. One does not define oneself through non-belief, as a Protestant Christian does not define their belief structure as non-Catholic. It is also imperative that one fully comprehend the definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and secularism, for it is a common mistake to give these terms sectarian characteristics, mischaracterizing Secular Humanism in relation. Atheism is the antithesis of theism, and addresses faith. An atheist simply denies faith in a deity. Atheism is neither a religion nor a belief. Agnosticism is the antithesis of Gnosticism, and addresses knowledge; an agnostic simply denies knowledge of a deity. Secularism, simply translated, means apart from the church or sect; a secularist is simply one who is not associated with a particular religious sect. Contrary to a common misconception, secular individuals or Humanists may fall into any of the three spheres as depicted in figure 1.

Figure 1 > Drawn 25 Oct 2006.

A Call for Secular Humanism
Secular Humanism is Humanism apart from the sectarian concept of religion, entirely outside the theistic realm. It is people united in the service of humanity. Secular Humanism offers a way to unite humanity in our universal commonalities, the tenants of which include: a commitment to “the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems” (FI, 2). Secular Humanism is a “realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence [and puts] reason [before] blind faith and irrationality” (FI, 2). If we are to fully grasp the totality of human existence and the ultimate meaning within the human condition, it will be necessary to abandon our dogmatic divisive ways, and realize our potential destined unity.

Secular Humanism deals with the temporal concepts of universal morality and human empathy. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor for Science and Understanding at Oxford University, claims there is a definite biological or Darwinian explanation for our morality. At some point in our evolution, natural selection favored socially altruistic behavior. Richard Dawkins stated in conversation with Roy Eisenhardt at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater in San Francisco, that our universal morality would be “the morality one uses to cherry pick the moral truths in holy text as opposed to the morality contained in the holy text”.

It is revealed in the anthropological study of human cultures, that our core commonalities are indeed far greater than our differences, and universal human truths do indeed transcend division. Examples can be found in the shared characteristics of mythological savior figures, or of the universal common morality contained in mythologies between cultures. Brian Flemming interviewed Allen Dundes, Professor of Folklore and Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, in his movie, The God Who Wasn't There. Dundes compared various savior figures from cultures, such as Mithras, Dionysus, and Jesus, using Lord Raglan's 22-point scale from his book The Hero. He ranked the similar divine attributions such as resurrection, ascension, and so forth, of each figure in relation to the scale. Jesus came back with an astonishing 80%.

Reflections of Belief
One cannot date the first moment of deep human introspection. It is undeniable that a great deal of self reflection occurred in the golden age of Greek philosophy, and it is perhaps in this time that we can truly begin to see the emergence of significant modern human philosophical beliefs. It is also in this time that we can see the emergence of disbelief, and it is in this that we shall delve, in order to focus the looking glass on the origins of modern Secular Humanism. The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) set the stage for disbelief with his iron clad logical argument,
If [God] wants to [eliminate evil] and cannot, he is weak. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. -Epicurus (97).

The Deists were perhaps the first secularists, in the colloquial sense. They arose out of the Zeitgeist of the Age of Enlightenment, and chose to break from organized religion all together. Undoubtedly this break was related to the timely Reformation. Deism dealt with the transcendent humanistic commonalties amongst all religions, cutting out all of the dogma.

In the spirit of the deists, Secular Humanists deal with transcendent humanistic commonalities, but do so in relation to the natural world, not only eliminating dogma, but contesting metaphysical belief without basis.

The Architecture of Life: the Laws of the Natural World
Richard Dawkins states “life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators” (World of Dawkins). The archetype, or model of life, would be the replicator; the first self replicating, nucleic acid based model, which gave rise to DNA. Our DNA created us as highly advanced vessels of replication, not by chance. “We, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene 1).

Essentially, living organisms are a collection of “survival machines” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene 21) for their genes. Evolution is, put simply, the way in which genes create variations, many of which will inevitably lead to speciation, or the creation of new species. The variance of gene survival in a pool will lead to gradual mutation, as in the classic Darwinian model of Gradualism, favoring those more fit for survival within an environment. By this means of natural selection, a flower that is more beautiful to an insect will be more likely to have its pollen dispersed by the insect; nature will prefer the genetic variation that created the more attractive flower. Speciation will also be affected by geographic isolation, which will cause or allow for divergence, as in the model of Punctuated Equilibrium. In this model, there can be concentrated outbursts of species. At some point a species will reach equilibrium and remain fairly stable for a period of time, yielding to gradualism.

Technology, in my opinion, is an extension of human evolution. Technology has given us the ability to speed furiously over flats of salt at velocities sound itself could not capture, wings to sore the upper limits of the troposphere, and propulsion to break gravity and venture into the ethereal unknown reaches of our solar system. Technology is evolved in relation to humanity as the avian wing to the bird.

Existentialist philosophers often times refer to “The Will”. In this sense, one could say life is the result of the Will of the universe. But what is driving the Will? Life, in all its complexity, did not occur by accident or random chance, but arose out of inevitability. One may say life’s governance is the natural law; at the core of which is unity. To understand this unity, one must delve into the nature of the physical world.

Unity: the Laws of the Physical World
Newton did not explain why celestial bodies gravitate to one another; he did however develop with absolute precision, the mathematical relationships of gravitating bodies in his grand work, Principia. Newton is the father of classical physics. Although Einstein also did not fully explain gravitation through his general theory of relativity, he laid a framework for modern physics. Quantum mechanics seeks to explain the atomic and subatomic framework to understand the nature of the material world. It is the mathematical basis for general studies within physics. Unified field theory attempts to create mathematic formulations within unified frameworks. This culminates into a grand theory of particle field interactions as a result of a single unified interaction. A Grand Unified Field would explain two particles observed, reacting to each other at such proximity that constrained by the limitations of the speed of light, could only react simultaneously and in such a way if there was a grand unifying field between them, beyond their independent fields. Matter will react with matter based on its particular atomic field, which is based on the reaction of a unifying field between the two atomic fields in this model.

We have, in the last century, made incredible scientific advances, expanding on classical Newtonian physics to reveal the governing mathematical frame of the universe. Our natural world is the inevitable result of variation within this mathematical frame, of which the resulting outcome, though nearly infinitely variable, is the absolute inevitable result of mathematically provable material laws. There is a universal architecture in place that can explain the emergence of life, and do so with extraordinary precision.

The Living Social Order
Sociobiology seeks to explain species behavior through evolution. A study of feral children (Wild Child) shows that by age 5, if speech is not learned, the brain will never be able to make the connections to form speech. The progressive development of the biological brain is a result of interaction with society. However, some biological infrastructure must exist in the first place, in order for speech to even have potential. This shows a snowballing effect of progressive evolution, biological and social interconnected. They feed off each other, increasing in complexity to create what is a living social order.

It is not hard to make the connection that Richard Dawkins makes in stating that our empathy and our morality has a biological explanation.

It is astounding, the intricate complexity of the universe. The absolute beauty of life, revealed by the nature of the natural and physical world, is so often lost in the metaphysical search for meaning. The reality of the material and natural world does not in any way detract from its ability to instill a sense of awe; rather the effect is quite the opposite. Luther Burbank eloquently affirmed the optimism contained in the reality of the material world, by stating that “science has opened our eyes to the vastness of the universe and given us light, truth, and freedom from fear where once was darkness, ignorance, and superstition” (Barker).

But why does all of this matter?

Perhaps this quarrel can be revealed in a personal experience. The deep frustration that caused me to seek the truths of the material world was seeded by an experience in high school biology. More than seventy years after the Scopes Trial, Darwinian evolution is still, for the most part, effectively kept out of the schools, because of a populous objection based on blind allegiance to religious faith. In my recollection, a single day was spent on the subject of evolution, half of which was relegated to apologizing to those who may be offended, despite the fact that prior warning of the teaching was given, and written consent was allowed, in order to opt out. It is this experience that began my quest to reveal the truths of the material world. I worry to the extent science is being kept out of the schools. Fifty percent of American citizens (Dawkins) falsely believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that man and dinosaur walked together. I was shown at a young age, the process of investigation. But what of those children that are discouraged to investigate by their imparted faith? Truth is only revealed through open minded investigation. What if we were all taught to be content without investigation; what would our world look like?

Although religion contains moral and ethical truths, it is my opinion that these are temporal concepts of human origin, and in the case of monotheistic religion, anthropomorphically given to a divine deity. “There will always be good people who will do good things, and bad people who will do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things requires religion” (Miller, Jonathan. A Brief History of Faith). Gina Allen in, The Night I Saw the Light, expressed her frustration with her father, a prominent member of the Presbyterian Church, when at the age of 16, she confronted him with the lie she saw to be faith. He stated that “he [too] didn’t believe what the church taught. But he believed that without the church there would be no morality” (Imagine, . There is a lack of faith in humanity, amongst those with faith in God.

Roughly nine out of ten Americans are theists, 76.5% are Christian, and 13.2% are non-religious or secular. The prison population is made up roughly 75% Christian, and 0.209% atheist (Atheist Empire). This certainly does not support the morality claims of the majority theist. Divorce rates show Christians at 27% and atheists at 21%. Although statistically, correlation is not always causation, one could utilize these numbers to make a compelling claim for quite the opposite.

It is not my intent to denigrate beliefs, but rather to call for one to question ones beliefs. To open a much needed dialogue to find unifying common ground. This dialogue is one of the quests of Secular Humanism.

Humanity does not have a future as long as divisive faiths fight to repel unity. If we continue to ignore the truths of the material world, to ignore science, to destroy our environment, then what future have we?

It is said that the last words of Siddhartha Gautama, were “Impermanent are all things in the world” (Armstrong 187). To this end, impermanent is our brief spark of consciousness. Impermanent will humanities reign be on this planet. Impermanent is any state within a universe in constant flux.

The Genus Taraxacum, or common dandelion, seeds its flora by blossoming and scattering to the wind. At some point in the evolution of the dandelion, seeds sprang forth from a tiny stalk, which spawned the spread of its genus to the far corners of continents. We are at a crucial period in our natural history, where we have the ability to do the same, on a much grander scale. We too may disperse like the seeds of a dandelion; on the wings of the will of the physical world and its unity, striving to create larger and more complex frames; under the wind of the will of the natural world and its force which creates evolutionary change and speciation. Only a united humanity can realize this destiny.

When this Secular Humanist looks up into the night sky, it is with certain knowledge the vastness of space holds our future. As many of us gravitate to water, our home of antiquity, others gravitate to the sky, our celestial destiny. It is perhaps why I became a pilot, to reach for a dream. When I fly the small Cessna Skyhawk, it is not a sense of freedom I feel, but rather an affirmation of what it means to be human. It is my small leap from the terra, a way to pay homage to the brilliant future our species may have, for which I long.

Thomas Edison, free thinker, scientist, and inventor of the incandescent light bulb, once pointed to his invention and stated, “There lives Thomas Edison” (Barker). Some seek immortality outside the temporal realm, while many point to their children and proclaim that in them they live on; yet others will point to the human species, in all its grand achievement, and state with such impassioned and optimistic hope, There live I. It is how we choose to live in that brief spark of consciousness that will determine the variable destinies humanity may capture, and whether humanity will live on in perpetuity, in a destiny of our own formulation.
Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith (Harris, Sam).

Works Cited

Atheist Empire. HP 2006 [last update]. Online. Available:
. 15 November 2006.
Armstrong, Karen. Buddha. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, 2001. P187
Barker, Dan. “I am an Infidel”. Free thought today Aug. 1993.
Bothamley, Jennifer. Dictionary of Theories. Michigan: Visible Ink Press, 2002.
Darwin, Charles. “Natural Selection.” The McGraw Hill Reader Issues Across the
Disciplines. Gilbert H. Muller. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. 783-787.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press,1976. P1, 21.
Dawkins, Richard. In Conversation with Roy Eisenhardt. Palace of Fine Arts Theater.
20 Oct. 2006.
Free Inquiry. Feb/Mar 26.3 (2006).
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and The Furture of Reason. New York,
NY. W. W. Norton & Co., 2004.
Imagine There’s no Heaven: Voices of Secular Humanism. Amherst, NY: The Council
for Secular Humanism, 1997. P8.
Inwood, Brad, Lloyd Gerson. The Epicurus Reader. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis,
Indiana, Mar 1994. P97
Munowitz, Michael. Knowing: The Nature of Physical Law. NY: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
Marcus and Andrea’s Universe. Hp. Nov. 2006 [last update]. Online. Available:
< http://marcusandandrea.netfirms.com/> 15 November 2006.
Miller, Jonathan. A Brief History of Disbelief. Video. BBC 4. 31 Oct. 2005.
Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.
The God Who Wasn't There. Dir. Brian Flemming. Video. Beyond Belief . 2005
Wild Child: The Story of Feral Children. Video. Discovery Chanel. 2006.
World of Dawkins. Hp. Mar. 2001 [last update]. Online. Available:
. 15 October 2006.

What is Terrorism?

Webster’s Dictionary defines terrorism as, the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

While an accurate definition puts us off on the right foot, it begs the question; If the purpose of terrorism is to achieve a given political or ideological point, why is it being used by the religious, and furthermore, why has it been such an effective tool throughout history? If the end result is to prove a point, or to force the will of one group on another, aren’t we all to some degree guilty of some kind of terrorism? I think based on these questions, our definition needs refinement.

Terrorism is an act of tyranny. It is when a small group uses force of will to inflict its view point on the majority. Usually when dealing with acts of terror, even when only one man is acting there are numerous hands behind