Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Kerr’

Secular Humanism??

Sunday, May 24th, 2009

What is Secular Humanism? I have often wondered that myself. I have heard the term bandied about, and was not sure what it meant. At church today (the Free Congregation of Sauk County) our speaker, Andrew Kerr, spoke eloquently as ever about this topic.

What I learned today resonated greatly with me. I think that this might be the most correct label for what I believe. My impression (and opinion) of a decent definition for what Secular Humanism is, is as follows:

Secular humanism is the patent rejection of “silver platter” answers to your theological/spiritual meaning or revelation. It is taking and accepting responsibility for your journey to meaning and revelation, and your understanding of you humanity and your place in existence. It is to not blindly accept what answers you are spoon fed, but to question everything and to try to understand and find the answers.

Current organized religion is a disease that too much attempts to relive the individual of responsibility for their journey and it tries to hand them the answers for which they have no foundation, experience, or perspective with which to understand or apply the teachings.

Meaning and understanding can only come from questioning and the dogged pursuit of understanding and perspective and not from just being handed the answer. Sheep are created by the dogmatic shepherds who relieve their flock of the responsibility of self-inquisition and thought by handing them an answer for which they are punished if they are questioning or are not following and believing in.

I do not believe Secular Humanism is the patent rejection of religion, but it is the patent rejection of being spoon fed the answer without taking responsibility for your belief and the ramifications of it. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion and that is horrible, for in these moments responsibility lays in their zealous belief of what they have been told is ‘the truth’ and they obey.

Just my humble thoughts for now.

Atheism II – Cosmos: Suggestions for an Atheistic Religion

Monday, June 18th, 2007

I have published my first article for the Milwaukee Examiner titled “Do we have options in the religion verses science debate?“.

Article

If a single entity created the stars, planets, time, space, and life itself then science is the very study of that wonderful and potentially divine creation. Scientists of all sorts have the job of trying to understand the very things that the hand of the creator has created – from geologists, biologists, and psychologists to geneticists and quantum physicists. For some their scientific  study and exploration can be an awe inspiring and faith affirming exercise. For others it can be a source and angst and internal conflict.

If science is the study of all that has been divinely created then why is it all too often at odds with religion? Throughout history scientists and visionaries such a s Copernicus and Galileo were afraid to speak their ‘heretical’ idea of (heliocentrism vs the predominant and church accepted geocentrism) or were even demanded to recant their views under threat of being burned at the stake. Even today’s modern evolutionary and geological scientist are under a similar, though less harmful, assault by a religious front.

Take evolution vs creation as a specific example of a modern science vs religion battleground. Evolutionary sciences has modern humanity (homo sapiens) as being approximately 40 thousand  years old and the earth at several billion years old, while the counter religious movements have both at less than 10 thousand years. This is quite the significant disparity in age between the two views, and, in this enlightened age there is still much bitterness and vehemence in arguments against each other.

I wonder why this has to be. Why are some religions so afraid of scientific advancement and the furthering our understanding of this wonderful and potentially divine creation that has given us the miracle of life and free will?

For me, such bridge theories such as evolutionary creationism and biblical to geological correlations via Day-Age Creationism help to make sense of things and to bring science and religion together in a non-aggressive and logical manner.

Why could not the creator have created all of life with evolution as its impetus for change and existence? What exactly is a biblical day to a potentially omniscient and omnipotent creator who created time and matter itself? Does the creator live by our Earth centric view of time at 24 hours per day, which may be horribly arrogant of and presumptuous of us, or does this entity who created time itself have a more fluid day in the billions or hundreds of millions of years as geological evidence would have us believe? This is for you to decide with evolutionary creationism and Age-Day Creationism as a good middle ground.

  • Topical Wikipedia Links

Atheism I – Atheism as a Religious Affirmation

Monday, May 21st, 2007

I have published my first article for the Milwaukee Examiner titled “Do we have options in the religion verses science debate?“.

Article

If a single entity created the stars, planets, time, space, and life itself then science is the very study of that wonderful and potentially divine creation. Scientists of all sorts have the job of trying to understand the very things that the hand of the creator has created – from geologists, biologists, and psychologists to geneticists and quantum physicists. For some their scientific  study and exploration can be an awe inspiring and faith affirming exercise. For others it can be a source and angst and internal conflict.

If science is the study of all that has been divinely created then why is it all too often at odds with religion? Throughout history scientists and visionaries such a s Copernicus and Galileo were afraid to speak their ‘heretical’ idea of (heliocentrism vs the predominant and church accepted geocentrism) or were even demanded to recant their views under threat of being burned at the stake. Even today’s modern evolutionary and geological scientist are under a similar, though less harmful, assault by a religious front.

Take evolution vs creation as a specific example of a modern science vs religion battleground. Evolutionary sciences has modern humanity (homo sapiens) as being approximately 40 thousand  years old and the earth at several billion years old, while the counter religious movements have both at less than 10 thousand years. This is quite the significant disparity in age between the two views, and, in this enlightened age there is still much bitterness and vehemence in arguments against each other.

I wonder why this has to be. Why are some religions so afraid of scientific advancement and the furthering our understanding of this wonderful and potentially divine creation that has given us the miracle of life and free will?

For me, such bridge theories such as evolutionary creationism and biblical to geological correlations via Day-Age Creationism help to make sense of things and to bring science and religion together in a non-aggressive and logical manner.

Why could not the creator have created all of life with evolution as its impetus for change and existence? What exactly is a biblical day to a potentially omniscient and omnipotent creator who created time and matter itself? Does the creator live by our Earth centric view of time at 24 hours per day, which may be horribly arrogant of and presumptuous of us, or does this entity who created time itself have a more fluid day in the billions or hundreds of millions of years as geological evidence would have us believe? This is for you to decide with evolutionary creationism and Age-Day Creationism as a good middle ground.

  • Topical Wikipedia Links