​I was invited to speak at a Hindu Temple in Charleston on Sunday, Jan.15, which held an Interfaith Forum on the topic: “The Purpose of Human Existence (Why are we here?)” There were 8 other speakers from  a variety of religious faiths. Here’s what I said.
 
I’m an atheist and secular humanist, and I’ve been asked for my ideas about the purpose of human existence. I think there’s no innate, biological purpose beyond surviving and reproducing. Humans are the fortunate result of billions of years of evolution. The more we learn about our natural world, the less significant humans seem to be. Charles Darwin showed that we are all animals in a long evolutionary line. 
 
But purpose for humans is about more than mere surviving and reproducing. It’s about what we believe we should do in the brief time we’re alive. To have purpose, we need goals and plans that give us direction and meaning, and helps us engage in productive ways. I believe we each need to find our own purposes. For example, my wife Sharon has a T-shirt that says: “Be Good, Do Good.”  She says that’s her main purpose. I know and respect many fine religious people, certainly including the folks here. If loving & worshipping a god inspires a person to treat others with loving kindness, that’s great. Unfortunately, love of a god can often make people less loving of those who don’t believe & worship as they do.
 

​https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Januray-February-2023-Ezine.pdf 
 
More than a third of the world’s countries have blasphemy laws that ban criticism of religious beliefs, symbols, and figures. In several countries, the penalty is death. Blasphemy laws supply a false legitimacy to those who commit acts of murder and terrorism. (Think Salman Rushdie.) Not only do blasphemy laws harm atheists and humanists, but also any dissident or minority faith. Surprisingly, a number of predominately Christian countries still have blasphemy laws on their books, including Australia, Austria, Brazil, Finland, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland. However, these blasphemy laws are rarely enforced. Not so in countries where Islam is the state religion or where Muslims are a majority. For example, in Afghanistan, penalties for blasphemy may include execution by hanging. There is a death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan as well as in Saudi Arabia. In Iran, the law against blasphemy includes criticizing the Islamic government, insulting Islam, and publishing materials that deviate from Islamic standards. In Kuwait, there is a “family values” penalty for insulting "God, the Holy Quran, Prophets, the Noble Companions of Prophet Muhammad, Wives of the Prophet, or persons who are part of the Prophet's family." 
 

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letters-respect-charleston-s-history-culture/article_7f659402-6ffd-11ed-942b-531cf8433add.html 
 
Respect all rights 
I thank The Post and Courier for publishing the Dec. 4 Associated Press article by Peter Smith about nonreligious voters wielding clout at the ballot box. 

Yes, we do tilt heavily Democratic, especially with the increasing influence of white Christian nationalism in the Republican Party. I am proud to be a member of the Secular Democrats of America. We work to protect the separation of religion and government as the best guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans. We encourage the nonreligious to have an equal voice in our culture and our politics alongside people of faith. 

The statistical category called “nones,” consisting of atheists, agnostics and other people with no religious affiliation, is a fast-growing demographic. In 2021 the Pew Research Center measured the “nones” at 29% of the U.S. population, and it is steadily increasing, especially among young people. 
​
We “nones” appreciate the Congressional Freethought Caucus, founded in 2018, that now includes 17 members of Congress. This caucus promotes public policy formed on the basis of reason, science and moral values. It protects the secular character of our government by adhering to the strict constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. 
During this holiday season, we need to remember that our diverse country includes people of all faiths and none, and we need to respect the rights of both. 
​
That way we all win, regardless of political party. 

​ 
When I was about five-years old, I learned a game called “War.” Two players are dealt 26 cards face down. Each then simultaneously shows the top card, and the player showing the higher value takes both exposed cards and places them at the bottom of his or her stack. If both cards are of equal value, there is a “war.” Each combatant places the next three cards face down, and the fourth face up. The card showing higher value captures all the cards played and puts them at the bottom of his or her stack. The war ends when one person has all 52 cards. I was very good at “War,” or so I thought. I hadn’t yet heard about “confirmation bias,” which was why I remembered my victories more than my defeats.
 
When I finally realized that the game was skill-free, I lost interest. Knowing that the outcome is completely determined once the deck is shuffled and dealt, I began to invent variations. For instance, I’d put all 4 aces (the highest value) in one stack and the remaining 48 cards in the other stack, and play. After playing five times, the stack that started with 4 aces won all but once. I concluded that it was better to start with the 4-ace stack. I hadn’t known at the time that I was applying a naïve version of a Monte Carlo method, a mathematical procedure in which a large number of repeated trials produce reasonably accurate predictions about the actual probability of  the outcome of an event. (For instance, if you flipped a fair coin 1000 times, you would probably get approximately 500 heads, give or take 20.)
 

https://in-sightpublishing.com/2022/11/15/neighbour-2/
​
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are there any civilizations or periods in which humanist beliefs were simply not present in any way?

Dr. Herb Silverman: I think Humanist beliefs and values have always been present in every society, long before Humanism was defined. Many people have been and are humanists who hadn’t heard of Humanism. I used to be one of those people, as I suspect most Humanists were. Unfortunately, Humanism has not and does not dominate most cultures (think Nazi Germany, and authoritarian regimes today). 

Jacobsen: It claims Humanism as a culmination of these traditions of meaning, ethics, and reason. What does Humanism shed from other less effective traditions in the light of this culmination mentioned?
​
Silverman: Humanism sheds religious beliefs based on so-called “holy” books written thousands of years ago. Many well-meaning religious people pick and choose from their preferred ancient book and ignore embarrassing parts. They haven’t taken one addition step of rejecting their holy book and treating it as any other book where we keep the good parts and reject the bad parts. A friend who supports gay marriage pointed out that that the Bible has countless passages about social justice and only five that condemn homosexuality. He didn’t have a good answer when I asked how many condemnations of homosexuality it would take to reverse his position. Humanists don’t have rules etched in stone. We have principles and values written on paper, and some of our ideas might change through a continuing process of observation, learning, and rethinking. Reason usually hasn’t been present in religious traditions, and our ethics sometimes change as we learn more about how better to interact with and treat others. 

​https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/November-December-2022-Ezine.pdf
 
It has been said, with some justification, that philosophy is questions that may never be answered, and religion is answers that may never be questioned. But some questions in philosophy have been answered—by science. Branches of science sprang out of philosophical questions, many of which were once thought to be empirically impossible to test, like the idea of an atom propounded by Greek philosopher Democritus. Ancient Greek philosophers concerned themselves with deducing what matter is made from, what the nature of the stars are, and concepts like chemistry and physics. These were regarded as philosophical issues, but many such questions have been explored and answered by scientists. Philosophy, religion, and science are all involved with a search for truth. Science describes the way the world is. Philosophy and religion attempt to answer questions about what ought to be and why. But religion, unlike philosophy and science, is usually based on divine revelation and authority.

​ 
 
https://secularhumanism.org/2022/10/letters-to-the-editor-october-november-2022/
Here is a Letter to the Editor I had in the most recent Free Inquiry magazine, October/November 2022.
On Agnosticism
 
Jack May’s article (“On Agnosticism,” FI, June/July 2022) seems to imply that we are too arrogant when we call ourselves atheists, instead of agnostics. I used to call myself an agnostic because, as a mathematician, I could not logically prove whether there was a god, though I thought it highly improbable. When I learned that an atheist is simply without a belief in any god, I became an atheist. 
 
My "conversion" from agnosticism to atheism was definitional rather than theological. Depending on how terms are defined and their context, I can call myself an atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, infidel, and more. 
 
As with atheists, agnostics almost never give equal merit to belief and disbelief. For instance, I can neither prove nor disprove the following claims: 
Claim 1: The universe was created 30 minutes ago and the creator planted false memories in all of us.
Claim 2: Infidels who don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are condemned to burn for eternity in a vat of hot pasta sauce.
 
I assume we are all “agnostic” about these two hypotheses, but I’d also call myself an atheist with respect to such claims. 
 
When Christians insist that I’m an agnostic, not really an atheist because I can’t demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, I ask it they can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Jesus is Lord. If not, then I tell them that they are agnostics, not really Christians. I’m willing to call myself an agnostic atheist if they’ll call themselves agnostic Christians. 
 
Here’s an interesting distinction between Christians and Freethinkers: Christians have the same unifying word, but fight over theology whereas Freethinkers have the same unifying theology, but fight over words. At least our wars are only rhetorical. 
 
 

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letters-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-would-be-costly/article_cc960952-1c9f-11ed-b892-3b925cddf920.html
​
Politics and religion
Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker’s fawning commentary on Aug. 24 about U.S. Sen. Tim Scott and his new memoir full of “miracles that shaped him” said almost nothing about his political issues. Being told about his devotion to Christianity and Jesus Christ impresses me no more than being told of another politician’s devotion to Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We are a secular democracy with separation of church and state, and what should matter is how our politicians think about and vote on issues.

Politicians should not try to impose their personal religious beliefs on the rest of us. But as a member of Charleston County Council in 1997, Scott insisted on posting the Ten Commandments on the wall of council chambers, despite being told that he would lose any legal challenge to the action. In response, Scott argued that the display was needed to remind citizens of moral absolutes.
Scott, normally a fiscal conservative, then added, “Whatever it costs in the pursuit of this goal is worth it.” The court, as expected, declared the display unconstitutional and handed taxpayers a substantial bill for legal costs.

Government must not favor one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.

I support the free speech rights of individuals to prominently display their personal religious beliefs on private property, bumper stickers and T-shirts. But nobody may enlist the government to promulgate a particular religious view.

I participated in a roundtable discussion on Wednesday, May 11, at Oxford University in the Oxford Union in England. The topic was about mixing politics with religion. See
https://oxford-union.org/event/interfaith-panel/
Here were my opening remarks,
​
Mixing politics with religion is fraught with danger. We all know theocracies, where leaders govern by the will of an infallible god. Openly defying the “correct” faith is called blasphemy and leads to harsh punishments, even death. I thinkeveryone should have the right to practice any religion or none, as long as they don’t force their beliefs on others. I appreciate people whose religion inspires them to work on important social justice issues. In countries that are not theocratic, politics might still be infused with religion. My country, the United States, has a secular government with a problem of religion immersed in politics.

​My article “Where Did Bible Stories Come From?” was published in The Humanist. 
 
 
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/spring-2022/fierce-humanism/first-person-where-did-bible-stories-come-from 
 
​We know that the Bible is mostly fiction, but did you ever wonder how some of the incredible stories got into the book? As a child, the story of Noah made no sense to me. Why would a supposedly loving God commit a genocidal holocaust by killing all humans on Earth except for one man and his family (a wife, three sons, and their wives)? The answer was that this perfect, all-knowing God somehow regretted that he made human beings and he grieved in his heart (Genesis 6:6) because, much to God’s surprise, there was violence on Earth. Only 600-year-old Noah found favor in God’s eyes. So God told Noah to build an ark and save only his family and pairs of animals from a life-destroying flood. Noah didn’t question God’s plan or show any compassion for his neighbors. Obedient Noah just followed orders. (By the way, how do Christian fundamentalists justify an abortion-loving god who killed all those innocent fetuses?) When the family finally left the ark for dry land, a grateful Noah burned some of the animals that were on the ark and offered them on an altar to God. When God smelled the burning flesh, he was pleased and promised never again to destroy all life by a flood.  What did Noah then do? He made wine and became the first drunk in the Bible. He drank so much that he passed out while naked. One of Noah’s sons, Ham, saw his father naked. When Noah awakened, he got furious with Ham for seeing him naked and for some strange reason cursed Ham’s innocent son, Canaan, and said an appropriate punishment for Canaan and his descendants would be perpetual slavery. (The authors of the Bible probably focused on Canaan because in the Book of Joshua the Israelites slaughtered all inhabitants of Canaan on the way to their “promised” land.)