The theamologist observes the universe and discovers that, if Thea does indeed exist, she is careful to not disclose any evidence of such existence to man. Therefore the theamologist observes the same physical universe as the atheist: they both see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a creator.
The theamologist, having assumed the existence of a creator, can conclude that the creator had some choices to make in the manner in which the created thinkers would be given to live with one another. The theamologist next observes that, in spite of our sad history in the manner in which we treat our children, Thea continues to entrust us with newborn children. The theamologist now understands that he is given a choice, he can live as a repository of trust for children, or he can live as something less than that. From this observation the theamologist can conclude that he is held as dearly beloved by his creator. From these observations, questions of morality are clarified. Thea never had to speak a word in order for man to learn a rational basis for a moral code. We have had only to observe the universe to learn the difference between good and evil. The theamologist begins to understand that it is not only his children with whom he has been gifted, but it is every other man and woman as well. We can be repositories of trust for one another, or we can be something less than that. The basic moral good for the theist then is to live as a repository of trust for his fellow man. Anything less than that can be considered to be on a course towards that which is not good, or that which is evil.
This moral code can be understood to be secular in that it is not dependent on the speeches or writings of man, nor is it dependent on any purported word of God. It is derived form a strict observation of the universe. As such it is suitable as a reasonable basis for a secular, non-religious moral code for our world.
The atheist makes no such assumption as to the existence of a creator. How can the atheist come to an agreement with the theist as to the basis for a moral code. What can be a basis for a rational, secular morality?
In the secular world, morality is declared. Man stands as a group and takes oaths to defend the notion that all people are born equal. Each person is entitled to freedom from oppression, of any kind, from any other person, group of persons, or legal entity, including business, religious, and governmental entities. Our governments, religions, and business institutions shall not oppress the individual.
We can see that such declarations are congruent with the theists understanding that he must live as a repository of trust for his fellow man. Accordingly, the theists can now begin to work with the atheists to finally establish the rationale behind a universal moral code for man and this of necessity will be in the form of a declaration, arrived at after rational debate. The work begins today, at the dawning of our new epoch of understanding. Where can we begin?
It begins today, in all countries of the world. Each new generation, in each country must take an objective look at their founding documents, make the necessary corrections, and improve them for the next generations. After a progression of generational improvements, each country will become more aligned with the others in their devotion to the establishment to absolute freedom form oppression and the creation of an equalization of opportunity for each individual. It will not happen overnight. It will be a result of a collaboration of the generations.
In America, it is time we stood and examined our founding documents. Did our ancestors get everything right?
- For example, in their preliminary writings, they spoke clearly of a separation of church and state. However in our constitution, this is not so clearly spelled out. Were they mistaken in this regard? It appears that indeed they were mistaken, because we see today the separate sects of religions tryi9ng to impose their scriptural moral values on other citizens through writ of law, in spite of what appears to be a clear inclination on the part of our founders that there be a complete and certain separation of church and state.
- As another example, are our founding documents in error because there is no clear separation between business and state? After all, we do observe that big business, through its powerful mechanisms of influence over elected officials, has a major influence on the laws that are created. This can be seen to result in oppression, where the individual rights to engage in free trade are restricted by being forced to make deals with the larger businesses who have entrenched themselves through writ of law. Do we need improvement here? Did our ancestors fail to for see this in their original writings?
We must correct the writings of our ancestors. We must no longer accept them as perfect in any way. Our ancestors did they best they could, in the time when they lived, and if they do somehow live on they are counting on us to examine their work and to make the corrections where needed to improve the world to a global state of peace. To fail to do so is to dishonor them. It is an act of fear to fail to question their writings and we know they meant well, and it was not their intention that we would be reduced to a state of fear in regards to correcting them. This applies to religious and political writings. We must learn to have the courage to challenge everything that has been written.
We have a clear path forward, the atheists and the theists can agree on a set of reasoned moral tenets that are not dependent on any system of belief, but rather on a grasping of each other’s hands in trust, that we shall re-engineer our world to a state of peace, however long it takes.