What I believe, by Alan Watson
I've challenged visitors to this site to submit their personal credo in 272 words or less -- since that's how many words Abraham Lincoln took to deliver his , one of the greatest speeches ever given. Today I post our bloggers' attempts to express their values and beliefs within that word-limit. If you are interested, provoked, challenged, impressed or infuriated by what they have written, add a comment and say why. Exactly one week from now, the credo attracting the most comments wins a book prize of my choice. Needless to say, the views expressed by the entrants to our Spirit of Lincoln competition are their views, not mine or the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's. The following is Alan Watson's credo.
Evolution gave us large brains, imagination, language and an inquisitive nature, but lacking scientific knowledge, we invented gods and holy books to explain our origins, the universe and our place in it.
We also developed a simple humanist code, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Or possibly better, ‘Be happy, and make others happy’. Most of us have an intrinsic love for our families, concern for society and the welfare of future generations - and human happiness has been enhanced by music, poetry and art.
Despite the often negative influence of religion, there has been an exponential expansion of scientific and technological knowledge, catapulting humanity from a few thousand to six billion individuals in the blink of a cosmological eye. We are now in danger of overburdening our planet, tipping it into irrevocable decline. We also have cultural and religious wars, famines and great inequalities in resources but only science and our basic humanity can provide the answers. Gods and dogma are of no help.
We have to beware the cornered holy dog again inhibiting scientific research in very important areas. These include the management of climate change, improved food production techniques and stem cell research. The last has the potential for major advances in combating the remaining human health problems, which are mainly genetic.
Yet as an optimist, I believe that with rationality and science, mankind will flourish and be happy. I would love to return in 500 years, confident I’d find humanity free from the yoke of supernatural gods, and perhaps even join some future Watsons colonising another planet.
Comments
Good for and spot on Alan!
Hi Alan,
I agree with much of what you say, both the optimistic tones about human progress in science, culture and morality, as well as the caution about the potential danger that religion might undo much of these gains. And the latter not just in areas of science (but I see you were too close to the word count to mention a lot more). I also applaud your comment that population numbers are reaching levels that are damaging to the planet.
I may not fully share your optimism that religious infection will have been eradicated in 500 years. It is damn hard to achieve that. The ancient Greeks were a highly developed culture and they didn't take their gods very seriously. So things seemed to be going fine. Yet their civilisation crumbled, and their disinterest in gods gave way to Christianity. The cornered holy dog is hard to put to sleep permanently.
Hi alan,
I agree with your general tone, though my credo would have made it clear that science, in the sense of truth, covers not merely the natural sciences but also the human sciences. Also, I would have stressed the importance of freedom of thought in the quest for truth and the need to ally freethought and truth with love and compassion. In the crunch, as Bertrand Russell put it, we should remember our humanity, and forget the rest
Very nicely said, Alan.
Alan
You say Gods are of no help in tackling famine and inequality.
But the global campaigns to cancel third world debt have been championed by people of real faith like Bono and the Jubilee Campaign, with faith groups forming a significant if not the significant backbone of such movements.
But in my opinion, for what thats worth, it is good summary of the worldview of many of the bloggers here and useful reading to understand the richness of the debates.
cheers
PB
Alan,
What basis do humanists have for saying that we should "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"?
Why is that statement any more valid than "do unto others as suits you and will ensure the continuation of your gene pool"?
I believe for every drop of rain that falls
A flower grows
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night
A candle glows
I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come
To show the way
I believe, I believe
I believe above a storm the smallest prayer
Can still be heard
I believe that someone in the great somewhere
Hears every word
Everytime I hear a new born baby cry,
Or touch a leaf or see the sky
Then I know why, I believe
Everytime I hear a new born baby cry,
Or touch a leaf or see the sky
Then I know why, I believe
I'll try this post again...
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".
If I decide not to follow this am I doing wrong?
Alan: You write: "Evolution gave us large brains, imagination, language and an inquisitive nature"
Given your statement "Gods (plural) are of no help" would it not be better to phrase the statement as:
Through a process of evolution we possess large brains, imagination, language and an inquisitive nature"?
Michael
Frank IField #7
I was going to post that song. Which version do you like? Of all of the ones I've heard, the original recording by Frankie Laine I think in the 1950s is still my favorite.
In the spirit of Lincoln I would echo the words of "Honest Abe"
I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.
I dont know that song Frank, Mark
But it really struck a note with me.
Nice touch that it came with no comment so it spoke for itself.
PB
rubberduckie wrote
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".
If I decide not to follow this am I doing wrong?
It's a bit difficult to define the word 'wrong'
I'd rather look at the possible consequences of not folowing the golden rule which would probably be to have unwelcome (wrong) things done to you. Pretty logical - isn't it?
alan
Dad,
when proposing to come back and visit our descendants, are you saying you believe in reincarnation????
Otherwise this is uncharacteristically succint.
G
I did express it as a WISH - but I don't go that step further and convert that wish into a belief like everlasting life after death or everpresent guardian angels. That's not to reject the possibilty that 'soon' science will be able to offer is much extended lifetimes. But together with other human progress, it is very dependant on believers and their distorted morality not being allowed to inhibit scientific research.
see
pb #12
There are quite a number of these which could I suppose be called popular American spiritual hymns (watch, someone will tell me they were written elsewhere.) Here's another "Trees: I like even more, though it is long lost and almost forgotten by the popular culture. It was originally sung by the great singer Paul Robeson. Here's a link where you can actually hear it. There are a lot of others.
post11#
Billy
If you want to trade presidential quotes!
Lincoln on Religion:
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the sriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield,
after the death of Willie Lincoln
Here's something to get PB and Billy in a spin: it may be possible someday to upload our consciousness onto microchip, where we would interact in a number of ways with each other, real and, eventually mostly virtual.
Can anyone say: 'Everlasting life'?
John
ref 18
Yeah I'm really in a spin about that one John ;-). I do quite enjoy popular science fiction and that is not a new idea.
In fact, if you read Revelation chapter 13 many people believe this could speak of this very microchip you are talking about.
Way I see it, the only limiting factor in the size of our mobile phones now is the human interface ie to connect with the eyes, ears and fingers.
If you connect it directly to the human CNS you would bypass all that and the technology could be shrunk so small it would be truly tiny.
BY the time this becomes truly possible the internet will likely have become the hypernet with amazing bandwidth, speed and levels of knowledge compared to now.
Imagine real time access to a satellite to watch yourself on earth as you walk along!!!
Imagine having all published science and general knowledge on the tip of your tongue without thinking about it or studying it.
Imagine being in constant communication with everyone else through this "mobile phone" on what seems like a subconscious level.
Now if you imagine real time access to all that in a microchip, you are going to become "as gods".
This is in fact the ambition of Lucifer, to be as God, omniscient and in effect omnipresent.
Personally I think it sounds pretty frightening and apocalyptic.
But I have read the book of Revelation and am happy to report it has a very happy ending!
PB
John and pb
'as gods' is like a lot of things, relative.
If people living 2000 or even 500 yrs ago had been told what we know and can do now - communications, health, speed of travel and space exploration etc - they would have said we are 'as gods' and maybe even label our times as 'apocalyptic' - whatever that means.
So maybe my wish to return in 500 yrs to see colonisation of another planet is not as fanciful as some may think.
alan
I dont GW...
You know everything, you see everywhere and you are in constant contact with everyone via your mind...
I dont think that would compare with anything that went before.
PB
PB- Was it just me or did you directly compare Revelation to science-fiction in post 19?! :-) I quote: "I do quite enjoy popular science fiction and that is not a new idea. In fact, if you read Revelation chapter 13..." LOL!
And, FYI, it's not exactly science fiction anymore... they've already accomplished some of it. Immortality, baby! It's only a thousand years away! I wonder if, by that time, evangelicalism will have disappeared?
Alan, as you might expect from my own credo, I agree with most of what you say, except that I would be less optimistic, and more sceptical about the benevolence of scientific developments such as genetically modified food. Most scientific discoveries have unforeseen consequences, dangerous as well as beneficial.
Alan:
I am going through the credos that might win this competition and making sure that I post an equal number of times in each so that my vote will not count towards the decision.
This is my posting to achieve this objective in your thread.
You should not reply to it.
Peace,
Maureen
The creationist group "Truth in Science" apparently wishes to correct teaching that is, according to their website. In that case they would no doubt wish to see this approach taken throughout the curriculum. They would presumably wish for a less dogmatic and more balanced view to be taken of religious education - with coverage of such issues as "What is the evidence for a God?" and "What are the aspects of human psychology that make us go down on our knees to worship imaginary beings?"
I would suggest that a suitable teaching pack be delivered to all schools, both secular and religious.