There is no letter that I have written that has caused me so much trepidation as this letter as I am aware that in writing it I shall be treading on tender toes and offending many sensibilities. Yet, it is a sincere expression of what I believe to be one of man's greatest needs in these troubled times.

Man's quest for the meaning of his existence has led him into many avenues of intellectual speculation, taken many forms, and resulted in the development of many faiths or religions. Homer Smith,eminent physiologist and physician, in his book entitled, "Man and His Gods" lists no less than four thousand Gods that man has worshipped at one time or another. They range from the deities of nature (sun, rain, wind, water) to those of the spirit (love, war, beauty, etc.) and are exemplified by the Gods of the Egyptians, the pantheons of Greece and Rome, and the many aspects of the Hindu's Brahms, Shiva, and Siva. In short, during the course of man's cultural evolution, essentially the past six thousand years, man has created innumerable faiths to enable him to live in his earthly environment and to try to comprehend the meaning of life.

Today's formal religions and this list is far from complete and the writings that inspired them might briefly be noted at this point: The new Testament of the Bible (Christianity), the Koran (Islamism, the Bhaugavad-Gita, Yedas, and Upanishads (Hinduism), the Tripitaka (Buddhism), the Agamas (Jainism), the Analects and the Five K'ing (Confucianism), the Tao-Teh-Xing (Taoism), the Kofiki, Nihongi, and Yengishiki (Shinotoism), the Avestas (Zoroastrianism), the Old Testament of the Bible (Judaism), the Writings of Bahaullah (Bahaism).

It is interesting that all of today's formal religions were man created and each had its origin as a departure from a preexisting faith, i.e., Christianity from Judaism, Buddhism and Jainism from Hinduism,and Islamism from the Old Testament prophets, etc. In every instance the development of a new Faith was the result of a dissident who found the prevailing beliefs of his time inadequate to his generation and sought a means of improving the plight of his fellow man by creating new standards of conduct and new principles of behavior that were critical of the existing Orthodoxy! Some of these men made it clear that they were not Gods, but time and the veneration of their life's work made them into deities; i.e., Buddha. The disciples of these men created a "God" where none was originally intended.

Today, and this was also true 100 or 500 years ago, a case can be made that our formal religions have done as much harm to mankind as any good that might have been brought to it. Witness today Protestant versus Catholic in Ireland; Arabs versus Jew in the Middle East; Moslem versus Hindu versus Christian in Bangladesh; Hindu versus Moslem in yesterday's Punjab; and furthermore, a brief recollection from History of the Crusades (Christian versus Infidels), the inquisition (Catholic versus Heretic) and the conquests of Mexico and Peru (Catholic versus Heathen) and the innumerable religious wars. One could go on ad infinitum to make this point. In all fairness one must concede that today's formal religions by their antagonisms toward one another have done and are doing much to encourage man's inhumanity to man.

Except for Bahaism virtually all of the world's great religions had their origins two thousand or more years ago and at a time when the earth was considered flat and knowledge of evolution was non-existent. It was not surprising then that at that time the concept of a personal God who could save one from Hell and eternal damnation and one who could offer the prospect of a heaven and a life hereafter should take hold and flourish. Now that man has drilled 20,000 feet into the earth and found no hell, and explored outer space and found no heaven, he is restless and discontented with the fixed, rigid dogmas and creeds of the past, and seeks a more enlightened religion based on scientific facts and unassailable truths.

Kai Nielsen commented upon the formal religions in this manner: "Any religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Zoroastrian or what not that makes claims to special revelation is fundamentally misguided and mistaken."

Most of the people inhabiting the Earth today adhere to one or the other of the world's great religions and most will contend that if their religion were given a real trial and practiced as originally intended, all would be well and a true salvation for mankind would be possible. This surely is a naive point of view as religious interpretation varies with individuals and in support of this assumption is the fact that some 300 different Christian sects exist today. May I ask if Christ ever envisioned such diversity and such fragmentation of his preachings?

The real problem confronting the formal religions is their failure to adapt to the march of civilization and the explosion of knowledge. Unfortunately, a static religion is impossible to live with and is actually detrimental to the growth of man. Witness the dark ages when all thought and inquiry was suppressed and men like Galileo and Copernicus were considered as heretics and prosecuted; some were actually burned at the stake. It is not surprising then that 400 years elapsed and nary a new thought came into being (Dark Ages). The idea that the world was helio-centric rather than geo-centric was crushed by the papacy. It was only during the Renaissance that man cast off the bonds of religious intolerance and became intellectually liberated and free to think as he pleased. Paul Blanchard's book entitled, "Classics in Free Thought" summarizes well the emergence of man's intellectual freedom.

It is interesting that the two most dynamic movements of this generation and I'll purposely not use the words "religions" or "faiths," is that of Leninism (USSR) and the Communist Internationale, and Maoism (People's Republic of China). In China all religious institutions are outlawed) and each person's religion is "personal." If two or more people have the same "religion or beliefs" and meet together, it is contrary to the new Chinese Constitution and is illegal. Thus, all churches, synagogues, temples, etc., are converted to museums and libraries. In Russia the Greek Orthodox Church and Islam are tolerated but the young are discouraged from participation and many of the old churches are today essentially "Museums of the Past."

While Leninism and Maoism involve more than a billion of the earth's inhabitants, it is too early to say that they too will go the way of the other religions noted above. For the moment they are the "in" thing for more than a quarter of the globe's inhabitants. Both Lenin and Mao are deified today and literally worshipped as Gods. The Sino-Soviet divisiveness, however, may create a conflict (World War III) that may make the need for a new faith really understandable and inspirational. It might be surmised also that had Hitler succeeded and all dissidents liquidated as Mao and Stalin had done with their antagonists, it is more than likely that he, too, would be deified by his followers.

May I say that I am writing this as one who was raised in a formal religion (Episcopalian) and who cherishes the early days when I grew up in St. Peter's Parish in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. It is, incidentally, the oldest parish in the state of New Jersey, and its walls are hallowed with American history and its gravestones date back to the late sixteen hundreds. In that church I served as a choir boy, acolyte, Sunday school teacher, Adult Bible teacher, and Junior and Senior Warden. Today I can still find it in my heart to support this institution as it was a very valuable influence in my life as a child and young man. It set standards of human behavior that were desirable and commendable. Today, however, I no longer subscribe to the dogmas, creeds, miracles, that were taught to me and, in fact, are not really essential for my well being or ease of mind today. Just as children outgrow Santa Claus and Saint Nicholas, so can an adult mind outgrow the myths, parables, and historical inaccuracies of formal religions.

Although the formal religions may have failed us in resolving man's struggles with his own kind, may I add that they have provided eloquent architectural testaments to the aspirations of man; i.e., Saint Peter's Cathedral, York Minster, Chartres, Suleiman's Mosque, the Alhambra, the Jain Temple, etc., and all provide in their unique manner inspirational experiences that transports us out of and above the animal kingdom, if only briefly and temporarily.

Ever since the dawn of civilization, man's chief preoccupation has been war and history, and national budgets today provide eloquent testimony to this fact. Formal religions during the past 2,000 years have not eliminated war nor man's inhumanity to man nor will they ever do so! What is urgently needed today is one based on reason and an understanding of man as man.

Fate permitting, and with the acquiescence of the editor, I should like to present my opinion of man's needs today in a future letter or letters to the editor of the Manchester Evening Herald.

Charles E. Jacobson, Jr., M. D.

45 Wyllys Street

Manchester, CT 06040

1975

In a previous communication entitled, "Needed: A New Religion, A Modern Faith," I declared that the formal religions conceived over 2000 years ago are no longer adequate to meet man's needs in this modern, complex world.

Erich Fromm in discussing formal religion said, "The question is not whether man returns to religion and believes in God but whether he lives love and thinks truth. If he does so the symbol systems (formal religions) he uses are of secondary importance. If he does not, they are of no importance."

George W. Beadle, Noble Laureate in Biology and former President of the University of Chicago, stated: "I believe in organic evolution; that is, I believe all organisms from the smallest sub-microscopic viruses to man himself arose from simpler forms by processes that take place when and where conditions favor them." He accepts the cosmologist's view that at one time the universe consisted solely of hydrogen, the simplest of all elements, and that from this one element the other elements and then molecules of ever increasing complexity arose. Finally, out of inorganic material the first living molecules evolved and life as such was born on earth. This happened in a natural and inevitable manner just as certain reactions have to happen in a modern chemist's test tube when conditions are ideal. By equally inevitable stages complete living systems appeared and then creatures of greater complexity. Finally, man came into being, man with his unique ability to remember, reason, and communicate. This ability enabled man to evolve a cultural evolution and with it religion, art, music, science, and technology came into the world.

When Beadle was asked if he believed in God, he answered that he could as a scientist still have faith in the presence of an omniscient being but not in a God that created man as man. He added that as a scientist he could probably put all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together beginning with the simplest element hydrogen but he was at a complete loss to explain who provided the original hydrogen atoms.

From this viewpoint, it can be argued, and rather forcefully, that if there be a God or omnipotent and omniscient spirit, it must be an impersonal force or spirit, and not a personal God of any kind. In fact, it must be the very spirit or original creator that provided the hydrogen or its equivalents in terms of elementary particles (charms, quarks, Psi's, etc.) and which devised the natural and inexorable laws of gravity, thermodynamics, conservation of energy, etc. These are natural laws that man can never violate and which prevail not only in our universe but so far as can be determined, in other galaxies and celestial bodies as well. As an example, no amount of prayers can save a man falling from the Empire State Building were he to hit the hard pavement or if his rate of deceleration is greater than a tenth of a second!

Homer Smith, eminent physiologist, expressed his ideas of the evolutionary origin of man in the following manner: "As a little lower than the angels, man would be ludicrous. As an animal, he has reason to be proud because he is the first who can ask himself whither' why, and whence? and confident because he can know himself as a creature of Earth who has risen by his own efforts from a low estate. If he would rise higher, he must be true to earth, he must accept that he is its creature, unplanned, unprotected, and unfavored, co-natural with all other living creatures and with the air and water and sunlight and black soil from which their dynamic pattern has been fabricated by impersonal and indifferent forces. In every wish, thought, and action he is seeking to escape the same protoplasmic disquietude that impels the meanest flesh crawling beneath his feet. He must find his values and his ends entirely within this frame of reference."

From the above remarks of Beadle and Smith one can reasonably assume that thinking men today accept man as simply a creature of evolution and represents its highest form. No divine intervention is needed to explain man's presence on earth as the simple processes of evolution over a period of 2 billion years are capable of providing this explanation. Admittedly, however, there are many gaps in our knowledge of this evolutionary process but with the passage of time, more and more of these gaps are being addressed. Studies by Leakey and research on the Neanderthal Man, the Peking Man, and the Java Man, along with the contributions by Ardrey (African Genesis), Morris (Naked Ape), Montague (Human Evolution), etc., represents some of the efforts to explain man's primitive origin and as more of this information is being brought to light, man's evolutionary origin is becoming more verifiable.

In proposing a new faith based upon the conception of man as an evolved animal, an entirely new approach will be required and not that of merely redesigning old religions. One of the better methods was utilized by Bahaullah, a Persian philosopher and a member of its nobility, who approached it from an eclectic and syncretic point of view some 200 years ago. At that time, after having studied all or most of the world's great religions, he adopted the common denominators of all of them, or briefly stated, accepted the best in all of them. Upon this he superimposed the idea of a world government or federation, believing that nationalism was at the root of many of man's problems. Despite this noble, conceptual edifice, and its apparent rationality, his preachings are not too well known today and apparently no more successful than any of his predecessors.

J. Auer, writing in the "Religious Humanism" (Autumn 1977), notes that there is a "fatigue phenomena in religions and that all religions must be reexamined anew by each succeeding generation because the times, the problems, and the people themselves change." James E. Brayles, writing in the same issue, said any religion if it is to survive must be "internally coherent, not in conflict with established facts and not implausible. It must be believable and intellectually respectable." Furthermore, Gibbons in his "Classic History of Rome" stated, "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in Roman World, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosophers as equally false; and by the magistrates as equally useful." Thus, one's perceptions of religion varied with one's status in society and varied with one's intellectual and cultural background.

In my first letter it was my intent to say that all of our formal religions have failed because they were based upon a misconception of man and his origin, at least as it is known today. Furthermore, the old religions were based upon beliefs in ideas that went beyond what was known at the time, transcognitive, and which made it necessary to assume a divine origin for man. Today, this approach is no longer necessary and "miracles" so common in the past can usually be explained today in the light of our greater knowledge and understanding.

In my second letter I've tried to provide some evidence to substantiate the evolutionary origin of man, and that he is nothing more than an evolved animal, an animal to be sure, who is "capable of identifying the cold and barren world of prosaic fact, while at the same time can warm himself (as I am doing) by the fireside of fancy, taking counsel of the wisdom and poetry of our sages. Man has the vision to enable him to behold a guiding star in the dark mystery which girdles the earth, and imagination enough to enable him to conceive of a better world for us tomorrow."

Hopefully, in a future letter I can at least try and suggest a system that might work better than our standbys of yesterday.

Charles E. Jacobson, Jr., M. D.

45 Wyllys Street

Manchester, CT 06040

1975

In two previous letters I said the formal religions conceived two millennium ago were inadequate to meet man's needs today essentially because they failed to recognize man for what he is; namely, an evolved animal nothing more nor less, and not one conceived or created in God's image. There is no need to reach outside of man to find his salvation. Within man lies his hope and future and this is the point of this letter.

The first prerequisite for designing a system or philosophy to enable man to live with man is to recognize man as man; as an evolved animal with only six thousand years of cultural evolution. One hundred thousand and more years are his heritage anthropologically!

John Dewey, one of the foremost religious humanistic philosophers of our historical era, recognized the need for man to find the solutions to his own dilemmas within himself with no assistance from above and in signing the "Human Manifesto I" in 1933 particularly endorsed the thesis of religious humanism, "Though we consider religious forms and ideals of our father's no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task of mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams...and must set his intelligence and will to the task."

Homo Sapiens is man's taxonomic classification, and the title indicates a wise and intelligent animal. It is with the "wise and intelligent" aspect of man that I must concern myself with as I seek to find the new faith that is essential for mankind's survival.

It is probably true that man's mind has probably not improved much, if any, since the days of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, etc., and man's conscience and consciousness of his unique role in the animal kingdom has not progressed since the days of Pericles. Albert Einstein expressed it rather forcefully, "The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking!"

Another fact of life is that all animals of the same species, including man, are not alike except for identical twins or the results of cloning experiments. Each person today is different from all others, not only genetically but culturally as well. Our size, appearance, motivation, intelligence, etc., provides our individuality and the only common interest we may have is in our self-survival.

While it should be apparent that men differ from one another, it is important to realize that some of the differences are of tremendous importance. There are men of competence and men of incompetence, men constitutionally adequate and men constitutionally inadequate, and men born with all sorts of genetic defects. There are men of good will and men of bad will, selfish men and selfless men, and finally cunning and devious men who place self-aggrandizement above all goals. Any faith that is proposed for such an assortment of humanity must take into consideration the diversity of Homo Sapiens.

At this point one might ask what great developments of a non-religious nature has man created which has enabled him to live with himself and with his fellow man. Several might be mentioned, all of which are essentially ethical in character. The code of Hammurrabi, Plato's ideal republic, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the United Nations, to name only a few. All of these documents recognize man's great potential as a social and communal animal and represent his highest aspirations. There are other writings which emphasize the reality of nature and the reality of man and point up the constant need to be aware of his cunning and deviousness, despite his lofty aspirations.

In proposing a new faith for man, I am not proposing that he alter or change his fundamental animal nature, as that is impossible. Norman Cousins in recognizing man as man and in discussing the future of man said, "Man is not being called upon to rearrange the planets or to alter the composition of the sun. He is not being called upon to work miracles. He is only called upon to make decisions affecting his own welfare. Thomas Jefferson has also provided us with a first step toward our goal of a new faith when he said, "I will pay homage only to reason and oppose all forms of tyranny over the mind of man." He was opposed to the closed mind of many of the world's formal religions.

Any system designed to create a structure that would enable man to live with man must recognize the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, and these must include freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Man's civil and political rights must be sustained and man's economic, social, and cultural rights can best be preserved under a world authority which will implement, promote, and protect these rights all over the world.

Man's reason can propose a code of conduct (Humanism) based upon the principles enunciated above, and an institution (World Government) that will enable him to be justly entitled "Homo Sapiens" and these shall be discussed in another and last letter to sustain my conviction that man needs a new faith.

Charles E. Jacobson, Jr., M. D.

45 Wyllys Street

Manchester, CT 06040

1975

To attempt to define a way of life or a system of ethics and values that would enable man to live with man is certainly presumptuous for anyone to attempt, for far greater minds have attempted this in the past and with little success. Witness the widespread violence throughout the world today. However, progress can only come with change of a constructive nature and no man can be denounced for trying to achieve a better world for himself and his children. More than likely he, too, will fail as all others have done heretofore.

Humanism is the answer to man's need for a modern faith. The very word itself should help to define itself, for I think everyone knows what one means when it is said one is a very "human" type of person. I shall try, however, to define it more explicitly.

Protagaras is frequently called the father of Humanism, and this is based upon his statement that "man is the measure of things, both of the existence of what is, and the non-existence of what it is not." Protagaras was saying, in essence, that man is the only and final arbiter of his role on this earth and should the occasion arise, only he can save himself--no deity can do so! Man and man alone must acknowledge and assume responsibility for the human condition, both good and bad, and marshal his intelligence and reason to cope with the problems of mankind. Humanism commits man to the causes and ideals that seem to him to have significance in his personal and social quest.

In trying to define Humanism perhaps Paul Kurtz's definition is as good as any: "Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself. It has its roots in classical China, Greece, and Rome; it is expressed in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, in the scientific revolution, and in the twentieth century."Paul H. Beattie, President of the Fellowship of Religious Humanists speaks of Humanism "as a frame of orientation, and an approach to the human situation. It is not a final set of strategies or answers. Its great promise is that it may be the the most usable and global philosophy available to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries." He further adds that "it is the philosophy most capable of making sense of all religions, and was a strong force in Buddhism and Confucianism and that strong currents of Humanism are also in Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, and even Islam, the most theocentric of religions."

The starting point of Humanism is the preservation and enhancement of all things human and the realization of the human potentiality of each individual and of humanity as a whole.

The heart of Humanism is contained in two Manifesto; the first (Manifesto I) was drafted in 1933 by a group of 34 liberal humanists. It was concerned with expressing a general and philosophical outlook that rejected orthodox and dogmatic positions, and provided meaning and direction, unity and purpose to human life. It was committed to reason, science, and democracy.

Forty years later (1973) Manifesto II was declared and was signed by men of the stature of Isaac Asimov (scientist), John Ciardi (poet), Francis Crick (Noble Laureate in Physics), Andre D. Sakharov (Russian Academy of Scientists), Lord Ritchie-Calder (statesman), B.F.Skinner (Psychologist), Corliss Lamont (Social Scientist), Jacques Monod (Noble Laureate, Physiology), Sherwin Wine (Rabbi), Sir Julian Huxley (British Philosopher), Herbert J. Muller (Noble Laureate in Genetics), Gunnar Myrdal (Noble Laureate in Economics), and approximately 275 more of the preeminent liberal minds in this world.

Rabbi Wine in his book "Humanistic Judaism" defines religion as Man's way of identifying with the life process out of which he emerged, and the way he dramatizes his connection with the animate nature. Man is the supreme fulfillment of the evolutionary process, whereby life has become conscious of itself. With man, the evolutionary process ends and the creative process begins."

In an effort to be creative the authors of Manifesto II affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for universal and united action--positive principles relevant to the present human condition and designed for a secular society on a planetary scale.

To summarize the principles in Manifesto II would be too lengthy for a letter of this kind but some 17 principles are discussed in detail including: ethics (moral values derived from human experience), the use of reason and critical intelligence in resolving problems, the recognition of the preciousness and dignity of the individual person and the need to provide maximum individual autonomy and consistent with social responsibility, the acceptance of sexuality in an understanding and tolerant manner, the fostering of civil liberties in all societies, the encouragement of participatory democracy in determining the values and goals that determine our lives, the separation of church and state everywhere, the advocation of moral equality and the elimination of all forms of discrimination, the right to universal education all over the globe, the creation of a world community, and the transcendence of the limits of national sovereignty, the peaceful adjudication of man's differences by international courts, global planning of an ecological and economical nature, the provision of adequate funds and technical help, to help the disadvantaged peoples, and international cooperation in culture, science and the arts across ideological borders. The details of these principles are found in Manifesto II published by Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York.

While I grant that man can never escape from his human frame, I do believe his mind is capable of self-transcendence and of achieving the "heaven that lies about us." Humanism considers the complete realization of the human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its fulfillment in the here and now. Formal religions created the Kingdom of God in Heaven; Humanism seeks to create the commonwealth of man on Earth.

George B. Foster says "Man is an Earth child whose drama has meaning only on her bosom and all of our energies must go toward mastering our understanding of mother nature and our Earth. Humanity has only itself to depend upon, and man alone is responsible for the world of his dreams and he alone has the power for its achievement."

Humanists believe we must live openly together or we shall perish together. Humanism offers a philosophy for survival.

In my initial letter I noted that man's quest for the meaning of his existence has led him into many avenues of intellectual speculation, taken many forms, and resulted in the development of many faiths or religions. To a Humanist life only has meaning if his individual life and his presence here on this earth has made this a better world. This is the only manner in which his life can have any value or significance.

Charles E. Jacobson, Jr., M.D.

45 Wyllys Street

Manchester, CT 06040

1975