Igor Tomson took exception to my letter pointing out that religion was the cause of most of the conflict around the world. He suggested I would get what's coming to me when I die. The BOP Times published my response yesterday, 10 May.
The sun we spin around is just one of billions of suns in our galaxy. Our galaxy is just one of billions of galaxies that make up the known universe. The enormity of the universe is mind-boggling. Your correspondent I Tomson asks me to believe that all of this was created by the old Jewish war-god Yahweh. Even sillier is his suggestion (BOP Times 2 May 2007) that a being capable of such a creation should be looking forward to one day meeting me.
Showing posts with label Tomson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tomson. Show all posts
11 May 2007
18 October 2006
Humanist moves in opposite way
Bay of Plenty Times published this on 17 October 2006.
Sorry to disappoint your correspondent Igor Tomson (Letters 4 October) but I fear I am travelling in the wrong direction on his “road to Damascus”. Unlike St Paul, I was brought up in the Christian tradition and my “conversion” was to secular humanism. I prefer a worldview which encourages me to think for myself and to think about others.
Unlike religion, humanism does not claim to have all the answers, but accepts human fallibility. It holds that the scientific method is the best tool for understanding the world around us. It accepts scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and of life on earth.
Humanism has no sacred writings, but bases its values on human experience and compassion. Humanism embraces the best in all worldviews, e.g. the Golden Rule, but it holds that new problems may require new solutions. Ethical living requires a living ethic. Humanists are morally progressive and support liberal abortion, voluntary euthanasia, civil unions, etc.
I don’t expect Igor Tomson will agree with most of this, but I suspect that most New Zealanders are humanists although they may not describe themselves as such.
Sorry to disappoint your correspondent Igor Tomson (Letters 4 October) but I fear I am travelling in the wrong direction on his “road to Damascus”. Unlike St Paul, I was brought up in the Christian tradition and my “conversion” was to secular humanism. I prefer a worldview which encourages me to think for myself and to think about others.
Unlike religion, humanism does not claim to have all the answers, but accepts human fallibility. It holds that the scientific method is the best tool for understanding the world around us. It accepts scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and of life on earth.
Humanism has no sacred writings, but bases its values on human experience and compassion. Humanism embraces the best in all worldviews, e.g. the Golden Rule, but it holds that new problems may require new solutions. Ethical living requires a living ethic. Humanists are morally progressive and support liberal abortion, voluntary euthanasia, civil unions, etc.
I don’t expect Igor Tomson will agree with most of this, but I suspect that most New Zealanders are humanists although they may not describe themselves as such.
Gay Bay
I Tomson (Bay Times 24 August) holds that commonsense says homosexual activity is unnatural and abhorrent. But homosexuals are following their own nature so homosexuality is clearly not unnatural to them and as long as they are consenting adults their sexual preference should not concern anyone else. This commonsense view is now firmly established in New Zealand law. Homosexuality may not be Tomson’s personal preference but tolerance is about accepting difference. There is no virtue in tolerating only people who are the same as oneself. On the other hand I do not believe in absolutes. Instead I ask myself if tolerating intolerant people will increase or decrease the total tolerance in New Zealand and conclude that it will reduce it. So I do not tolerate the intolerant.
Traditional values
Your correspondents I Tomson and KH Salt (Bay Times, 18 August 2006) are two of a kind. Both complain that traditional values have been replaced by “today’s condom culture” or “atheistic humanist laws”. Neither considers that the problem may lie with traditional values and those who cling to them. Maybe humanistic values and solutions are simply filling the vacuum left by the failure of traditional values. If a new generation have rejected traditional values and this has resulted in rising rates of venereal disease, Tomson and Salt are free to carry on flogging a dead horse, but why do they criticise those who try to reduce the damage? Salt in particular even goes so far as to bear false witness by attributing to the Humanist Manifesto a quote about “the rotting corpse of Christianity”. I have checked the text of Humanist Manifestos I, II and III. None of them contain this phrase. In fact I cannot find any reference to Christianity at all. The three manifestos were written by some eminent thinkers of the twentieth century. Salt should have the courtesy to read what they actually wrote before attempting to quote them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)