|
|
|
|
. . . In This Issue.
Introduction to "The History of Hell" by Dr. Clay Costner. Quote of the Month - Anon. "How Religion is Related to Sexual Inequality" by Dave Silva. "Proposal - A New Definition For Atheism" by Robert A. Richert. Amsterdam Declaration 2002 - Defining Humanism. Humor - Science Fare. At the Oct. 20th Meeting: Dr. Clay Costner presents, "The History of Hell" Dr. Clay Costner has two Associate degrees and two Masters degrees, one each in Social Services/Corrections and a Masters in education. Clay also holds a Doctorate of Education from George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. He has been teaching since 1954 at a number of Colleges and High Schools and is currently a teacher at Jack B. Clarke High School in Norwalk California, which is a part of the California Youth Authority. The title of his talk is "There Ain't no Hell." Or, as some prefer "The Hell There Ain't?!!!" Dr. Costner will use as a reference the book, "The Decline of Hell: 17th Century "Discussions of Eternal Torment. Published by D. P. Walker 1960 - The University of Chicago.
"If you think education is expensive try ignorance" . . . bumper sticker. HOW RELIGION IS RELATED TO SEXUAL INEQUALITY By Dave Silva Dr. Carol Copp presented a strong case for the beneficial effects of female deities in society. While male dominance is to some extent universal the influence of female deities is often ignored because they aren't prominent in mono-theistic religions. Her presentation was followed by a spirited (if you'll excuse the term) question and answer session. "In Western society we understand the meaning of the divine command an the Garden of Eden - 'yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you' - and we are affected by the attitude toward women expressed in the events that led to the fall of Adam and Eve." From the Quran, "Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred the one over the other." Why are women more equal in some societies than others? How do the environment and religious beliefs affect sexual roles and attitudes? In "Female Power and Male Dominance" anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday examines 156 cultures in an attempt to answer these questions. Creation stories not only give easy answers to such questions as "Where do we come from?" and "How did we get here?" but also provide a guide for how we should view our sexual roles. Sanday observes that male dominance isn't universal, but is common to many societies. In the societies she studied 18% had female gods, 32% had gods that were couples or amorphous and 50% had male gods. Sanday writes, "Whether or not men and women mingle, or are largely separated in their daily affairs plays a crucial role in male dominance." As a general rule where there is a high degree of male dominance fathers are more distant, less attentive to their children, there is less equality, both socially and economically for women, and women are held in lower esteem. Not surprisingly, these societies usually have distant and authoritative male gods. Another common trait is that societies where females are treated as inferiors tend to be warlike, competitive and monotheistic. Stress also adds to the alienation of the sexes when war is common, food is scarce and migration is frequent. Goddesses tend to be close to nature, often associated with earth, water or fertility; while male gods are more distant; residing in the heavens or the sun. But even where there are goddesses, or some bisexual deity the reigns of power reside in male hands. Where there are queens they delegate power to males, otherwise what would males do? As Sanday observes, the biological roles of females are obvious, whereas males have a more uncertain time establishing their niche in society. Even in the most labor cooperative, egalitarian societies there are jobs that are traditionally male and female. This does serve to encourage same sex bonding without overt sexual discrimination. Even today mining coal is a man's job while cooking food is primarily a woman's job; although these rolls have largely been blurred in Western countries during the past forty years. Before 1880 AD females with economic and political power in industrial countries was 30%. This figure fell to 23% in 1905 and 20% in 1925, but dramatically rose to 60% by 1958. Even in democratic countries it is only in the last hundred years that women could vote. As a rule organized religion has systematically discriminated against women and has done little to empower them economically or grant them the respect they deserve. Humanism has consistently been a champion of equality for everyone. By eliminating creation myths and judgmental male deities our secular society has created the ideal for a more tolerant, compassionate society.
By Robert A. Richert There is ongoing debate within the freethought movement about the meaning of the word atheism. Many activists have adopted their definition from George Smiths popular book, Atheism, the Case against God. They argue that an atheist is one who is, "without belief in god or gods". Overt expression of disbelief is not required. For example, newborn babies and agnostics are implicitly atheistic because they are "without belief in God". Benefits include embracing a wider spectrum of people and making atheism appear non-dogmatic. However, most professional philosophers reject Smiths interpretation as too broad in scope and imprecise. They, and most dictionaries, define atheism as, "Denial (or disbelief) in the existence of God", meaning that an atheist is one who takes a firm stand that God does not exist. This definition is more explicit, newborn babies and agnostics are excluded. I prefer the word "disbelief because it is more explicit than "without". I dont think that newborn babies and agnostics should be called atheists simply because they are without belief. I think that people who call themselves atheists have made a philosophical commitment to non-belief, thus my view leans toward that of the philosophers. I also object to the use of the word "denial". In todays society, this word has negative psychological connotations. Some might interpret, "Denial of the existence of God" to mean that atheists are people who are in denial of the "obvious fact" that god exists. This sends the wrong message to the public. While the above arguments are important, I think that a more fundamental problem exists. The above definitions do not define "God" and thus, assume a coherent meaning to the word. Catholic theologian Paul Tillich argued that God is not a being, but rather the "Ground of being". In his book, Honest to God, John A.T. Robinson defines God as "Ultimate reality". Albert Einstein, borrowing from Spinoza, used the word God to describe his awe toward the order, understandability and beauty of the universe. What is the relationship between atheism and these and the many other esoteric interpretations of God? For example, does atheism imply non-belief in an ultimate reality to the universe, or lack in a sense of awe, etc.? What does it mean not to believe in God? Atheist philosopher Dr. Michael Martin and others (including George Smith) have argued persuasively that the concept of "god" is cognitively incoherent. For example, what is God made of? What is spirit? Does god have a personality? Is he a he, if so, why? To put it in philosophical terminology, what is Gods metaphysical nature? Apologists have never given us unambiguous answers to these questions, and this has implications as to the definition of God. For example, some of those listed above attempt to re-define "God" in order to side-step tough philosophical challenges or to be more consistent with modern scientific knowledge. If we allow definitional hedonism, that is if we accept that any definition will do, then language becomes a muddled, meaningless mess. This is exactly what has happened with the word god. "God" can be the bearded father figure depicted by Michaelangelo, Robinsons ultimate reality, Spinoza s universe, perhaps "The Force" from Star Wars, or just about anything. What do the above have in common that they deserve gerrymandering together under one single, simple word? How do we intelligently respond to the question, "Do you believe in God?" The word appears to be so nebulous in meaning that any definition of atheism should also include a definition of God, but, given present circumstances, this seems paradoxical. However, I dont think that this need be the case. I propose a definition for atheism that also includes a definition for God: Atheism - Disbelief in the existence of a supernatural being or beings.
Confusion about the meaning of the term God benefits the religious community by allowing some (Einstein) who are really non-believers, to be counted amongst the majority and hide under the more socially respectable cloak of piety. At the same time, confusion about the meaning of atheism hurts the freethought movement. If we are in disagreement about such a fundamental issue as, "Who are we?" our credibility amongst the public will continue to suffer. We dont need that. The debate between philosophers and freethought activists over whether or not atheism is explicit has some merit, but it causes confusion and is not the essential problem. I chose the word "disbelief because it is explicit and is an expression of personal opinion or conviction, not a dogmatic proclamation. My definition intentionally leaves out the word God, thus avoiding the quagmire created by theists and philosophers who reinterpret the concept beyond its most widely believed traditional meaning. Atheists are people who disbelieve in the existence of a supernatural being or beings. My proposal is an attempt to dispel confusion and provide an accurate and comprehensible definition for atheism.
2002 In 1952 at the first and founding IHEU world congress, a declaration delineating the IHEUs principles about Humanism was formulated and accepted as a resolution. In 2002, at its fiftieth anniversary world congress held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, an updated version was adopted and reads. Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the worlds great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself. The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows: Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity, and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the worlds problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society and recognizes our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The worlds major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognizes that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation, and revision. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognizes the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfillment. Humanism is a life-stance aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.
Science Fare: 5th and 6th grade responses to science questions on tests. There are 26 vitamins in all, but some of the letters are yet to be discovered. Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.
Water vapor gets together in a cloud. When it is big enough to be called a drop, it does. Mushrooms always grow in damp places, which is why they look like umbrellas.
The word "trousers" is an uncommon noun because it is singular at the top and plural at the bottom.
|
