Rationalists
of East Tennessee
April
2008 Newsletter
________________________________________________________________________________
Roundtable April 6, 2008 10:30 a.m.
At
Pellissippi State
"Discussion
and Analysis of the Ideas Presented by Sam Harris at the
September
2007 'Crystal Clear Atheism' Convention" (with accompanying
video)
Phil
King will be the Discussion Leader.
________________________________________________________________________________
CHILDREN'S
PROGRAM April 6, 2008 10:30 a.m.
Pellissippi
State
It's
bird week in the RET children's program!
Mleeka
Learn Houston will be reading, "Feathers for Lunch," by Lois
Ehlert,
Amazon
web site:
http://www.amazon.com/Feathers-Lunch-Lois-Ehlert/dp/0152009868/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201882096&sr=1-1
"I
Ain't Gonna Paint No More," by by Karen Beaumont
Amazon
web site:
http://www.amazon.com/Notable-Childrens-Books-Younger-Readers/dp/B000F5ZH12/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201882022&sr=8-1
and
"Six
Crows," by Leo Lionni
Amazon
web site:
http://www.amazon.com/SIX-CROWS-Leo-Lionni/dp/039489572X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201882134&sr=8-2
After
reading the books, Mleeka will then discuss non-violent conflict
resolution
with the children.
Following
the discussion, Patty McCaffrey will help the children to
create
apple bird feeders for their feathered friends.
________________________________________________________________________________
Book
Club April 13, 2008
4:00 p.m.
At
Barnes and Noble Booksellers, Kingston Pike
"The
Age of Unreason" by Susan Jacoby (2008)
(Susan
was the speaker at our annual public meeting, in February.)
________________________________________________________________________________
Philosophy
Sunday April 20, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Pellissippi
State
"Transhumanism:
Science or Religion?"
Michael
Lance will describe a relatively new movement called
'Transhumanism'
which proposes that we will soon transcend human
limitations
through technology and become immortal, omniscient and
omnipotent.
________________________________________________________________________________
Op-ed
by Carl Ledendecker
The
Middle of the Road Can Be a Dangerous Place
Eugenie
Scott was in Knoxville for Darwin Day 2008. She presented a
very
good defense of evolution but
during the question and answer
period
she made a statement that clearly demonstrated the danger of
the
middle road. One obvious problem with the middle of the road
position
is one can very easily get hit by those coming from either or
both
directions. That is not necessarily an indication of an incorrect
position
but in this particular case Scott took a self destructive
stance.
Now,
Eugenie Scott has a very difficult job. She must defend evolution
and
not drive away the religious (especially the liberal groups). She
has to
take the position that one can be a Christian, etc. and still
embrace
the reality of evolution.
This
"tap dance" can be difficult to maintain without stumbling over
one's
intellectual feet, and that is what happened to Eugenie Scott on
the
night of her presentation.
She
was asked a question about the bias of science that requires
addressing
only natural phenomena. As I pointed out in an earlier
article,
science can and does address supernatural claims at times.
So,
that assumption is incorrect. The bias assumption is also
incorrect.
Science uses naturalism as a basis because it has proven to
be the
most accurate way to gain actual knowledge and understanding.
Using
supernatural "processes" just leads to dead ends.
Unfortunately
Eugenie Scott, in her political dance, embraced these
incorrect
assumptions and took them to an even lower level.
Her
response was: The way science is defined it is just "stuck with"
using
nature and natural phenomena. Now that statement not only was an
insult
to the history and integrity of science, it was a completely
counter
productive in terms of defending evolution. It made the
scientific
process appear an arbitrary dogmatic system, i.e. just like
religion
but without the higher power endorsement. It communicated
that
science is just another opinion. Exactly the opposite of what
should
have been communicated.
So,
what is the moral of this story? The reality of the politics of
human
activity often requires intermediate and compromised positions
in the
short term to make forward progress. The reality of politics
and
human activity also desperately requires the presence of those who
are
actively engaged in setting the record straight. Those who are
willing
to keep the issues clear and intellectually honest in the
midst
of the messy maneuvers of daily discourse and to confront those
ideas that are commonly communicated and/or accepted but
actually
nonsensical
and dangerous.
We, as
a group, have had discussions about confronting and not
confronting.
The real issue is whether we are willing to maintain the
honesty
and integrity of intellectual discourse. To back away from the
real
issues because of a fear of upsetting society is intellectually
dishonest
and a great danger to us all. Choosing not to upset an
individual
or small group is a personal option. But, when one or many
chose
to allow destructive ideas and practices to go unchallenged in
society
as a whole because "it is good to be nice" or
"confrontation
is
uncomfortable" then both the individuals and society will suffer.
It is
not melodramatic to say that the future of humanity actually
does
ultimately depend on resolving the dualistic and mutually
exclusive
natural/supernatural divide. This is at the deepest level of
human
conflicts. Within it lies the source of humanity's success or
failure.
There is no middle ground of enduring merit in this issue.
To
combine a little Bill Moyer and and old poem: There comes time in
history
when some individuals must step forward to ensure the
direction
of history and never have to say, "For all the sad words of
tongue
or pen, The saddest are these: "It might have been!"
We are
now at a critical point in human history. Are we willing to
step
forward?