|
|
|
|
In This Issue … HUMANIST MANIFESTO 2000 by Peter Anderson, Ph.D QUOTE OF THE MONTH by Paul Kurtz HUMANIST VALUES, MORAL RELATIVITY AND ETHICS IN GENERAL by Paul Ricci LESSONS LEARNED FROM GEESE contributed by Harry Becker DO SCIENCE AND RELIGION CONFLICT? By Juan Bernal WISHFUL THINKING by Benito Franqui CONFRONTATION WITH A THEOLOGIAN/LAWYER By Dr. Clay Costner THE SHEEP LOOK UP (humor) contributed by Paul Ricci CHURCH ATTENDANCE & CRIME RATES by Dave Silva
HUMANIST MANIFESTO 2000 By Peter Anderson, Ph.D
Humanist Manifesto 2000, published in the Fall 1999 issue of Free Inquiry magazine, is a product of Paul Kurtz, editor of the magazine and Chairman of the for Secular Humanism. This manifesto is a successor to Humanist Manifesto I, published in 1933, before there was any formal national humanist organization, and Humanist Manifesto II, published in 1973, by The American Humanist Association. Kurtz seems to have written a (mostly) finely worded and (mostly) very appropriate encapsulation of the humanist position. The manifesto is endorsed (with some reservations) -- see the Winter 1999/00 issue) by Richard Dawkins, Edward 0. Wilson (Humanist of the Year for 1999), Richard Leakey, former Senator Alan Cranston, Our own Gerald Larue, and many others worldwide. It seems to have quite a universal appeal -~ The subtitle of the manifesto is "A Call for a new Planetary Humanism". The manifesto is quite a voluminous one, covering some twelve plus pages. There might be some arguments that it is too long. But then again, there are claims that some topics are treated too lightly. Clay Costner, James Gable and Pete Anderson will try to give some of the highlights of the manifesto and, perhaps, point Out some of its shortcomings.
Quote of the Month: "First, the dignity and autonomy of the individual is the central value. Humanist ethics is committed to maximizing freedom of choice: liberty of thought and conscience, the free mind and free inquiry, and the right of individuals to pursue their own lifestyles as they see fit, as long as they do not harm others. This is especially relevant in democratic societies where there may be a multiplicity of alternative value systems. Humanists thus respect diversity. …. Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifesto 2000.
HUMANIST VALUES, MORAL RELATIVITY AND ETHICS IN GENERAL By Paul Ricci After mulling over two recent talks at our monthly meetings, along with the articles in the past few newsletters, I was inspired to make a few comments that some of you might find worthy of further discussion. My main unrest in all I heard and read is where we stand in regard to the phrase "moral relativity." As Dave Silva and others have mentioned, Humanists are quite concerned about moral behavior and we seem to agree that religionists have no monopoly on either the grounds or expression of moral values. Fine, but do we REALLY want to include ourselves in the category of moral relativists as Victor Tanious expressed in an earlier newsletter? I suspect what he--and other Humanists, as well as Dr. Karen Stoyanoff--is concerned about is the dogmatic, absolutism of many Christians. I would like to suggest, however, that absolutism in ethics is not the opposite of relativism, but rather of a view many would term "subjectivism." The latter implies that what is good or right for one may be bad or wrong for another. "My view of morality is just as appropriate, as well-founded, as valid, as anyone else's view" it is often thought. This view would entail that Hitler's or Stalin's or Machiavelli's moral systems were no better (or worse) than anyone else's moral system. Now I don't think this is what the majority of Humanists and Unitarian/Universalists would want to advocate; I know I wouldn't. I have a suspicion some of us may be confusing moral subjectivism with moral relativism. Other than the sociological view called "moral relativism," I'm not quite sure what the phrase is supposed to mean as applied to our daily lives. Surely it doesn't mean we don't believe in any absolute moral principles. We do, of course, and some of these were mentioned in the talk by Stuart Bechman and Jeannie Mortenson last October. Granted that some (if not most!) moral behavior is grey, it doesn't follow that nothing is black or white from which we can adjudicate our behavior. Incest, torture, slavery or rape, and perhaps others, are always "black" while compassion, fortitude, patience, and honesty (among others) are always "white." Paul Kurtz mentioned the "common decencies" in one of his many books. I don't believe he intended these moral values to be relative in any way. Now the word "always" in front of the few moral values mentioned above may cause some Humanists to feel a bit uneasy and well it should. Perhaps the phrase "most often" instead of "always" would pacify more of you. The universal "always" seems to suggest some kind of absolutism in the minds of many free-thinkers when applied to morality and -- supposedly -- distinguishes us from dogmatic religionists. But you will have to admit that there are few exceptions to the evils mentioned above and--for all practical purposes--incest, torture, etc., are immoral in nearly all situations. Lastly, I was a bit chagrined that the discussion of ethical issues offered over the past few months left out so much. For example, no distinction was made between moral virtues (often called dispositions, such as patience, kindness, courage, etc.) and moral principles (such as the Golden Rule). No mention was made about the scope of ethics. Does it, for example, only include our behavior toward other humans? What about our relation to other creatures or nature herself, or our relation to ourselves, that is, how we regard ourselves? Nor was any mention made about the theoretical foundation for our ethical beliefs. Are we Utilitarians, Libertarians, Kantians or ethical egoists of some sort (not that these are the only choices)? Or, perhaps, some combination of the above? Or does it really make any difference which one (or many) that we choose? Or, are we only in agreement that we DON'T accept the Christian theoretical basis for our moral system? More fundamentally, are ethical choices good (or bad) because of their consequences or because they are good (or bad) in themselves? These and other related questions form part of what we call our moral belief system and we haven't even begun including social justice which interrelates with all of the above! I hope the above comments will make you a bit more aware of the complexities involved in moral choices and why the words used to designate our moral system are important. Perhaps we need a fuller discussion of these issues at a future meeting or in our newsletter. I thank you for your attention.
Lessons Learned from Geese Contributed by Harry Becker This Fall when you see geese heading south for the winter flying along in a V formation, you might consider what science has discovered as to why they fly that way: As each bird flaps its wings, it creates an uplift for the bird immediately following. By flying in V formation the whole flock adds at least 71% greater flying range than if each bird flew on its own. People who share a common direction and sense of community can get where they are going more quickly and easily because they are traveling on the thrust of one another. When a goose falls out of formation, it suddenly feels the drag and resistance of trying to go forward alone and quickly gets back into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird in front. It takes an awful lot of energy to try to fly down this road alone. Stay connected. to others who share your common path. When the head goose gets tired it rotates back in the wing and another goose flies point. It is sensible to take turns doing demanding jobs be it with people or with geese flying south Finally, when a goose gets sick or is wounded and falls out of formation, two other geese fall out with that goose and follow it down to lend help and protection until that fallen goose is able to fly again. Then they launch out again as a team to catch up with their group. If we have the sense of geese, we will stand by each other like that.
DO SCIENCE AND RELIGION CONFLICT? By Juan Bernal (A worker in the field) Many people hold that there is no conflict between science and religion. For the sciences develop empirical theories about processes, forces and objects in the natural world, theories that involve measurable (quantifiable) tests and predictions, but do not touch the big questions of religion and philosophy. And many scientists appear to have no difficulty in working in some scientific specialty while holding onto their religious faith; when it is time to proceed scientifically, they do so; and when it is time for worship, piety and affirming their religious faith, they do that. For example, a practicing Christian (Protestant or Roman Catholic) can be a good physicist, biologist, chemist, anthropologist, psychologist, engineer, etc… At first glance, many would agree that there is no conflict between science and religion, for they are different areas of human activity and do not infringe on each others domain. This is the position defended by Steven J. Gould * and others who urge a conciliatory view of the relation between science and religion. In addition, a large part of religious practice involves moral values and spirituality. Religions teach believers the correct way of interacting with other people (ethics, morality) and the spiritual perspective that should define their lives. Science, on the other hand, does not deal with these things. So there is no likelihood of a conflict here. But before we agree with Gould and others, who take this conciliatory view, let us take a closer look at this issue. Do religions limit themselves to matters of morality and spirituality? Most Do not. Consider, for example, some of the teachings of Christianity. To begin with, there is the theistic doctrine that God is creator and the ground of all reality. Next consider the belief that human beings have a dual nature, a body and soul, along with the claim that the soul is immortal, and that an existence following bodily death awaits us all. Here we have knowledge claims about the ultimate nature of humans and the world that they inhabit. Furthermore, Christianity and other western religions claim that God intervenes in human affairs and other natural processes. They also teach that a full explanation of human action and human fate ultimately rests on the actions of God, and that the origin of life and the appearance of human life can be explained only by reference to the action of a Creator Deity. It seems, then, that some of the teachings of religions can conflict with the work of science. For some religious doctrines imply knowledge claims about humans and their world, which have no rational or scientific grounding. And some scientists have advanced theories that contradict the theistic views of human reality, e.g. Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Contrary to Gould's claims of conciliation, when religions make claims regarding the ultimate nature of the world and human reality, their claims can be subjected to scientific inquiry and rational critique.
By Benito Franqui (A message I recently posted at a Christian message board) Dear Gary: Best holiday wishes to you too! In my quest to understand God and humanity, I prefer to focus on what human beings share in common, (which hopefully has the potential of bringing people together) rather than on how their differences might pull them apart. What could be more universal than humanity's desire for happiness? Early in life, this desire for happiness creates within each one of us a Wishful Thinker that tells us that things REALLY are the way we WISH them to be. In spite of this, we cannot avoid experiencing unhappiness from time to time. One day, we realize that falling for false promises is a significant source of unhappiness. The day this happens, the Critical Thinker is born in us. Most of us have learned to pay attention to our Critical Thinker when listening, for example, to a used car salesman's pitch. How can he back up his claims? Can he refer us to some of his previous customers so that we ourselves can find out if those customers really got what they were promised? What does a (supposedly reliable) publication such as Consumer Reports have to say about the particular brand, model, and year of the car he is trying to sell us? When shopping around for a religion, my Wishful Thinker tells me: "Buy Christianity! It will give you eternal happiness! What more can you want?" My Critical Thinker loudly complains, however: "Wait a minute! Why should you not apply the same standards that you use when shopping around for any other product? What are the names and phone numbers of previous customers that can attest to the veracity of the Christian salesman's promises? What? There is no way to contact them because they have all moved to an inaccessible place called 'Heaven'? Beware!" My Critical Thinker continues: "If you carefully inspect the Judeo-Christian product with the magnifying glass of scholarship, you might be able to decipher a tiny inscription which reads: "Originally produced in the Middle East by scientifically illiterate, superstitious people with axes to grind. May have toxic effects on hypersensitive users. Not intended for use in a more enlightened age.'" Cordially Yours,Benito (P.S. from my Wishful Thinker to your Wishful Thinker: may your fondest wishes come true!)
CONFRONTATION WITH A THEOLOGIAN/LAWYER (A true story) By Dr.Clay Costner, I went to the Urologist’s office for about 12 biopsies of my enlarged prostate (which by the way they found not to be cancerous), but as I was waiting to be called for my biopsy, I had the following conversation with a man sitting in the waiting room at the doctor’s office. He wore a dark suit and tie with very white hair. After I turned in my Kaiser card, he asked me how long I had been in a wheel chair? I told him about eight months. He then asked me what religion I embraced? (He had told me at some point in our conversation that he was a THEOLOGIAN.) I told him that I was like Gandhi and selected the best from all of the religions. He seemed to "Harumph!" to my answer as unsatisfactory and further pressed me as to my opinion as to which was the best of all these religions that I embraced? I said that if I had to chose, that the religion that was least likely to go to war or engage in violence was the Buddhist religion. He seemed quite offended and gave me several "Harumphs" to this suggestion and said something like "That’s too bad." I continued to compare the Buddhists, who many avoided the war in Vietnam to the good Lutherans in Nazi Germany, who stood by or participated in Hitler’s Holocaust of 6,000,000 Jews. He answered that, no that is wrong, there were not 6,000,000 killed by Hitler. OK, I said, how many were there then, perhaps 5,999,999? No, he said that was wrong also, that there were only 2 ,000,000 or so Jews killed by the Nazis. OK, I said suppose there were only 2, 000,000 killed by Hitler, does that make Hitler and his supporters any less guilty of horrendous criminal behavior? He then told me that he was not only a Theologian, but also a Lawyer. As a lawyer, he liked to look at both sides of an issue! (I could not imagine what two sides of a holocaust could be?) He proceeded to ask me, "Now what did the Jews do to bring on the Holocaust?" He kept coming up with these off the wall absurdities in which I was to respond? I began to think of a number of reasons why the Nazis hated Jews, such things as jealousy, of the success of Jews in the Universities, Medicine, Science, and the Arts as well as sometime successful merchants and in many other areas, and in particularly intellectual success. However, as I began to list all of the areas in which Jews were successful and thus the Nazis were rarely good in any of these areas, I first said that the some Jews were good at making Money. I started to say that the Nazis, who were not particularly skilled at such were jealous. However, my theologian/lawyer friend cut me off abruptly after I said that the Jews were good at making money. "Aha" he said, "There you have it!!! GOD DID NOT INTEND FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE MONEY!! To him, it seems that this was what brought on the Holocaust! It seems that Hitler was simply doing God’s will! By this time we were getting rather loud and everyone in the waiting room and nurses were attentive. At that time, they called my name for my biopsy.
The Sheep Look Up Contributed by Paul Ricci An explorer, deep in the Amazon suddenly finds himself surrounded by a blood thirsty group of cannibals. Upon surveying the situation, he says quietly to himself, "Oh God, I'm doomed." There is a ray of light from the sky above and a voice booms out: "No my son, you are NOT doomed. Pick up that stone at your feet and bash in the head of the chief standing in front of you." So the explorer picks up the stone and attacks the chief, feverishly bashing at his head with all his strength. He stands above the lifeless body, breathing heavily and surrounded by 100 cannibals with a look of shock on their faces. The voice booms out again: "Okay . . . NOW you're doomed."
CHURCH ATTENDANCE AND CRIME RATES By Dave Silva In these days when the rabid right is calling for more religion as a solution to crime and violence in our country they fail to produce much in the way of hard evidence to support their position. According to a recent articles in Scientific American the reverse may be true. The following statistics are compiled from non-communist countries. Country % Attending Church per 100,000 Behind Bars Ireland 88 55 France 17 95
|
