At the Dec

. . . In This Issue:

John Cones at the December Meeting

Quote of the Month - Voltaire.

"Our November Poetic Experience" by Juan Bernal.

"Humanistic Economics" by Dave Silva.

"Two Different Notions of Deity; and the Existence Debate" by Juan Bernal.

Assorted Puns & Stuff - Humor.

At the Dec. 21^st Meeting:

John Cones

Our speaker for the December 21st meeting is John Cones. John is a fairly new member of our local Humanist Chapter, and although he has considered himself to be an atheist for his entire adult life, he has only recently become involved with organized Humanism. Professionally, he is an attorney with a narrowly focused, solo law practice. He primarily works with independent producers on investor financing of entertainment projects, mostly independent feature films. He has authored three commercially published books relating to film finance and several other self-published books. He is originally from Texas and earned both his BS and JD degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. Before starting his law practice in 1981, John had worked previously for six years as a professional association executive and lobbyist and prior to that as a radio/television news reporter.

In his talk, John plans to briefly trace his research into Humanist thought and then provide his perspective of Humanism and the direction it ought to take from here.

Quote of the Month:

"People will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities."

. . . Voltaire, French philosopher.

Our November Poetic Experience

by Juan Bernal

On Sunday, November 16, we were privileged to welcome, as our speaker, contemporary poet, Lee Rossi, who resides in Culver City, and has been active in the Los Angeles poetry scene for a number of years. Those who attended, even some of us hard-nosed, secular humanists, found the poetry reading by Rossi to be an interesting variation on our usual monthly topics.

To my recollection, this was the first program focusing on poetry that the

Orange County Humanists have had.

Lee read some of his poems and related each poem to three phases of his personal, spiritual journey; which he listed as phases of "rejection," "struggle," and "acceptance." With each reading, Lee spent a few minutes relating the context and, in some cases, the significance of the poem. After his presentation finished, he took questions and engaged us in a discussion of poetry and his personal ideas about spirituality. This is a theme we have grappled with in the past; thus, it was interesting to hear poet’s perspective on ‘spirituality’ and human experience.

In a subsequent e-mail message, Lee told me that he enjoyed his visit to the Orange County Humanists and sent us the following thank-you greeting:

"Blessings on the humanists of Orange County, the expansiveness of whose imaginations is exceeded only by their generosity!"

All the best."

Lee

HUMANISTIC ECONOMICS

By Dave Silva

Two seemingly unrelated events come together in the news. The UFCW grocery strike and the recent bill to provide prescription drug benefits have a lot in common. Right now the grocery workers and their families are feeling a lot of pain, while the rest of us are merely inconvenienced. However, the real impact on our daily lives looms in the distance like an ominous shadow.

If we had a single payer health care system that insured all Americans and made a serious effort to contain costs we wouldn't have this grocery strike at this point in time. We might have it at a future time when the WalMartization of America continues.

Humanism views economics as being grounded in human need and should strive to provide the best possible life for all people. We should try to lift the living standard in less affluent parts of the world instead of joining them in poverty. What WalMart and the grocery giants are doing is nothing less than an assault on the middle class that will have a ripple effect both here and around the world. That is why I have never shopped at a WalMart and (unless they would unionize) never will. If the grocery giants succeed it will serve as a blueprint for downsizing wages across the country and outsourcing jobs.

The medicare bill was voted in by those wishing to privatize Medicare and institutionalize and medical system run by the HMOs and drug companies. This bill will strip between 2 and 3 million people of their employer based health coverage. Not only does this bill do nothing to contain rising health costs it actually prevents Medicare from negotiating lower costs.

The best thing about this bill is that it doesn't fully go into effect until 2006. Can health care costs simply rise endlessly? Is there some point where even the public realizes that we have the most expensive health system in the world and that something drastic must be done? We need a single payer system that isn't employer based. That would be good for business and good for workers.

Two Different Notions of Deity, and the existence debate:

By Juan Bernal

The Rulon - Ricci dialogue (See HAOC newsletter of November 2003) brings out a basic disagreement regarding the connection between science and the issue of God’s existence. The following is an attempt to sort through some of the ideas in involved in that discussion. Additionally, some new observations are thrown into the mix.

Let’s distinguish between two concepts of deity, and related claims of existence:

The God of many traditional religions; call this one the "Traditional God" (TG); and

The God of theologians and philosophers; call this one the "Philosopher’s God" (PG).

The Traditional God (TG) is allegedly "manifest" in nature and history. Believers hold that TG is necessary for a full explanation of our world and that TG intervenes in historical events, and at times "presents" himself or "contacts" individual human beings.

Traditionally, advocates of TG have argued that science and careful study of nature (and history) would disclose evidence (if not proof) for the reality of TG.

Here it makes sense to speak of "building a case" for (or against) the existence of this deity. Here the continuing failure to find reliable evidence to support the claim that TG exists is grounds for inferring that most likely TG does not exist.

Here it makes sense to distinguish between the belief or knowledge-claim that TG exists and the proposition TG exists, independently of any belief or doctrine that TG exists. At least, the question of the existence of TG can be investigated and evaluated (by citing evidence from science and critical inquiry) apart from all beliefs or doctrines that affirm (or assume) that TG exists. Of course, our study or inquiry could also focus on the belief, knowledge-claim, or doctrine that TG exists.

The Philosopher’s God (PG) is a completely transcendent, supernatural entity that is not detectable by the empirical means by which we investigate nature. Generally, advocates hold that we cannot expect any evidence for this deity from scientific investigation, historical research, and critical inquiry, but that this is irrelevant. According to advocates, the "reality" at issue here is not accessible by science or empirical investigation. Here people recite the slogan: "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence," to emphasize that the order of existence is categorically different from that investigated by science, and that the results of scientific work really do not comprise a case against the reality of PG.

But with PG we have no independent means of getting at "the existence of the deity." There are no means of checking for this deity’s presence, independently of checking the beliefs that theists hold or the doctrines and "revelations" that groups/institutions advance. In so far as we can do any "scientific" investigation, we are limited to the beliefs, knowledge-claims, doctrines, "revelations-claims," etc. that people make. These can be evaluated as being philosophically, or psychologically, or sociologically interesting. We could even evaluate them in terms of their epistemic value: i.e., try to see whether they represent rationally justifiable beliefs. But we have no independent means of determining whether they are true or false.

Here we may grant, on the one hand, that science and critical philosophy cannot "prove" that PG does not exist; but, on the other hand, this does little or nothing to show that PG exists (or even likely exists). All we have, at best, are impressive, sophisticated arguments that purport to show that the existence of PG follows from some formalistic, logical difficulties with the position that denies the existence of PG. Like the traditional "ontological argument" for existence of a deity, these arguments do not really demonstrate real existence.

With regard to this transcendental, supernatural "realm," it is not even clear how the concept of ‘existence’ applies. What would be the indicator for us mere humans that PG in fact exists? Certainly we cannot straightaway apply any of our ordinary, empirical, or scientific notions of existence. We cannot even apply the notions of existence or reality that are applicable to the Traditional God. In summary, the God of tradition (TG) is relevant to human existence and human concerns; but because TG allegedly plays a role in our reality, the issue of TG’s existence can be the subject of "scientific" investigation and skeptical reason. Such study gives the "scientific" investigator grounds for inferring that most likely the God of tradition does not exist. On the other hand, the God of philosophers (PG), is "immune" to such challenges from science and critical inquiry; but the doctrine of PG, which is largely irrelevant to ordinary, human religious faith and concerns, ultimately may not even be a coherent doctrine.

Assorted Puns & Stuff

1. Two peanuts walk into a bar. One was a salted.

2. A jumper cable walks into a bar. The barman says "I'll serve you, but don't start anything."

3. A sandwich walks into a bar. The barman says, "Sorry we don't serve food in here."

4. A dyslexic man walks into a bra.

5. An invisible man married an invisible woman. The kids are nothing to look at either.

6. Two aerials meet on a roof, fall in love get married. The ceremony wasn't much but the reception was wonderful.

7. Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other: "Does this taste funny to you?"

8. "Doc, I can't stop singing 'The green, green grass of home.'"

"That sounds like Tom Jones syndrome." Says the doc.

"Is it common?"

"It's not unusual."

9. Two cows standing next to each other in a field, Daisy says to Dolly "I was artificially inseminated this morning."

"I don't believe you," said Dolly.

"It's true, no bull!" said Daisy.