https://in-sightjournal.com/2022/01/15/neighbour-1/
 
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: “Would You Be My Neighbour?” is named in honour of an advocate of kindness, fairness, and compassion in the United States: Fred Rogers. I posed this as a collaborative series while kept with core conversations between you and me. In short, we have discussions, invite guests, and publish the results. The ‘blue collar’ is ignored for the ‘white collar’ academicism of secular humanist thought; the human rights activism can triumph in attention due to its grand intents over daily acts of magnanimity. What is the hope or expectation in this collaborative endeavour for the ongoing work together in this series for you?

Dr. Herb Silverman: I guess I’m considered a “white collar” rather than a “blue collar” person because I am an academician who enjoys philosophical discussions about secular humanism. In truth, I’m a “no collar” person, since I mostly wear T-shirts that I got from running in races, or T-shirts that I wear to promote secular humanism. I agree with you that we need to expand our base and find ways to reach the “common man” and “common woman,” many of whom are humanists who have never heard about humanism. A limited way I engage with such people is through common interests in other areas, including concerns about the environment, civil rights, education, health, and charity work. I often try to bring humanism into the conversation, showing why it is consistent with the issues they care about. My expectation in this collaborative effort is to hear how others are reaching out to potential humanists and then try to follow their lead.

Jacobsen: If we take the perspective of future directions, we can explore some of the more high-falutin’ material within secular humanist philosophy, while grounding this in the item of most import to me: The banalizing of it, making it everyday, humdrum, ordinary, normative. What are some topics of interest to you? Those with which every secular humanist must become acquainted to protect the way of life, the lifestance.
​ 
Silverman: What every secular humanist needs to know is that our U.S. Constitution grants us freedom of religion, which must include freedom from religion. When religion is discussed in public, it’s okay to say we have no god beliefs. We should not belittle the religious beliefs of others. That is not the way to make friends and influence people. Better to be a role model based on what we do, rather than what we say.

The Hindu Temple in Charleston, SC, tries to put on an annual Interfaith event, where they invite people from different faiths (in my case different values) to participate and speak on specific topics. The topic at the January 16, 2022 event was to be “Purpose of Human Existence.” Unfortunately, the event was just cancelled because of new Covid restrictions. 
  
I had prepared this talk to deliver.

I’ve been asked to tell you my ideas, as an atheist and secular humanist, about the purpose of human existence. Let’s start by defining what we mean by “purpose.” The primary purpose of every living thing, from bacteria, viruses, and plants, to humans like us, is to replicate so the species will survive. Unfortunately, we’ve seen this replication with the Covid virus. You can read evidence for this purpose in books on evolution, including The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. There is no other universal purpose of human existence. And the more we learn about our natural world, the less significant humans seem to be in it. Charles Darwin showed that we are all animals in a long evolutionary line. But purpose for humans is about more than mere replication and survival. It’s about what we believe we should do in the brief time we’re alive. And most people have more than one purpose. I believe we all need to find individual purposes in our lives. Purpose involves having goals and activities that give us direction and meaning, and help us engage in productive ways. For example, my wife Sharon has a T-shirt that says: “Be Good, Do Good.”  She says that’s her purpose. But how does she or any of us know what “good” is?
 

https://in-sightjournal.com/2021/12/22/free-of-charge-12/

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With the large number of manifestos, one of the larger documents is A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980). What was Kurtz’s intention behind such a comprehensive statement of Secular Humanism? 

Dr. Herb Silverman:  Paul Kurtz’s Secular Humanist Declaration (1980) described why democratic secular humanism has been a powerful force in world culture, and what we can do to fight anti-secularist trends posed by religion. Kurtz explained why the separation of religion and government is essential and why we needed to oppose the shackling of any type of free thought. He supported trust in human reason and compassion, rather than in divine guidance or untested superstitious beliefs. Kurtz promoted following the best science available. Paul Kurtz’s greatest strengths were his abilities to found and grow organizations, including the current Center for Inquiry (formerly named the Council for Secular Humanism).  He will be remembered as perhaps the most significant force in the second half of the 20th century supporting secular humanism and the ability to live a good life without religion. 
 
Jacobsen: Also, as a short aside, what was Kurtz like as a person – behind the curtain so to speak?
​
Silverman: I first met Paul in the early 1990s at a meeting of the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH), and I became a regional director of CSH. It was the only nontheistic organization I had known about, and its fine magazine Free Inquirywas the only publication I knew that supported living a good and reasoned life without religion. Prometheus Books, another creation of Paul Kurtz, was the only publisher I knew that was devoted to books about Freethought. I think Paul’s greatest weakness was his less than enthusiastic willingness to play well with others he saw as competitors. Kurtz became upset with me when I joined the board of the American Humanist Association (AHA). Both CSH and AHA seemed to be fine organizations worthy of my support, but I soon learned about their divisive history. Kurtz had been on the board of AHA and was the editor of The Humanist magazine, published by AHA. After Kurtz and the AHA parted ways in 1978, on less than friendly terms, Kurtz founded the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Center for Inquiry. When I helped found the Secular Coalition for America in 2002, Kurtz wanted no part of it. He tended to view with suspicion any organization he didn’t lead or create. Shortly after Kurtz left CSH, they joined the Secular Coalition for America. I was pleased when, in 2007, the AHA, at its annual conference, presented Kurtz with its Humanist Lifetime Achievement Award, which I think he richly deserved.

https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/January-February-2022-Ezine-to-post.pdf
 
Atheists are the only ones who say unequivocally that atheists don’t go to heaven. Most heaven-believing religions seem to have a clause that allows even atheists to integrate the neighborhood. The road, however, is usually narrow and littered with obstacles.Pope Francis, seeking common ground with people outside the Catholic faith, once implied that atheists who do good works are good people and might get to heaven without passing through the “Go” of Christianity. This is not the official Catholic position, which is that those of us who do not accept Jesus as our savior are doomed to the fires of hell.

Speaking of heaven and hell, I once gave a sermon at a Unitarian Universalist Church, a human-centered religion with which I find much common ground. I began by telling the congregation that I had more in common with Christian conservatives than with them. To puzzled looks, I explained: “Unitarian Universalists believe everyone goes to heaven, Christian conservatives believe very few go to heaven, and I believe nobody goes to heaven. So I’m closer to them than to you.” The audience laughed, since most didn’t believe in a heaven and many ​had never thought about what the “Universalist” in their name meant.

​​https://in-sightjournal.com/2021/12/08/free-of-charge-11/

Scott Jacobson: I am reminded of Isaac Asimov, “I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism. Thus, you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.” It is about a scholasticism in the sense of coming to a rational comprehension of human irrationality, as found in the religions old and new. Are there any other positive outcomes in the study of the world religions, especially in the most sympathetic and objective light? 
 
Dr. Herb Silverman: As much as I respect Asimov, I disagree somewhat with his saying that objects of faith play no part in rationalism. It depends on what you mean by “rationalism.” To me, it’s about using facts and coming up with a reasonable conclusion based on those facts. For instance, a person could say the following. Fact: My goal in life to be happy. Fact: I can only be happy believing that I will have an eternity of bliss when I die, and therefore, it only makes sense for me to believe I will have an eternity of bliss. This person makes a logical and rational argument to maintain his belief. He will not suffer negative consequences in this life, nor will we be able to convince him that his afterlife belief is wrong. When Asimov says he prefers rationalism to atheism, I would say atheism for me was a natural outcome of rationalism. I don’t think it is a waste of time to defend atheism when so many people attack it. I like to give thoughtful arguments defending my beliefs or lack thereof, and discuss with theists their beliefs and how they came to them. In terms of positive outcomes in studying world religions, I think it’s important to learn what other people think, and why. Theists who study world religions might begin to question why  their religion is correct (usually the religion in which they were raised) and all the others are wrong. As well, while studying world religions, we might also see a lot of positives in them (like various versions of the Golden Rule), and a reason why we should treat all humans with respect, even if we think some of their beliefs are nonsense. 
​
Jacobsen: How can empathy and reciprocity be improved in social relations at the individual level?
Silverman: It helps if we try to look at any situation from the other person’s point of view. As members of a highly social and cooperative species, we can recognize that our innate sense of empathy evolved as a survival mechanism. That, along with thousands of years of experience creating and maintaining complex societies, enables us to know what sort of behaviors best keep societies functioning smoothly. I must acknowledge that “tit for tat” is one of the most effective means for survival—treating others the way they treat you. This often encourages others to be as nice to you as they want you to be nice to them. 

My wife Sharon and I spent several weeks in September traveling in England. Our primary purpose for going was to walk the Thames River Path, from its puddle of a source near Kemble, to the flowing river it becomes in Windsor. We followed the river over 150 miles, in 13 days. We arranged with travel company Footpath Holidays to make our overnight accommodations and transport our luggage from inn to inn along the way. The foot path took us through woods and fields and occasional charming villages. We encountered many kinds of birds (ducks, geese, and swans on the water) and domestic animals including cows, horses, goats, and sheep, including black sheep. That reminded me of an epithet we once used, which would be considered racist today: “He is the black sheep of the family,” which I often was.
 
I feel kind of proud at age 79 to have walked the 150-mile Thames path, especially after having had a stroke a couple of years ago. But I am even more proud of Sharon doing it at age 83. 
 
Speaking of our age difference, Sharon had a wonderful article published last year in the NY Times section called “Tiny Love Stories:” 
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/style/tiny-modern-love-stories-i-worried-about-telling-him-my-age.html

https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/September-October-2021-Ezine.pdf
 
I think most people identify more with a religious denomination than with a theology. People reflective enough to recognize they can no longer adhere to beliefs they grew up accepting can often justify to themselves why, nonetheless, they should remain part of a religious community. They find numerous reasons not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many have friends and family who they don’t wish to hurt. It might be too painful to break openly from a religion just for not believing any of its most sacred doctrines. Humans want to be part of a community. Traditions and rituals often provide much of this. Some wish to actively participate in the good deeds of a religious fellowship and then try to moderate the conservative views of their more fundamentalist members.

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letters-patriotism-is-more-than-symbols-its-about-improving-our-nation-for-everyone/article_697b6ab8-d4e5-11eb-9dd0-0f336c12a206.html 
 
A Wednesday letter writer said that people who show disrespect for our country should leave. The writer singled out an Olympic athlete for protesting, former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar for a tirade against the United States. 

What the writer doesn’t realize is that some of us who love our country feel an obligation to try to correct some of our problems and make our country better. Doing that may require bold gestures and actions. In taking a knee, Kaepernick was protesting against police brutality. He asked, “Isn’t this lethal racism every American’s problem, and aren’t we letting down our flag by not fulfilling its promise?” 

Waving the American flag is not necessarily patriotic. Were the flag wavers at the Jan. 6 riot in the U.S. Capitol patriots? 

I’m bothered by those who link patriotism with saying the Pledge of Allegiance, standing and singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” and deifying the American flag. These are examples of symbolic patriotism. What we need more of is substantive patriotism to improve our country in tangible ways. This could include serving on local school boards, volunteering at soup kitchens for the homeless, staying informed on issues and voting. 
​
Using our First Amendment right to criticize our government in the hope of improving it is patriotic and important. Symbolic patriotism is easy, and often mindless; substantive patriotism is what can make a country great. 

https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/July-August_2021_FS_Ezine.pdf
 
This is a bit of a trick question, since Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, while most Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. It’s also unfair to stereotype such large classes of people. And there are considerable differences between liberal and conservative Christians as well as between liberal and conservative Mormons. Nevertheless, I’ll make my case for Mormons. I certainly don’t condone their anti-gay and anti-atheist positions. I also don’t give any credibility to the Book of Mormon, which states that after Jesus died, but before he went to heaven, Jesus stopped in the United States—in Missouri. When Jesus returns, he will again go to Missouri. How do we know? Because this story was allegedly chiseled in Egyptian hieroglyphics on gold plates and buried in Palmyra, New York. In 1827, the angel Moroni supposedly led Joseph Smith to the gold plates and a magic stone. When Joe put the magic stone into his hat and buried his face in it, he was able to translate the gold plates into English. 
 

​https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=301086078312951&ref=watch_permalink