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.)

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.