|
|
|
|
Humanist Association of Orange County NEWSLETTER A Chapter of the American Humanist Association March 2002, Issue #53 Dave Silva – Editor Web Page Design – Victor Tanious …In this issue. "The Redefinist Fallacy" by Paul Ricci. Quote of the Month - Victor Stenger. AHA Launches its New Website. Philosopher's Corner - Juan Bernal, Ph.D. "That Pain in the Back!" by Gene Barmore "Humanism and Non-belief Gaining Ground in America" by Dave Silva. HAOC Board Elections. Biographical Sketch of Eugenia Scott, Ph.D. Humor - "Enron Lawyer Fisherman" Contributed by Paul Ricci.
At the March 17th Meeting: The Redefinist Fallacy By Paul Ricci Many people have formed the opinion that philosophy is outmoded, ineffective in helping resolve life's problems, or so abstruse it connects with nothing useful. I suspect many in the Humanist movement are sympathetic to one of more of the above views about philosophy in general. Nonetheless, most do not realize that logic (both formal and informal) and critical thinking derived from the history of philosophical thought and are quite useful in exposing the fallacious ways humans think. In exposing the error in an argument of another, we often find it helpful to identify one or another fallacy, especially if it has a name. Now I am not going to discuss the common fallacies since our forum is not the place, nor would we have the time. As you are well aware, there are, literally, dozens of various kinds of fallacies, perhaps even in the hundreds though I know of no one who has actually counted them. (There was a list of these on our web-site at one time.) What I would like to do is talk about just one of them; one that can become complex in its applications. It has always been a favorite of mine and my now out-of-print critical thinking text is one of the few that considers it in detail. Though known for many centuries, it was only named relatively recently and, as a result, is found in few texts. To agree with the philosophers who first named it (Cornman & Lehrer,1974), I use the term Redefinist Fallacy though it has, more recently, been given other names. (Philosophers are notorius for disagreeing on certain philosophical terms.) Though I will discuss it in some detail, it is defined, roughly, as a claim that is defended in such a way that no evidence ever counts against it either practically or theoretically no matter how many counter-examples are used to falsify the claim (or belief). The claim is often defended by bringing in what philosophers call ad hoc assumptions to explain away the counter-examples I have found this to be an often-used fallacy especially when one's defense of a claim isn't going too well. It also sheds a good deal of light, I believe, on what Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine) has called the "demarcation problem;" the difficulty in trying to separate good science from pseudo-science. I'm sure you will recognize the error involved in this fallacy and may well have examples of your own to illustrate though you may never have known it now has a name. You will recognize this fallacy, I suspect, in many an argument you have had in the past, especially in the areas of religion and pseudo-science. So bring in your favorite disagreement with another to see if, somewhere, the fallacy is represented.
Quote of the Month: "The science of the origin of the universe is still highly speculative and incomplete. My claim is not that the absence of a creative force has been, in any sense, "proven" but rather that what we now know about nature does not, as many people believe, require either a creation or a Creator. The simplest hypothesis that so far seems to explain the data is that the universe is an accident." Victor Stenger. "Not By Design"
AHA Launches New Website The American Humanist Association is proud to launch its new website at: www.americanhumanist.org. The site is the product of thorough evaluation, design and consultation and is part of the changing look of the AHA. Executive Director, Tony Hileman comments, "The website has experienced an incredible jump in traffic over the last few months due to AHA’s increased media presence, which itself is due in no small part to our comments on current events. With the release of this new design, incorporating fresh content and new capabilities, the AHA moves closer to fulfilling one of its top priorities. It is essential for the public to have easy access to all the information available and relevant about the AHA and Humanism." The newly designed site includes technologically secure features such as registration forms for membership and for our May 2002 annual conference. Visitors can now use a search engine to easily locate all the information available on the site. The layout of the site is organized in an intuitive, logical way. It features zones that include, The Humanist Philosophy, About the AHA, Press Room, Conferences and Events, Publications, AHA Chapters and The Humanist Family. There is more information about famous Humanists, and a just released AHA report on the extremist group Toward Tradition. AHA president Edd Doerr notes, "As Humanism gains in awareness and acceptance, this site gives the curious and the committed the ability to get a thorough understanding of the philosophy, the movement, and the future of Humanism. We at the AHA expect the rise of interest to continue expanding as the new web site enables an interactive look at Humanism in today’s changing world."
PHILOSOPHER’S CORNER: By Juan Bernal, a worker in the field.
At our Februrary general meeting, Dr. Carol Copp presented a talk on a work by Rodney Stark entitled One True God: The Historical Consequences of Monotheism. Dr. Copp gave us a good overview of Stark’s work regarding the sociological, historical effects of monotheism, and shared some of her own ideas on the subject. Her presentation was followed by a lively discussion, in which our members raised good questions and expressed their views on the subject. Thanks to Carol for a stimulating program. Of course, a lot remains to be said on the topic. Some people asked whether, in summary, monotheism has resulted in more evil than good for humanity, or whether the contrary, more good than evil? This is a very difficult question, and reasonable arguments and evidence can be advanced for either answer. Carol brought out a number of reasons that we could offer for saying that belief in one true God has resulted in much evil (war, death, destruction, suffering, etc.). Certainly most secular humanists are inclined to emphasize this negative aspect of monotheism. But in religious history the move from the polytheism of tribal gods to monotheism has often been presented as moral progress, especially when the "one true God" is given moral qualities. And it is not obvious that the move from polytheism to monotheism has always been accompanied by an increase in religious war and persecution. In some cases it has; but in other cases it has not. With regard to moral consequences of theism, knowing that a nation or tribe is monotheistic does not tell us much. We also would need to know more specifically about the character of the monotheistic belief(s) and something about the character (or tendencies) of the believers. What kind of god do they hold as their one, true God? Is he a war god, a vengeful god or a morally developed, god of wisdom? What kinds of demands or commandments do they imagine their god to impose on them? Are these people aggressive and war-like, who fashion their one, true God along these lines? Do they see their religious devotion to their god as requiring that all outsiders (all non-believers) be eliminated? Do they have the belief in exclusive salvation (referred to as "particularism" by sociologists) that implies only those who worship their god can be saved, and others are fair targets for their cleansing, military action? On the other hand, is it possible the nation or tribe in question holds to a different form of monotheism, a benevolent, universalistic theism that sees all members of the human race as brothers and sisters, children of the one true God? Can we allow that sometimes a nation or tribe can consist of benevolent, progressive-minded believers who fashion a "one, true God" who commands that all people respect and benefit each other, and work to bring about justice for all his "children"? (Here think of the "good works" type of Christianity, in which working to help those in need is seen as showing devotion to God, and which the idea that "Jesus loves you" is emphasized, and the notion that you must "believe as God commands lest you suffer eternal torment in hell" is downplayed or ignored altogether.) Historically, we would be hard pressed to find a clear case of this form of pure, benevolent monotheism. A peoples’ image of the deity generally reflects that peoples’ moral and intellectual evolution; this has always been a "mixed bag," with malevolent, destructive tendencies dominating sometimes, and the progressive, morally enlightened tendencies becoming more apparent at other times. In short, the type of monotheism that develops reflects the type of human culture that has evolved. That monotheism will sometimes be "not too bad," even encouraging for those who look for signs of moral progress. But as history shows, too often monotheism has been "bad news" for humanity.
"That pain in the back" From gene barmore
Question: Why do so many individual of the species Homo Sapiens suffer severe pain in the lower back? I can find 3 possible reason: Choose one. One. God goofed - a design error. Two. Anticipating Adam's and Eve's defection, the weakness was built in, but would not have surfaced had they not sinned. It is just one of the ills which are inflicted as punishment for disobedience. Three. The spinal structure, including the spinal cord, developed in the evolutionary process for four-footed species. There hasn't been sufficient evolutionary adaptation to the vertical, bipedal stance to meet the requirements of that position. Solution (tongue in cheek): Sterilization of all individuals with weak backs.
Humanism and Non-belief Gaining Ground in America By Dave Silva
In a recent poll of more than 280,000 American college freshmen a record 15.8% of freshmen said they have no religious preference, up slightly from last year and more than double the figure in 1966. (L. A. Times, 1-28-2002) Other religious surveys report that those who describe themselves as Humanists are up 70% over the past ten years. "In the new American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2001) released by the City University of New York, 14.1 % of respondents - equivalent to 29.4 million American adults - reported no religious affiliation."* This is more than double the 14.3 million (8%) that answered the poll in 1990. As a belief group non-religious is this country rank second only to Roman Catholics. With 15% non-religious California had the highest percentage of any state. Only 54% say someone in their household belongs to a house of worship. *Free Inquiry Winter 2001/02-Tom Flynn. Free Inquiry reports its highest circulation figure yet; over 30,000.
HAOC BOARD ELECTIONS Dave Silva Nominations for the HAOC board are open and elections will take place at the meeting on May 20. If you wish to run for a position let me know by email, or tell Gene Barmore, or myself, at the next meeting. Nominees are Peter Anderson, president, Frank Farsad, vice-president, Harry Becker, treasurer, Jerry Parks, secretary and Benito Franqui and Sheri Stoyanoff as member at large. Board meetings are open to members. Biographical sketch of Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. Eugenie C. Scott has been since 1987 the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, a pro-evolution nonprofit science education organization with members in every American state. A human biologist, she has focused her research on medical anthropology and skeletal biology. Former chair of the Ethics Committee of the American Anthropological Association, she has gained international recognition as a proponent of church/state separation. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, she has worked extensively to communicate the scientific method to the general public and to improve how science as a way of knowing is taught in school. She is frequently called upon by the print, radio, and television media as an expert spokesperson for "the scientific view" when conflicts arise between scientific and pseudoscientific explanations, she has appeared on Donahue, Geraldo, Crossfire, Firing Line, Ancient Mysteries, CNN, Morning Edition, The Pat Buchanan Show, Science Friday, and All Things Considered. In 1998, she received the Isaac Asimov Science Award from the American Humanist Association, and this year won the Skeptics Society James Randi Award. Editor's Note : Form for lunch with Dr. Scott on the Queen Mary is enclosed in this newsletter. Please get your reservation in as soon as possible. Five dollars out of every ticket goes to the National Center for Science Education. Ask your friends. We want a big turnout for this event.
Enron Lawyer Fisherman Contributed by Paul Ricci A man was stopped by a game warden in Northern Minnesota recently with two buckets of fish, leaving a lake well known for its fishing. The game warden asked the man, "Do you have a license to catch those fish? If you don't, I'm going to have to impound them as evidence." The man replied to the game warden, "No, sir. These are my pet fish." "Pet fish?!" the warden replied. "Yes, sir. Every night I take these here fish down to the lake and let them swim around for a while. I whistle and they jump back into their buckets, and I take em home." "That's a bunch of hooey! Fish can't do that!" The man looked at the game warden for a moment, then said, "Here, I'll show you. It really works." "O.K. I've GOT to see this!." The game warden was curious now. The man poured the fish in to the river and stood and waited. After several minutes, the game warden turned to the man and said, "Well?" "Well, What?" the man responded. "When are you going to call them back?" The game warden prompted. "Call who back?" The man asked. "The FISH." "What fish?" The man asked.
|
