Saturday, February 25, 2012

A Universal Moral Code

Theamology, like atheism, requires a secular moral code, a code that is not dependent on religious writings or beliefs. Moral concepts are created using conclusions derived, as a course of reason, from an observation of the universe. The difference between an atheist and a theamologist is the manner in which they observe the universe. The theamologist first makes an assumption that the universe is created and then observes the universe to see if anything can be learned about the nature of the creator. The atheist makes no such assumption. In theamology, here at the beginning of our new epoch of understanding, we use the feminine pronouns to reference God and call her by the name of Thea. The reasons for this are found elsewhere in this blog.

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.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Reason Rally in DC - A Small Step for Man...

Weather and health permitting, I will be attending the Reason Rally in Washington DC on March 24, 2012. Billed as the largest secular event in world history, it is intended to focus on non-theist achievements over the past several years.

The event has a web site at The discussions are interesting. One prospective participant wonders if she should bring her eight year old nephew. Her concern was that there might be "a lot of cussing" and general disparagement of what the child understands as the religion in which his family takes great comfort.

What this child might not understand is that many children have religions enforced in their early childhood, before they have the psychological and intellectual capacities to deal with the concepts. Some of these concepts are of a great fear of God and or some eternal punishment. It is these irrational fears, instilled by culture and family that he feels obligated to love and honor, that lead the child to become become manipulated later to hate the children of other belief systems. Their rational faculties have become corrupted and it can seem impossible for them to recover.

We observe this sadness once again in the recently concluded trial of the underwear bomber.  This  young man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been unable to reorganize his court of reason. His fear of a false concept of Allah's punishment prevents him from questioning the things he was forced to believe before he attained the political and cultural freedom to question them. To honor his family and his culture and to dispel his irrational fear of a fictional punishment, Umar must declare himself proud of attempting to kill in the name of Allah. Having received a sentence of life in prison, he has nonetheless finally acquired that which was denied to him by his culture and his country: He lives now in a state of political freedom where he can observe the universe with his own eyes, free from the impressed opinions of others. And he will see the God that we all see who, if she exists at all, does not wish us to be killing each other. He will compare this view with the views of his ancestors and he will eventually stand up and understand how he was misled. And then with courage he will salvage what he can from the remainder of his life. He will come to know what we all know, that a concept of eternal punishment from God has always been a work of fiction.  How do we know this? If God exists at all, we have merely to observe the Decisions of God to learn her nature.

Umar was once eight years of age himself.  Today, a new generation of eight-year-olds is being psychologically manipulated by the religious opinions of their families and their cultures.  What can be done to protect these children today?  Is it too late for them?  How about twenty years from now, is there some plan we can set in motion today to assist that generation of eight-year-olds?  Do we need a 100 year plan? How about a 500 year plan?  Where do we start? For example, can we begin a cross-generational effort to finally establish certain rights for children, including the right of protection from religious information before they have achieved the mental capacities and the political and cultural freedom to question the concepts?

An atheists cussing can sometimes be viewed as bravado designed to battle the  same irrational fears of God that impact Umar. The eight year old might not be able to understand this intellectually and the atheists will eventually make themselves aware of this and tone down the rhetoric. Intellectual and psychological support for children subjected to enforced beliefs is a vital component of a plan to transform the world to a place of peace and who else will be providing this except for atheists and theists who will be working hand in hand for this very purpose as this new epoch of understanding begins?

Monday, February 13, 2012

The Decisions of God

If God exists, we can all observe the decisions of God. Some of these decisions are listed below:

Should thinkers have eternal life?
Should thinkers have the power to die?
Should thinkers have free will?
Should the thinker live in isolation?
Should thinkers be able to reproduce?
Should thinkers be required to believe in the existence of God?
Should thinkers be free to believe what they wish to believe?
Should life be created as newborn infants and then should these infants be entrusted to thinkers to raise?

The list goes on. We can all see the decisions of God. We have never needed a teacher or a Bible or a Quran to see the decisions that God has made. Most of us however have been taught that knowledge of God must come from a book or a scholar or a priest. Our ancestors meant well, but they were confused and the result is that many of us have psychological constraints imposed by their false notion that God is some angry being that demands worship and belief at the cost of eternal torment.

As we can clearly see, by observing the decisions of God, nothing could be further from the truth. But our minds have been prejudiced by a lifetime of thinking of God in terms of the false patriarchal ideas of the scriptures. So, to free ourselves from these psychological constraints we can use the feminine pronouns. When we do this, the old false ideas crumble to sand in the wind. We can then, with a clear state of mind, observe existence to learn what we can about her nature.

If God exists then every day, for thousands of years, she has been creating  life in the form of newborn children and then to entrusting them to us. We can all see that she is not required to do this. We can then ask ourselves why she does so.  Are we worthy of such trust? What is she telling us by continuing to trust us like this?

Is she not expressing faith in us, that we will respond in a manner that will prove we should be trusted? Is she not expressing hope for us, that we will finally learn to get along with each other, realizing that we are entrusted with each other? And is she not expressing overwhelming love for us when we find ourselves so gifted and entrusted with the raising and teaching of children?

The answer to these questions is very clear:  if God exists, she is very beautiful and benevolent in her nature. She loves us very dearly. She is nothing like the angry character described in all of our ancient texts. So, why did our ancestors write about God in the manner they did?

If we could observe the evolution of life on another planet like earth, as they acquire consciousness and mature thinking processes, as they evolve from strictly instinctual behavior we would see them develop theories of God. They would do this in response to the terrors of nature: volcanoes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, earthquakes and the marauding beasts. They were instinctual animals, now they are thinking beings, they understand they die, often violently. The roars of nature are like the roars of the beast and the logical conclusions is that there is some great angry being behind the clouds, behind the volcanoes, reaching out to strike them down in great explosions of anger. What can be done to appease such a creature? Cowering in fear in a cave, they naturally and logically found themselves praying in supplication to the angry being, to stop the torment.

And so did we.  We cowered in our misunderstandings ofr the forces of nature and we prayed.  Eventually, the maelstrom subsided and we concluded that our prayers were answered. What else could we think? We had not acquired the knowledge of the cause of storms and earthquakes. From these initial erroneous conclusions, we developed our theories of the angry God in heaven who demands worship, belief and sacrifice. Once we  had invented writing, it became written down and passed down through the generations. Along the way, we discovered that large groups of people could be cajoled to live in relative peace with each other if they all shared a fear of the mythical God.

We can see from these decisions that God would never speak to us directly through books or popes or messengers or prophets because she can see what we all can see, that when we believe these books or teachers are infallible we will fight each other over the interpretations of the words. And we have only to observe our history to see what God can see, that we will kill each other because one of us thinks the other has offended God or a prophet or a teacher or a family or the local cultures interpretation of the scripture.

We can also see that God does not ask for worship, nor does God command that we believe. We are free to believe or to not believe. If she exists at all she has no objection to atheism. Indeed, she seems to encourages atheism. She gives us our minds, our tools of reason, to learn and understand nature, to treat each other well, to build a world of peace, to branch out and populate this spectacular universe.

We can see from the decisions of God that we are afforded an opportunity. We are granted a choice: We can live as repositories of trust for those with whom we are daily entrusted, or we can be something less than that. And from this simple observation we can observe that we all were once born as infants, and as such each one of us is a gift, to each other, from God. We must now turn to our neighbors and find a way to love the things she loves, to love each other.

We have a job to do. In our world, children are born every day and enforced into beliefs in the ancient mythical angry God. While any person should be free to believe in God as they might wish, it should never be compelled. The children of the world need to receive complete educations and political freedom so they can make their own decisions as to what to believe about the existence and character of God. How long will it take to heal the world? 20 years? 100 years? 1000 years? What is the cross generational plan that will get the job done? How will atheists and theists work together to see that it happens? Crated or evolved, we have a common ground, to love and educate our children and to build a world of peace.

It is true, she might not exist at all.  but if she does, then we can all see the decision she has made and learn the true nature of her character.  If she exists, we can all see she is as beautiful and benevolent as this earth and beckoning cosmos.  What else can we learn from the decisions of God?

Friday, February 3, 2012

What God Has Never Done

Our ancestors meant well. But they are gone now and they cannot correct their mistakes. And if one believes in God then one might also believe that our ancestors live on somewhere and that they can look down upon the earth and see our progress. And if one believes that then one can know that they look on in anguish if we, their children, instead of correcting their mistakes, blindly continue our sad behavior because we refuse to believe that they could be mistaken.

And this is the state of the world today. A new epoch is about to begin, one where we no longer accept blindly as truth the things that have been written and said before. Instead, each one of us is acquiring the freedom and the courage required to observe the universe with our own eyes to see if the things we see are in agreement with the things that have been written and then make the corrections where necessary.

And we are brave enough to admit that God might not exist at all. But if she does exist we can observe the universe and see the things that she has never done.

She has never spoken directly to man.

She has never chosen one people over another.

She has never directed the creation of scripture by man.

She has never directed a man to die upon the cross.

She has never selected a man to be her messenger.

She has never given commandments to man.

She has never demanded belief in her existence.

She has never directed that man should worship her.

She has never expressed objection to atheism.

She has never expelled man from a Garden of Eden.

She has never sent a flood to cause the deaths of her children.

She has never raised anybody from the dead.

She has never planned for trials and tribulations to end the world.

She has never directed that children be taught a religion.

Observe the universe. What are the other things that you see that God has never done?