|
|
|
|
in This Issue. Lois Lyons at the January Meeting. Quote of the Day. "Dr. Kassem Nabulsi on the Politics of the Middle East." By Dave Silva "Richert Dialog on Emotion and Faith." By Paul Ricci and Juan Bernal. "Britain Psychic Test Fails to Prove ESP" from the Rationalist International. "What a Difference 30 Years Make!" Humor. Humcon 2001. At the January 21st
Meeting: Our guest speaker, Lois Lyons, has been a business writer and editor most of her professional life. She has also written and edited for scholarly publishers. She has been president of HALA since 1997 and has been a board member of the American Humanist Association since 1999. Her term runs out in 2004, but she will be eligible to run again for 1 more year. Lois is also currently Secretary of the AHA board and a member of the executive committee. Lois will be talking about the inside workings of the AHA, the move to Washington, DC and the new building. Many of us would like to know what goes on at AHA Board meetings and will have a lot of questions for Lois. Quote of the Month: "Our culture is superior to other cultures, superior because our religion is Christianity." . Pat Buchanan. 1992 Republican National Convention. "Dr. Kassem Nabulsi on the Politics of the Middle East" By Dave Silva Dr. Kassem Nabulsi refers to himself as an American by naturalization, an Israeli by birth, and a Palestinian by descent. He lived in Galilee (not in the West Bank as reported in the last newsletter) where his family still resides' Kassem received a Ph.D. in political science from USC in May of 1999. He is currently teaching Comparative Politics at Loyola Marymount, and is teaching American Presidency at Pepperdine and at USC. In addition to all of the above he is teaching Middle East Politics at Pierce College. As this article is being written Yasser Arafat is in Washington for talks in a last ditch effort to reach an agreement before Clinton leaves office. At the same time Ehud Barak faces intense political pressure from hard-liners on the right. If Barak can come to an agreement that would appeal to a majority of Israeli voters as being fair he might be re-elected on February 6th. Why has the Palestine - Israeli conflict endured for over fifty years as one of history's most intractable problems? At the December meeting we learned a great deal on this subject and while I don't speak for Dr. Nabulsi I am using some of his ideas. In 1948, when the British mandate ended in Palestine, there could have been a peaceful accommodation where Jews and Arabs could have continued living together as they were. Instead they left the inhabitants to fight it out, which resulted in the Palestinians being refugees in Israel and neighboring countries. This in turn led to the formation of the PLO in 1964 and the limited autonomy they gained in 1993 and 1995. A major obstacle to a solution is Israel's system of proportional representation that gives small parties with narrow agendas enormous power. The two major parties need the small parties to form coalitions in order to govern the country. On the other hand, Arafat, or any Palestinian leader, feels the pressure of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims to be unbending in their demands with Israel. Of course, they aren't the ones who have to live like refugees. There are many Arabs living in Israel and in the 120 member Knesset there are 10 Arabs, so it isn't like they are totally incompatible. They even pray to the same God to favor their own side. Holy sites are really not that big a problem with the Palestinians as it is with the Jews. Mecca and Medina are more important, but when Israel politicians use them as a provocation it can lead to violence. In the last peace summit Barak was convinced that he had an offer Arafat could not refuse. He convinced Clinton that Arafat could be brought around by Clinton's persuasion. This raised expectations on all sides, with no assurance that Arafat would accept the conditions. Clinton compounded the blunder by blaming Arafat for the summit's failure. As Humanists we tend not to take sides, but to try to remain objective. We wish they could just see each other as fellow human beings that have managed to live together for over 2000 years. If they could stop thinking of themselves constantly as Muslims and Jews, and us against them, that would make solving their problems much easier. "RICHERT DIALOG ON EMOTION AND FAITH" BY PAUL RICCI AND JUAN BERNAL(an email conversation) Juan: Your response to the question regarding the role of emotion in relation to the belief in God seems to me to leave out much that is significant about the belief in a deity as held by many believers. You respond that emotion is irrelevant if one wants to be rational. So far as we're primarily interested in a rationally, well grounded belief this is true; but I understood your friend's question to ask about the role of emotion in the belief in God held by theists. Paul: The whole discussion with Bob Richert came up in a luncheon regarding Mike Shermer's book (as well as in his articles and lecture) on why people believe in God. Shermer spent a good deal of space explaining the relation between emotion and faith; I felt no need to go into it further. (Replies to, and comments regarding, another's thoughts are always limited by space, time and effort as you well know). I did try to point out how some think it is appropriate to believe on faith; a view called fideism as you may recall. However, I should have pointed out (contrary to Shermer's belief as I recall) that few--if any-- believe in religion on grounds of faith only. I have yet to meet a strongly religious person who had no rationale or reasoned justification for his(her) belief system. Fideism is really rare today amongst most sincere believers though it may be more common amongst those who simply accept and don't question, or even think much, about their religion. Juan: We who are rationalists and skeptics may see the role of emotion as weakening the rational credentials of belief in a deity, and dismiss "Fideism" as basing belief on a "hunch" (as you put it) or on wishful thinking. But, if we're to get a good understanding of the nature of the belief in God (as held by many, if not most, believers), we have to understand that for many theists the belief is not akin to a hunch or to wishful thought about some fantasy. My view is that for many theists, the belief in God functions like a value principle or, maybe something like Thomas Reid's principles of understanding. The belief is not something arrived at by weak arguments or insufficient evidence, but is rather a starting point, a principle that is a basis for the theist's interpretation of his experience and reality. Paul: I don't disagree with the above. However, I have found that once an individual (often because of some life-crisis) finds how enticing, useful, whatever, a certain belief is--especially if shared by family members -- (s)he then looks around for a arguments that justify that belief. We call this rationalization but--to an extent-- we are all guilty of doing this. It is very hard to remain open-minded for very long, we need answers that will help us guide our lives and console us in crises or in tragedies, right away. Very few (hopefully philosophers, at least!) examine the arguments and THEN decide on the appropriate belief and afterwards attach emotions to the belief or belief system. Yes, once this B.S. is in place, the individual uses it to interpret his(her) experiences and reality. Nothing wrong with that! Juan: Yes, emotion and the need to find significance for human existence play important roles, but not in the simple sense that I may persuade myself to believe something just because I wish it so, or because I have a hunch. From the believer's perspective, there is something "deeper" or critical to his "world view" working here. Paul: Yes, I agree, but this "deeper" thing is just part of the overall God-concept (at least for theists) and very hard to resist for psychological reasons, as Shermer, Paul Kurtz and others have suggested. Juan: This may also help to explain why theists, even those who are rational in other respects, hold on to the belief in God even when the arguments for agnosticism or atheism are so compelling. Paul: Of course, thinking theists say the same about us non-theists. They claim we are rational in all ways except when it comes to religion where our "deeper prejudices" (if it's a Catholic priest it's because of our pride in learning and education, at least that's what I was told when I was beginning my college studies) shut God out of the picture. They don't agree for a moment THEY are the irrational ones! Juan: Your response to the question regarding the credibility of the belief also caught my attention. You write that the belief in God is intellectually credible if this means that, "a great deal of thought went into the arguments to justify the belief"; and the belief is not credible if "one takes a poll of those who have examined such arguments and found none of them to be sound. "Forgive me for being too critical here, but I find this notion of intellectual credibility to be questionable. First, certainly there are a number of conclusions about God for which a great deal of thought was given to the supporting arguments, and yet many of us rationalists and skeptics would deny that the conclusion has rational credibility, Paul: Granted, but I'm not sure just what that proves. From the theist point of view it just means we refuse to accept rational arguments! It is not at all easy to show where the arguments of first-class thinkers like Plantinga, Alston, Craig, Swinburne, et. al., have gone astray. My opinion is that at the "higher" levels of thought, all arguments are equally credible (though, obviously, not all of them can be sound) so long as a great deal of creative thought and effort has gone into the pros and cons of said arguments. So far as I know, there have been no DEFINITIVE refutations of any arguments relating to God, either for or against. (You will notice here, I am making a subtle distinction between a "rationally credible" and a sound argument. Remember, "credible" simply means "believable on rational grounds." This is exactly the position thinking theists hold.) However, most philosophers hold that none of these theistic arguments are sound and some claim the atheistic arguments ARE sound. From this point of view --if only professional philosophers are considered-- theists look to be irrational, i.e., their beliefs are not credible. However, there are more theists that believe the arguments are sound than philosophers who DON'T believe they are sound. So where does this leave us? The argument from authority is difficult to use here; hence my answer to Bob's question about the credibility of belief in God was "yes" and "no." Incidentally, Prof. Tony Pasquarello wrote a very interesting article on just that point a few years back. Be glad to pass on a copy of it if you're interested, and don't have it. Juan: If by this phrase one means the arguments establish that the conclusion is true (or even likely true). For example, the various arguments for God's existence that Aquinas offers. Certainly they meet your criterion for rational credibility: Aquinas likely gave a great deal of thought to the arguments justifying the conclusion. But I'm surely not alone in denying that the "proofs" of God's existence by Aquinas lack intellectual credibility. Paul: The "flaws" in his arguments have been patched up today so as to make the arguments sound--according to modern-day theists, along with some help from today's knowledge about cosmology and physics. Juan: My second point against your versions of intellectual credibility and lack of credibility is that the two notions, as you define them, are not exclusive. The same belief in God can be both intellectually credible and not intellectually credible. For a poll of critics might find none of my arguments for God's existence to be sound, yet I may have devoted a great deal of thought to arguments in support of the conclusion that God exists. In fact, I believe this applies to body of arguments for God's existence given by Aquinas. Maybe I did not correctly interpret your statements about the "intellectual credibility" of belief in God. If so, please correct me on this. **See my comments above regarding this point.** Finally, you write that, "we freethinkers are losing the battle against the fundamentalists." I'm not sure what battle you refer to here. Is it the numbers game (freethinkers are a miniscule minority)? Or is it the public relations game (we skeptics and freethinkers get lousy press)? Surely it is not the battle for intellectual integrity and something we could refer to as "search for truth." Paul: I think we are losing the battle in a number of ways, and the battle is for the minds and hearts of Americans generally; to what they will believe, fight and give their support and their dollars. We are losing in the sense of being overwhelmed by Christian thinking in various areas; in politics, in moral issues (like abortion), and in social issues. They are winning in sheer numbers, in support for their causes, in the political realm (it is no accident they recently had a majority in both the Senate and House) by aligning themselves with the Republicans (generally). It is more and more difficult to resist their thinking and they even have infiltrated the halls of academia, which was once a "hotbed" of liberal thinking. They are undermining the prestige and authority of science in general; winning in that regard, science is more and more on the defensive. But I've run out of time here. Just let me mention one other point. I remember, clearly, in the 50's we went through a conservative era (The McCarthyites, et.al., as an example). Then in the 60's and early 70's we turned more liberal. Unfortunately, by the 80's, conservatism was "in" again. More unfortunate, the Reagan years seem to insure a continuation of the conservative trend and it turned worse despite our belief that soon the pendulum would swing back in the other direction. It hasn't as I see it. Frankly, I think science, reason, tolerance and other values I cherish are losing ground. I do hope I'm wrong but I tend to agree with Carl Sagan and his pessimism in one of his last books, THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD. Juan: It could be that the nature of the path we have chosen is such that most people find too difficult and disturbing, so that the overwhelming majority will continue to choose the more comfortable, reassuring path of God-belief. But I don't want to refer to this as losing the battle. Consider that a very small minority of Athenians considered the message of Socrates as worth their while. Paul: Well, not quite. Remember, it was much easier for one individual to influence society in those days since the numbers were measured in the thousands and not multi-millions as today. Socrates had many friends and most in Athens knew who he was. And if it weren't for television and the COSMOS series, I wonder how many would have known who Carl Sagan was? He will soon be forgotten I would venture to say. Incidentally, I had hoped to supply detailed footnotes for the quotes used in my paper on the legacy of Socrates a couple of nights ago. My apologies for not doing so (I remember you asking about one of them) but time and effort were lacking. I felt I had spent enough time on the paper as it was. And time has run out this morning. Juan: Do we therefore say that Socrates lost the battle? Maybe we do, but maybe not. But I doubt that either Socrates or Plato saw this as a case of "losing the battle." Your fellow worker in philosophy, Juan Bernal. RATIONALIST INTERNATIONAL Bulletin # 59 (22 December 2000) www.rationalistinternational.net BRITAIN: PSYCHIC TEST FAILS TO PROVE ESP. Telepathy is once again exposed as bunkum. There have already been telepathy studies carried out in the past, using pairs of volunteers. But this was the first psychic mass experiment employing large numbers of "senders". It failed in its purpose of demonstrating the existence of extra-sensory perception. In the first mass experiment, hundreds of members of the public focused during the trials at the Museum of the Unknown in London at a giant projected image and attempted to transmit it physically to one person. For each of the 10 experiments, images were projected on walls for around 30 seconds to observe and attempt to transmit them with their extra sensory perception. The "receivers" were out of sight, had eyes and ears covered to achieve sensory isolation and were connected to the crowd via an audio link. When the "receivers" in the 10 experiments were asked to pick the correct image from four photographs, they got even fewer right than could be attributed to pure chance. "We tried an idea and it did not work", said Dr. Richard Wiseman, experiment head and expert in paranormal experiments. Dr. Wiseman heads the Perrot-Warrick Research Unit at the University of Herfordshire, UK. This unit carries out skeptical research into evidence relating to paranormal and promotes the public understanding of science. In November 1999, Dr. Wiseman was awarded Britain's first Readership in the Public Understanding of Psychology. "What a Difference 30 Years Makes" 1970 vs. 2000 1970: Long hair 2000: Longing for hair 1970: Acid Rock. 2000: Acid Reflux. 1970: Moving to California because it's cool. 2000: Moving to California because it's warm. 1970: Growing pot. 2000: Growing pot belly. 1970: Watching John Glenn's historic flight with your parents. 2000: Watching John Glenn's historic flight with your children. 1970: Trying to look like Marlon Brando or Elizabeth Taylor. 2000: Trying NOT to look like Marlon Brando or Elizabeth Taylor. 1970: Popping pills, smoking joints. 2000: Popping joints. 1970: The Grateful Dead. 2000: Dr. Kevorkian. 1970: Rolling Stones. 2000: Kidney stones. 1970: Being called into the principal's office. 2000: Calling the principal's office. 1970: Screw the system! 2000: Upgrade the system! 1970: Peace sign. 2000: Mercedes logo. 1970: Passing the driver's test. 2000: Passing the vision test. 1970: "Whatever" 2000: "Depends" HUMCON 2001 FEB. 16,17 & 18 Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. Make checks payable to HUMCON, 10790 Whilshire Blvd., #1804, Los Angeles, CA 90024. 3 day conference - 2 banquets, continental breakfast and Sunday brunch. $185 Call Roosevelt for special conference rates (323)466-7000. Conference only - $75, includes Friday reception. Friday and Saturday Banquets with speakers $40. Sunday Brunch with speakers $25.
|
