At the July 20th Meeting:

. . . In This Issue.

"Two Books on Humanist Ethics" by Paul Ricci

Quote on the Month – H. L. Menckin

"Epiphany Anyone" by jerry Parks.

"No Vouchers" by Roy Sorge

Humor – "Two Cows".

Bush Regime Approves of Job Training Using Bible in Courses – Boston Globe.

"Proposal: An Updated Definition of Atheism" by Robert A. Richert.

At the July 20^th Meeting:

Two Books on Humanist Ethics

By Paul Ricci

At a number of our past HAOC meetings there have been many questions regarding Humanistic ethics such as: Are there any set of values that can be called Humanistic? If there are, what might they be? Are they absolute or relative (or less than the first but more than the second)?

What is the rationale or bases for these Humanistic ethics if they exist? Paul Kurtz suggests there are certain core values (common decencies) for Humanists: What might these be? We might even discuss a more basic question: Why be moral in the first place?

I'll try to answer some of these questions by reviewing parts of

FORBIDDEN FRUIT: The Ethics of Humanism by Paul Kurtz (1988) and a more recent book by A.C. Grayling entitled: MEDITATIONS FOR THE HUMANIST: Ethics for a Secular Age (2002), which deals with what philosophers call normative ethics (values and principles applicable for everyday living).

To all of this -- time permitting -- I will add a few thoughts of my own to round out a long overdue discussion of this important area of human life. Keep in mind, though, that the lecture/discussion will not be an attempt to say what it is you SHOULD believe in order to be a moral person, but only an exploration of the field. Having taught courses on ethics in the past, we may also want to see how philosophers regard the field.

Join me in what you envision is or should (or should not) be relevant to the Humanist perspective on ethics.

Quote of the month:

"Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only 10 of them."

. . . H. L. Mencken

EPIPHANY, ANYONE?

By Jerry Parks

Dictionaries define epiphany (except when spelled with a capital E, when it refers to a specific Christian ceremony) as a sudden intuitive perception, often accompanied by deep emotional conviction and exhilaration, of a insight into the reality or essential meaning of something: A moment of revelation and insight.

Perhaps another definition should be: a belief suddenly arrived at as a result of deep emotional and personal feelings, without any logical reasoning.

A Sunday paper some time ago had an article about Steven Georgiou, who as "Cat Stevens" had made a fortune in the rock’n’roll world in the 1970’s before having had a "near death" experience, and then some kind of epiphany that caused him to convert to the Muslim religion and change his name, yet again, to "Yusuf Islam".

How could someone so exposed to the modern world as "Cat" revert to such an antisocial, over-controlling and hide-bound religion and, as "Yusuf Islam", approve of the ‘Fatwa" against Salman Rushdie? What does complete acceptance of a religion do to otherwise reasonable people?

One of the most ridiculous epiphany explanations I have ever heard was when "Dr. Laura" described what it was that made her decide that she would join the Jewish religion. In effect, she said that she was at home with her new Jewish husband and he was talking about how throughout history there had been persecutions and attempts to rid the world of the Jews. Then this "overwhelming" thought came to her, like a lightning flash, that in spite of that, "there are still Jewish people here", so the Jewish religion must be very powerful to have saved them. And thus she decided that it was the religion for her!

Also, of course, there was the sudden epiphany/conversion of George W. Bush while walking along the beach with Billy Graham who told him that Jesus had died on the cross, not just to save mankind but to save George W. Bush! Anyone with such deep intellectual insight must be presidential material, right?

All of this epiphany stuff somehow seems more like a situation whereby emotion has driven out logic and common sense, rather than a sudden gaining of insight or knowledge.

In fact, it is the playing with the emotions of susceptible people by Elmer Gantry types (Falwell, Robertson, etc.) that has brought us to the point that religious activists are trying to corrupt science courses in schools by insisting that the teaching of creation, as told in the Bible, be taught instead of, or at least as well as, the actual scientifically determined facts. Could all of this religious domination be leading us into a new "dark age" where humanity once again loses lots of hard earned knowledge?

Everyone enjoys emotional highs. That is how and why "born-agains" get born again. It can be a gripping experience that one wants to savor. People do get such highs by attending religious revival services. They may accept that as proof that the religion is the one true religion. However, for those of us that remember the EST type personal improvement seminars that were very popular in the 1960’s or 1970’s that involved intense emotional routines but with no religious overtones, it was also not uncommon to have a type of personal emotional high as intense as any achieved in any religious revival meeting. Such highs eventually wear off, of course. EST, in addition to being expensive, was not a continuing thing. Church-goers, on the other hand, may be able to renew their highs every Sunday! That may help them feel good, but it certainly doesn’t make them any wiser.

No Vouchers

By Roy Sorge

The argument that voucher, charter and home schooling would escape bureaucratic rigidities, faddish dogmas and massive red tape is ridiculous, they each have their own.

Studies by U.S. Dept of Education, the Carnegie Foundation, and political scientist Jeffery Hen do not corroborate these promised benefits of choice. Their studies indicate that choices can be tremendously expensive to implement and operate.

1. Students who attend the best public schools out perform most private schools.

2. The average public school teacher has stronger academic qualifications.

3. Public schools offer a more challenging curriculum those most private schools.

4. Class sizes are no larger in public schools than in most private schools and are smaller than in most Catholic schools. (Money Magazine)

5. The primary beneficiary of a voucher plan will be the student already attending nonpublic schools and the religious bodies that sponsor those schools.

Fundamentalist schools that are perhaps, the most committed to religious orthodoxy have published purposes decidedly sectarian. Fundamentalist textbooks teach bigotry. Vouchers would compel all Americans to subsidize such instruction. Check it out!

Oh my! As an administrator of a protestant fundamentalist or Catholic school wouldn’t I love to get my hand on taxpayers monies? Then I could do what is called "cream skimming", giving preference to students and teachers that pass my selective criteria.

Vouchers would move tax funded American education away from the present system of democratic control, patriotism, and accountability towards a maze of multiple school systems often typified by selectivity, discrimination and a closed intellectual world not responsible to or accountable to the tax paying public.

And finally, to forget the lessons of history and reject the separation arrangement would be to the kind of society that drove our ancestors to these shores in the first place.

"The first amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion was written on the assumption that state aid to religion and religious schools generates discord, disharmony, hatred and strife among our people, and that any government that supplies such aids is to that extent tyranny."

Justice John Marshall Harlan,

Concurring opinion, 392U.S.254

Two Cows

DEMOCRAT: You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none.

You feel guilty for being successful.

You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax.

The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN: You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none. So?

SOCIALIST: You have two cows.

The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST: You have two cows.

The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows.

You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

DEMOCRACY: You have two cows.

The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows.

The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows.

You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the 2 cows to produce the milk of four cows.

You are surprised when one cow drops dead.

You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows.

You go on strike because you want three cows.

You go to lunch. Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are.

While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.

You break for lunch. Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have some more vodka.

You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.

You count them again and learn you have 12 cows.

You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

You produce your 10th, 5-year plan in the last 3 months.

The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

FLORIDA CORPORATION: You have a black cow and a brown cow.

Everyone votes for the best looking one.

Some of the people who like the brown one best, vote for the black one.

Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither.

Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.

Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best-looking one.

BUSH REGIME APPROVES JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS USE OF BIBLE IN COURSES

BOSTON GLOBE - The Bush administration has quietly altered regulations for the nation's leading job training program to allow faith-based organizations to use "sacred literature," such as Bibles, in their federally funded programs. Civil liberties activists say the new rules blur the line between religion and government. The change, made by the US Labor Department last month, could allow faith-based groups to use religious books as historical texts or as inspirational stories for job seekers, as long as organizations do not proselytize or conduct prayer sessions.

In a separate action, the House is expected today to approve a change allowing private groups that run job-training programs to discriminate on the basis of religion when they hire people to run them. That change, part of legislation to renew the overall program, would lift a ban that has existed in federal law for two decades.

Critics say the moves are a violation of civil rights laws. "The notion that you need to allow religious groups to discriminate to receive federal funds is a lie," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Newton. "If you dip your fingers in the federal till, you can't complain if a little democracy rubs off on you."

PROPOSAL: - AN UPDATED DEFINITION FOR ATHEISM

By Robert A. Richert

Ongoing debate continues within the freethought movement about the meaning of the word atheism. This is unfortunate. What message are we sending to the public if we cannot even agree as to who we are? The purpose of this paper is to propose an accurate and unambiguous definition for atheism.

First, I will evaluate what I believe are the two most important and common definitions from among many; one is widely used in the freethought community and the other is used by most dictionaries and by professional philosophers. Many freethought activists and organizations have adopted the following definition (popularized in George Smith’s book, Atheism, the Case against God); an atheist is one who is, "without belief in God or gods". This definition does not require overt expression of disbelief. For example, newborn babies and agnostics are atheists because they are "without belief in God". Smith’s definition appeals to people who want to embrace a wider spectrum of people under the atheist umbrella. However, most professional philosophers reject Smith’s interpretation because it is nebulous and too broad in scope. 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 against the existence of God. This definition is more explicit; it does not include newborn babies and agnostics.

Both definitions present problems. For example, I don’t agree that newborn babies and agnostics should be labeled as atheists simply because they are without belief. This is a distortion of the common usage of the word. After all, chimps, ants and rocks are without belief in God, are they atheists as well? That’s absurd! In my opinion, atheism does and should mean that one has formed an opinion against the existence of God. I agree with the philosophers and reject Smith’s definition. However, I also object to the use of the word "denial" in the philosophers and some dictionary versions. In today’s 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 another, more fundamental problem must be addressed: In both definitions above, the word "God" is left undefined, despite a wide range of interpretations as to God’s metaphysical nature and, thus, the meaning of the word itself. For example, Einstein’s pantheistic concept of God (a sense of awe toward the order of the universe) is quite different from the Southern Baptists judgmental Jehovah. Other examples include Theologian Paul Tillich’s argument that God is not a being, but rather the "Ground of Being", and John A. T. Robinson’s opinion that God is "Ultimate Reality". Some people even think of God as something akin to "The Force" in the Star Wars movies!

This presents us with a dilemma. Suppose that I experience awe toward an orderly universe, believe that there is an ultimate reality out there, or even believe in "The Force"; yet reject the Judeo-Christian, and Moslem God, along with Hindu and all the other ancient gods. Am I an atheist? It seems that the subject of God is too broad, subjective and unintelligible to elicit a coherent response. When asked, "Do you believe in God?" our immediate response should be, "Define what you mean by God".

In an attempt toward greater clarity, professional philosophers use God with a capital "G" to designate the Western God of Jews, Christians and Moslems, and god with a small "g" for all others. If we adopt the philosophers designation of God with a capital "G" and leave it at that, this will still cause confusion amongst the lay public. On the other hand, if we use only god with a small "g", we run into the problem discussed earlier. Despite all of the apparent confusion about meanings, I propose a definition for atheism that is clearly understandable, unambiguous and also includes a practical definition for God and gods:

Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God/gods (a supernatural being or beings)

I chose to use the word "disbelief’ for my definition because it is explicit, yet is an expression of personal opinion or conviction. I want to avoid conveying a harsh, dogmatic tone. The most significant aspect of my proposal is that I provide a definition for God/gods. I think that atheism is related to philosophical naturalism (the belief that the natural universe is all that exists), but is specific to the issue of the existence of God. The overwhelming majority of theists in Western, Near Eastern, and some Eastern cultures believe that God is some kind of a supernatural being. Atheists not only disbelieve in the Western God (the philosophers God with a capital "G"), they do not believe in the existence of supernatural beings of any kind. My definition provides a precise distinction between theism and atheism, unlike its alternatives. In my opinion, theists who define God as something other than a supernatural being play fast and loose with semantics. I argue for clarity of thought in favor of obfuscation. We are not obligated to redefine atheism in order to accommodate every concept of "God" that comes down the pike.

Confusion about the meaning of the term God benefits the religious community. It allows people who are really atheists (pantheists and others by my definition) to be counted amongst the majority and hide under a 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.

I call upon freethought activists and organizations to adopt my proposal. My definition dispels confusion and provides an accurate and easily understandable definition for this controversial word.