The Secular Community Blog

Humans are consuming more of Earth’s resources than can be replenished in a given year, that is, we are using resources that should be available in the future to support our present mode of living.  Earth Overshoot Day marks the date each year that our demand on the Earth’s resources exceeds what can be regenerated during that same year.  It is calculated by the Global Footprint Network, and in 2019 the date was July 29^th, the earliest date ever. While the date for 2020 has not yet been calculated, it is a reasonable bet that the date this year will be even earlier than last, given the ongoing growth in the human population and our failure to reign in the demand for resource consumption.

Continuing to borrow from the future to maintain the present is, of course, not sustainable.  If we continue to outstrip the resources that the Earth is able to generate, future generations will pay a steep price.

The Global Footprint Network has been able to compile data on resource use going back to 1961.  The first year that we overshot Earth’s resources was 1970, when the overshoot date was December 29^th, and we have been going downhill ever since.  2018 was the first year that the date slid into July.

The Earth Overshoot Day website does offer a set of solutions for moving the date back, which can be explored on their website at https://www.overshootday.org/solutions/.

By James Haught

Jim Haught is editor of West Virginia’s largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette, and a senior editor of Free Inquiry. This article first appeared in Free Inquiry, Fall 2000.

Young seekers of truth go through a phase of wondering whether life has any discernible meaning. Why are we here? Why does the universe exist? Is there a purpose to it all? This is the ultimate question, overarching all others.

The seekers usually plunge into philosophy, and spend years sweating over “being” and “essence” – and quibbling over how the mind obtains knowledge – and how we determine reality – and how language shapes our comprehension. In the end, most of them emerge (as I did) with no better answer than when they began – and a feeling that they wasted a lot of time and effort. Omar Khayyam felt the same way 900 years ago:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about, but evermore
Came out by the same door as in I went.

However, despite this futility, I think intelligent people can address the meaning-of-life question sensibly, without bogging down in philosophical stewing and hair-splitting. That’s what I’d like to do now: just spell out what’s knowable, as I see it. The following is my personal, amateur view.

First, 90 percent of humanity – the religious believers – needn’t ask the meaning of life. Churches, mosques and temples tell them the answer. Priests and scriptures say a magical, invisible god created the universe, and put people here to be tested – and set behavior rules for us to follow – and created a heaven to reward the rule-followers after they die – and a hell to torture the rule-breakers – etc. This supernatural explanation, or some other mystical version, is accepted by the vast preponderance of the species.

But some of us can’t swallow it, because there’s no evidence. Nobody can prove that people live after death. Nobody can prove that we are tortured or rewarded in an afterlife – or that there are invisible spirits to do the torturing and rewarding.

Therefore, we unsure people are doomed to be seekers, always searching for a meaning to life, but never quite finding one. I’ve been going through it for half a century. Now, I think I can declare that there are two clear answers: (1) Life has no meaning. (2) Life has a thousand meanings.

First, the lack of meaning: As for an ultimate purpose or transcending moral order, all the great thinkers since ancient Greece have failed to find one. The best philosophical minds have dug into this for 25 centuries, without success. There have been endless theories, but no clear answer.

Martin Heidegger concluded that we are doomed to live our whole lives and die without knowing why we’re here. That’s existentialism: All we can really know is that we and the material world exist.

(Actually, I can know only one thing with absolute certainty: that my mind exists, and is receiving impressions. Hypothetically, the images, sounds, feelings, etc., in my consciousness could be illusions – perhaps like artificial inputs to a brain in a laboratory tank – and the entire objective world could be fictitious. But there’s no question whatsoever that my mind is receiving them. Rene Descartes stated this truth as “cogito, ergo sum” – I think, therefore I am. However, although we can’t be totally sure of the validity of the sense impressions reaching our minds, we all presume that external people, places and things actually exist. Their existence seems verified by thousands – millions – of encounters in our activities. We base our whole lives, and our search for knowledge, on this presumption that they are real.)

As we learn scientific facts, we realize that the universe is horribly violent, with stars exploding or disappearing into black holes. Here on Earth, nature can be equally monstrous. Both the cosmos and our biosphere seem utterly indifferent to humanity, caring not a whit whether we live or die. Earthquakes and hurricanes and volcanos, etc., don’t give a damn whether they hit us or miss us. Tigers, tapeworms and bacteria consider us food.

As for morality, I don’t think any exists, independent of people. It’s merely rules that cultures evolve for themselves, in their attempt to make life workable.

Conservatives talk of “natural law” – but there really is none. If Ku Klux Klansmen lynch a black person from a limb, the tree doesn’t care. Nor do the squirrels and birds in the branches. Nor the sun or moon above. Nature doesn’t care. Only people care.

Take human rights. Thomas Jefferson said all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But I think Jefferson was wrong. There’s no evidence that any Creator endowed anyone with any God-given rights. What unalienable rights were enjoyed by African blacks who were sold into slavery – including those on Jefferson’s Monticello plantation?

What God-given rights were assured the 3,000 victims of the historic terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001? – or the 6 million Jews sent to Nazi death camps? – or the 1 million middle-class Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot’s peasant army? – or the 1 million tall Tutsis killed by short Hutus? – or Ulster children killed by Catholic and Protestant bombs? – or Hiroshima residents in 1945 – or around 1 million women burned as witches by the Inquisition? What’s the meaning of life to the millions dying of AIDS? – and the millions who died in the 1918 flu epidemic, and in the Black Plague? – and the 900 who gave cyanide to their children at Jonestown? – or the 90 who burned with their children in the David Koresh compound? What meaning existed for thousands of Hondurans drowned in hurricane floods a couple of years ago? Or those 16 Scottish kindergarten tots who were massacred by a psycho with pistols? Or the 2,000 American women killed by their husbands or lovers every year? Or the 20,000 victims the Aztecs sacrificed annually to the invisible flying serpent? – or the 20,000 the Thugs strangled for the goddess Kali?

Meaningless, senseless, pointless – all these horrors have a grotesque absurdity about them. Words like purpose, rights and morals simply don’t apply.

I think these evils make it obvious, by simple logic, that there is no all-loving, all-merciful, all-compassionate, father god. How could a kindly father watch idly while thousands of children die of leukemia, ignoring the desperate prayers of their families? Why would a kindly creator design nature so that lions slaughter antelopes, and pythons crush pigs, and sharks rip seals apart – and women die of breast cancer? Only a monster would arrange such monstrosities, and do nothing to save the victims. Therefore, common sense proves that the beneficent modern god is a fantasy who doesn’t exist.

In his book Consilience, the great Harvard socio-biologist E.O. Wilson pointed out that there are two fundamental ways of looking at reality: Empiricism, believing only what evidence tells you – and Transcendentalism, believing that a divine or cosmic moral order exists, independent of humanity. If any proof ever upholds the latter, he said, “the discovery would be quite simply the most consequential in human history.” But it never occurred.

So much for meaninglessness. Now for the many meanings:

Obviously, the reality of physics, chemistry, biology, atoms, cells, matter, radiation and all the rest of nature imposes a physical order upon us. We can’t escape the laws of nature that govern animals on an orbiting planet. And the inevitability of death is a force stronger than we are. We can’t prevent it. Therefore, whatever meanings exist must apply to the temporary period while we live.

Clearly, there’s a physical and psychological purpose to life. Our bodies need food, and clothing, and shelter, and health, and affectionate comfort, and security from violence and theft, and so forth. We also need gregarious social reaction with people around us. And we need democratic freedoms, so we can speak honestly without fear of punishment – and justice, so we won’t be treated cruelly. These are the humanist purposes of life: to provide better nutrition, medicine, housing, transportation, education, safety, human rights, and all the other needs of people.

To attain this humanist “good life,” the species has a strong need to raise intelligent, healthy, affectionate, responsible children. Sometimes I think the single biggest purpose in life is raising good kids.

I think we all endorse this biological / psychological meaning of life. We believe in preventing war, curing disease, ending hunger, improving literacy, reducing crime, averting famines, and taking other steps that make life pleasant – until death takes us.

However, aside from this “housekeeping” type of purpose, is there any greater meaning that transcends our human needs?

I don’t think so. At least, I’ve never been able to find any proof of it. We simply must try to make life as good as possible, and avoid horrors, and care about people, and have fun, even though we know that oblivion is coming.

Make hay while the sun shines – because darkness is on its way. Carpe diem – seize the day for now; live fully while you can. Omar Khayyam saw the folly of aggrandizing oneself, because ill fortune or sickness and death soon wipe it out. And praying for heaven after death is even greater folly: “Fools, your reward is neither here nor there.” So Omar’s solution was to take comfort in verses, wine and his lover “beside me singing in the wilderness – and wilderness is paradise enough.” About 1,400 years before him, the great Greek skeptic Epicurus felt the same way.

So there you have it: We who are not orthodox religious believers can’t find any underlying reason for existence. And we know that death looms ahead. So we must make the interval as enjoyable as possible, while we’re here. This view of life’s purpose was summed up a few years ago by the title of a Unitarian seminar: “Dancing over the dark abyss.” And Zorba the Greek taught us: What is life, if not to dance?

Over the past few weeks, a series of crazed gunmen took the lives of more than 30 innocent people in three separate mass killings in the United States.  Among the dead were multiple children.  Of course, children dying, in and of itself, is not a particularly newsworthy event.  Children die every day, from disease, hunger, accidents and, yes, violence.

Tragedy, unfortunately, is a part of nature, which we know and understand in our heart of hearts.  But religion, as framed by Christianity, Islam and Judaism, would have us believe otherwise.  They would have us believe that there is an all-powerful, loving God, that watches over us and, even when we see tragedy, it’s only because we don’t understand God’s plan.  And in the wake of such tragedy, the usual response from the religious community is to offer ‘thoughts and prayers’ to those affected, as if that is somehow compensation for those who are suffering.  If there’s an all-powerful, loving God watching over us, how can it be that bad things continuously happen to good people?

There is nothing more gut-wrenching than a child being taken from their loving parents, parents that nurtured that child from birth, with hopes for its future of a life of happiness and fulfillment.  To tell a parent that they just don’t understand God’s plan, that somehow their dead child is in a better place, is empty consolation.  We’re better off just coming to terms with the fact that in nature, bad things do in fact sometimes happen to good people, but also with the understanding that humans (not God) can take steps to reduce the number of those bad happenings (by reducing violence, disease, hunger and accidents).

The question of God is perhaps best summed up by one of our favorite quotes by the famous Greek philosopher Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

On June 30^th, Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres told a meeting on climate change in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that “the world is facing a grave emergency” from climate change, that “climate disruption is happening now and it is happening to all of us.”  He added that climate change is “outpacing our efforts to address it with each week bringing new climate-related devastation from floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and superstorms.”  Conditions “will only get worse unless we act now with ambition and urgency,” he stated.  He also noted that “many countries are not even keeping pace with their promises under the Paris Agreement.”

Climate change may be the greatest threat to human existence since the first humans set foot on the plains of Africa about 300,000 years ago.  Climate change is driven by greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide and methane.  China, the United States and the European Union account for more than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.  But the United States, which has the world’s largest economy and produces about 15% of the total, is no longer a party to the Paris Agreement, having been pulled out by President Trump.  Worse, President Trump has declared climate change to be a hoax and has had his administration work to undermine efforts to reduce the greenhouse pollutants that the United States has been pumping into the atmosphere, by appointing climate deniers and fossil fuel industry supporters across his administration.

Since the United States is one of the world’s biggest polluters, by undermining the United States’ climate change remediation efforts, President Trump represents a direct threat to humanity.  To rectify the situation in the short term, other countries will need to provide leadership and use every diplomatic and economic tool available to pressure the United States into taking action to fight climate change.  Most importantly, all efforts must be made to ensure Trump’s defeat in next year’s U.S. presidential election and that he is replaced by someone who understands the climate change threat and will work to fight its effects.

By Teresa Roberts

There’s something about the concept of systemic sexism that causes confusion. Just the mention of it can trigger anger. Even those with whom developing self-awareness has been a goal are not immune. Individuals become defensive, because they don’t understand that systemic sexism isn’t about them. It’s about the culture they inherited. This misconception can lead men to feel like they’re being attacked.

Can we truly understand the day-to-day grind of thousands upon thousands of subtle messages experienced by those who have been cast in social roles deemed “lesser than” and the many blatantly damaging repercussions of being assigned such a lot in life?

Can anyone fully appreciate generational pain, frustration and lack of opportunity that our grandmothers, mothers and daughters have endured without enduring it themselves? It seems unlikely that a person would be able to fully grasp how it feels unless they’re living it. Just as a white person can’t know what it feels like to be black or a rich person can’t fathom the deep struggles of being desperately poor, even the best of men will not be able to fully appreciate how it feels to be a woman in a patriarchal society.

Because systemic sexism has been woven into our social fabric, it is passed on as a matter of routine to the succeeding generations.

We inherit our culture through the sheer lottery of birth. We are not taught to question what has been passed on to us. Thus, we’re often unaware of the limitations our cultural heritage forces upon us let alone what harm it does to others. We’re essentially blind to many of the problems people face due to the fact that we see the world the way we were taught to see it, a world view not of our choosing. This inherited world view defined what was “normal” and acceptable long ago. If something is considered to be normal and acceptable, it goes largely unnoticed.

Although many things contribute to our cultural conditioning, I contend that across the world, religion has been leading tribes down the wrong path for centuries.

Whenever societies make a step forward, it has been in spite of not because of these culturally sanctioned religions. The three big religions of the world — Christianity, Islam and Judaism — have cast women in a secondary role. For the purposes of power, there are many who resist changing that model. When women suffer in silence, there’s almost no chance that anyone in positions of privilege will take notice of their plight. Maintaining status quo becomes the goal.

The world has only recently become interested in the notion of equality for everyone. In my lifetime, I have been fortunate to witness some movement toward social change.

Anyone, however, who believes that it will only take decades to root out systemic sexism, do not understand how these cultural systems work. They have been around for centuries, supported by our parents, grandparents, teachers, preachers, bosses, holy books and religious practices. They have infiltrated our government and monetary systems. They define our roles and determine our hierarchy of power. So much of what takes place between humans isn’t even a choice. Instead, we are driven by subconscious motives and belief systems that were predetermined long before we were born.

To listen to the hurt and suffering of others, to actually hear what they’re saying, requires an enormous amount of awareness.

Only those affected can tell their stories. Only they know the entire story — all the sordid details, nuances and expectations that come from living the story. It’s hard work to listen. It’s even harder work to understand and then give full credit to what the less privileged have to say. If we want social change to become a reality, however, we need to accept the responsibility to do that hard work. Sometimes, women are going to be angry. You’re going to hear it in their voices. Becoming defensive will be a natural reaction. Listen, instead! Listen without asking those who suffer to express themselves with less anger. Remember that you haven’t experienced the systemic subjugation that generations of women have endured. Listen and believe them.

With every step forward, societies tend to take two steps back.

Sometimes, it begins to feel like the goal is to drag us all the way back to the Dark Ages. In modern American politics, we’re seeing evidence of that desire where women are concerned. The current political movement is triggering fear and anger in many women. Some of these women won hard fought battles in the past. They’re old enough to remember marching for women’s rights back in the sixties and seventies. To feel the forces of the Christian right closing in all about them is terrifying. Let them speak their minds when they choose. Let them rail if need be. Listen and then join their cause.

If we’re ever going to create a secular world that honors women as equal to men, we must rid ourselves of systemic sexism.

Teresa Roberts is an author, world traveler and dedicated myth buster. Her recent book – Have We Been Screwed? Trading Freedom for Fairy Tales – can be purchased on Amazon.

This is our first in what we hope will be a long and meaningful string of blog posts.  For this first posting, we thought we would start a discussion on a particularly difficult question – what is God?

Fundamental to a discussion of religion and its pros and cons is the question of defining God or gods.  What we mean by any particular god is always problematic because a god is merely a concept, not something you can see or hear or touch.  Therefore, the existence of such a being cannot be positively either proven or disproven.

Because a god cannot be seen or heard or touched, whether it exists or in what form it exists is open to a broad spectrum of interpretations.  That’s why religion, as a practice, is so problematic.  Religion is the human interpretation of what is perceived to be the makeup and intent of the god or gods being worshiped.  But why worship something that is completely intangible, whose existence depends totally on faith, which ultimately requires the suspension of logic and reason.

The larger question is not whether God or gods exist, but what influence they have, if any, over our daily lives.  To us, the answer is clear, being that except for the forces of nature, we humans are in control of our own destiny and are the only ones that are capable of influencing our lives, whether for good or for bad.

Humanity is currently facing a real threat to its existence in the form of climate change, perhaps within decades.  Climate change is a direct result of human activity, largely from the burning of fossil fuels over the past few centuries.  It is clear to us that there is no god or other supernatural being that will intercede to save us.  Only humanity itself, banding together, can halt and reverse the effects of climate change.  The question of God, then, becomes moot, because humanity must look to itself to save its future and the future of the millions of species with whom we share the planet.