Victor J. Stenger is a professor of philosophy, physics, and astronomy and the author of the best seller God: The Failed Hypothesis; How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

His new book, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, looks at the moral failings of religions and argues for a universal ethics based on a naturalist, evolutionary understanding of humanity, such as the ethics espoused by classical Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Personally, I think there’s a lot of evidence that religions have been helpful as well as harmful, but I too prefer the nontheistic Eastern religion-philosophies.

Stenger will be speaking Saturday, October 17, at 7 pm at the Little Theater at St. Louis Community College Forest Park (5600 Oakland Avenue).  Free and open to the public.

Hosted by the St. Louis Atheist Meetup Group, the Rationalist Society of St. Louis, the Ethical Society of St. Louis, the Skeptical Society…

I like Tim Townsend (Hi Tim); I think he is a good and well-meaning guy.  But I was disappointed in his article today about the Freedom from Religion billboard.

Tim writes, “Can atheist groups evangelize to religious believers by advocating an alternative belief in nothing? What replaces the creeds and doctrines and rituals that give meaning and purpose to billions around the world?”

I am frankly fed up with the misinformation that people without supernatural beliefs believe in nothing, lack a sense of meaningful in life, or don’t have a strong moral foundation. Just the opposite is true.  People without supernatural beliefs find plenty of knowledge, meaningfulness, and ethics through nature, science, art, and human experience.  We have belief systems, life philosophies, moral values, and traditions.

There are millions of non-religious people in America today. It is the fastest-growing group in all the polls on belief.  “What replaces the creeds and doctrines and…

Hi everyone.  I’ve been a bad blogger this summer, but then the summer is for vacation, no? Even vacation from the all-encompassing Internet.

One of the things I did this summer was read novels, including the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman–the most famous is the first book, The Golden Compass.  I had heard that they were entertaining and well-written; I’d also heard that they were controversial and anti-Catholic.  My impression after reading them is that they are anti-organized-religion-of-any-kind.

I found them entertaining fantasy novels, but not all that different from lots of other books–until the last novel, The Amber Spyglass.  This book tells a very unusual story about God, to say the least.

What struck me most as a humanist, though, was the novel’s attitude toward death. I don’t want to give it all away in case you haven’t read it and want to, but Pullman has a dismissal of the need…

I had the pleasure of attending a Passover Seder last week, and I enjoyed experiencing the ritual and the food and learning some history.  I have been to some non-Jewish “Seders” as well, which take the basic Passover theme of liberation from oppression and use it in a more general way to create secular rituals.  I’m of two minds about this. I know that most ritual has been borrowed at least in part from somewhere else, and that human rituals travel and evolve over time and across cultures.  Yet it seems a little rude to me to “use” another group’s ritual for a different purpose.  I feel the same qualm about celebrating Kwanzaa, since although it was created by a humanist and is the winter solsticetime ritual that makes the most sense to me, I’m not African-American.  At the Ethical Society, we often adapt traditionally religious music to make it…

This Sunday I’m going to speak on Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” at the Ethical Society.  Although I’m a Humanist and not a Christian, I want to examine this famous text because it’s often cited as a powerful ethical statement, even by those who don’t necessarily believe in the Bible as the word of God.  I’m reading the whole Book of Matthew and relevant sermons by Christian ministers both conservative and liberal, and I thought I’d ask readers of this blog as well–what does the Sermon on the Mount mean to you?  Many of its statements seem impossible to live up to, particularly for average Americans.  Some of them seem downright communistic (gasp!) or pacifistic (double gasp!). Are you influenced in your life decisions by Jesus’ sermon? Do you struggle with understanding or trying to follow his words? Do you think this sermon has good ethical lessons to offer non-Christians…

Does your religious or philosophical tradition teach that suicide can ever be an ethical act? And what is your personal belief?  Humanists usually support the right of individuals to make decisions about their own lives, including the right to end a life of incurable, unbearable suffering.  At the same time, there are legitimate practical questions about legalizing assisted suicide, such as the pain of loved ones who would have preferred the person die a “natural” death, or, conversely, the possibility that legalizing assisted suicide would pressure people to commit suicide just to save their families from the astronomical medical bills that often accompany end-of-life care. What does your tradition teach, and/or what do you think? Under what circumstances, if any, do we have the right to choose our own exit from life? Should the State allow physicians or others to aid people seeking a clean and painless death?

I just ran across this paragraph by Felix Adler, founder of Ethical Culture (yes, he shares a name with a famous clown, but it’s not the same guy!).  It’s a good metaphor for how Humanists tend to look at humanity’s ethical development.  I think we see the world very differently from those who believe that there is an already-existing ultimate truth.  I’d be interested in knowing what you think: Does it seem to you like an inspiring way to look at life, or depressing, or what?

The human race may be compared to a writer. At the outset a writer has often only a vague general notion of the plan of his work, and of the thought he intends to elaborate. As he proceeds, penetrating his material, laboring to express himself fitly, he lays a firmer grasp on his thought; he finds himself. So the human race is writing its story,…

Last month, the Ethical Society of St. Louis had as our Sunday-morning speaker Dale McGowan, editor of a book called Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids without Religion, and co-author of an upcoming related practical guide called Raising Freethinkers. The talk was excellent, personal, and open-minded. Despite his book’s title, McGowan’s main interest seems to be to raise his children with knowledge of as many religious traditions as possible and the understanding that, although their dad doesn’t believe in any of them, his kids have the right to believe whatever they want and to change their minds about their beliefs as many times as they want. So for those interested, here is an MP3 of the half-hour talk:

Dale McGowan

Our Sunday School is planning to have McGowan back in the fall for a parenting workshop; anyone interested in attending is welcome to contact the Ethical Society for more information.…

I was glad to be acknowledged by President Obama in his inaugural address.  At least, I assume when he referred to “non-believers,” he was trying to be inclusive of the many millions of folks like me who don’t believe in a god, whatever labels we might use for ourselves.  President Obama has talked about his mother’s lack of supernatural beliefs and about the important universal values he learned from her growing up, so I know that he realizes that ethics and character are not dependent on having traditional religious views.  So I don’t wish to complain, just to point out that the term “non-believer” is unfortunately negative. I hope to see the term “Humanist” gain greater usage, as although its meaning can be debated, just as the meaning of many terms can, “Humanist” gives a sense of positive focus.  And I have yet to meet a “non-believer” who doesn’t believe…

There is a spreading campaign of humanist/atheist/agnostic mass advertising, on billboards and most lately buses, to try to raise awareness that it’s okay not to believe in a god—that if you don’t, you’re not alone; you can (and should) still be a good person, and, basically, you should just chill out. The American Humanist Association’s holiday campaign asked, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” while the ads in the recent campaign in Britain say, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

I’m of two minds about the ads. I think it’s important to let people who don’t believe in a god know that they have a community too, and that belief or non-belief in a god doesn’t make you a good or bad person. There are lots of people who don’t believe in a god, or who aren’t sure but doubt it…

It’s Christmastime–whether or not you’re a Christian, it’s clearly the Christmas season in America.  I’m curious if there are other non-Christians out there who celebrate Christmas, and how you celebrate, and how you feel about it.  I grew up as a non-practicing Christian, and although my entire family now identifies as Ethical Humanists (who says we can’t make converts?), we still love Christmas.  And let’s face it, as many Christians bemoan, the vast majority of what we think of as “Christmas-y” is pagan and/or commercial.  Lighted trees, wreaths, yule logs, the holly and the ivy and the mistletoe, special meals and gift-giving, Santa and Scrooge and Jack Frost–they’re all adapted winter solstice traditions or more recently created to support Christmas, not Christianity.

So what’s a humanist to do?  Some humanists celebrate the Winter Solstice or HumanLight, embracing greenery and lights and general festivity, but shying away from nativity scenes and Santa…

I’m not necessarily a fan of Keith Olbermann–I don’t know enough about his work–but his commentary last week in support of marriage equality and love says everything I believe, and much better than I could say it:

The current issue of The Humanist magazine has a wonderful interview with Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, entitled “One Nation Under the Constitution: Reason, Politics, and Morality in the New Century.” I highly recommend it.  Here are a couple excerpts:

[On his stance against adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance]: I went on a conservative talk show to defend the decision. The host kept insisting that we must be “one nation under God” or one nation under something else. “What do you liberals want us to be under?” he asked. “Gee,” I said, “how about ‘one nation under Canada’? At least it would be geographically correct.” But then I suggested, quite seriously, “one nation under the Constitution.” After all, I argued, we aren’t of one religion, one race, one ethnicity, or one party, but we do have one Constitution and one Bill of Rights.

[On humility]: Human progress today depends, as it…

My thanks to all the thoughtful commenters to my last post on torture.  I thought you might like to read the position paper on torture of the National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union.  The first paragraph reads:

The use of torture is the most extreme violation of the principles to which Ethical Culture is dedicated. Among these principles, respect and reverence for the dignity of the human being is foremost. With the emergence of torture as a component of American policy in the “War on Terror,” Ethical Culture calls for the absolute and total ban on the use of torture, whether by the military, law enforcement, intelligence services or private actors.

The rest of the paper lays out some moving and probably controversial arguments for regarding torture as the greatest ethical “sin,” worse even than murder, as well as the recent facts of torture in America as far as they’re known,…

This Sunday at the Ethical Society I’ll be talking about the Ethics of Torture. I’ve seen those “Torture is Wrong” and “Torture Is a Moral Issue” banners on all sorts of congregations, and it does seem like a no-brainer for most religions that follow some version of the Golden Rule.

nrcat.org banners

Humanism affirms the worth of the individual and promotes international human rights, and the version of the golden rule we use in Ethical Humanism is “Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in oneself.” Torture arguably brings out the worst in the torturer, and it seeks to deny the humanity of the victim. Our national lay and clergy organizations recently passed a statement that torture is unethical in any and all situations.

But I’ve also heard people argue that torture can be justified if it’s used in “ticking bomb” scenarios to save lives, and I wonder if…

Okay, this may seem pretty obscure, but I’m often asked by visitors to the Ethical Society of St. Louis how Ethical Culture compares to Unitarian Universalism. So last month I gave a Sunday-morning talk on the similarities and differences between the two movements, which are both at the liberal end of the religious spectrum, and which share roots in free-thinking history, but which grew out of different traditions (Reform Judaism for Ethical Culure and liberal Christianity for Unitarian Universalism) and have different emphases and relationships to humanism. For those interested, you can hear my talk here. (Just click on the MP3 box to the right of the title–it’s about a half-hour.) If you’ve had experience in a Unitarian congregation and have a different experience to offer, please share it.

For those interested in a more international perspective, check out the web site of the IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union). It’s made up of humanist groups from around the world–some identify as religious humanist, others as secular humanist, some probably don’t see why it matters (I’m just guessing about that, but I know in Asian countries the line between religions/philosophies/practices is much blurrier).

I find it interesting to see what issues are considered Humanist. The IHEU seems to focus on human rights in general, the rights of nonbelievers in countries where open nonbelief is illegal, and international promotion of science.

The site has a recent interview with the new Deputy Prime Minister of Nepal, which in its transition to a republic is also transitioning to a secular state. What does that mean? On the good side, it means doing away with the caste system and the “untouchables.” On the questionable side,…

Greetings all–I hope you had a good and relaxing summer. I certainly did, but it’s also good to be getting back into the swing of things at the Ethical Society of St. Louis and by returning to regular blogging on this site.

I’d like to share with you this recent post by Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University, who wonders when religious humanists will be invited to take part in “interfaith” events such as the one that opened the Democratic National Convention last week.

I missed the opening of the Republican National Convention, but I’m sure they also had an “interfaith” moment or two. Anyone happen to see any religious humanists represented there?

I’ve had many requests from people for information about recovery groups similar to Alcoholics Anonymous, but that would be more comfortable to humanists, atheists, non-theists, etc. I know that AA accepts all people, and I’ve also heard from many non-theists who have gotten a lot out of AA–they interpret “higher power” in non-supernatural ways that work for them. But apparently, for other people the “higher power” language is alienating.

So this is a request for information–anyone out there know of good recovery programs that are either secular or more humanist-friendly? I’ve heard of some national programs, but I haven’t been able to find any groups that meet in St. Louis. If I can’t find anything, the Ethical Society may try to start one–so I’d also like to hear from people who would be interested in attending such a group, to help me get a handle on how great the need is. (You…

The Ethical Society, and our national federation, the American Ethical Union, has long supported abortion as being an often difficult but spiritual and ethical choice. Our highest value is the worth and dignity of every person, and since pregnant women are clearly people, while pregnancies are not clearly people (witness all the arguments and differences of opinion on when human life begins), our official stance (individual members, of course, have freedom of opinion) is that to force a woman against her will to carry a pregnancy she does not want threatens her physical, psychological, and spiritual health, and therefore it violates rather than affirms her worth and dignity.

The Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is an organization that brings together representative voices for the millions of clergy and lay people from every major religion and denomination (and many minor ones) who support women’s and men’s sexual health and reproductive rights. MoRCRC’s…