PLEASE JOIN US!   We meet on the first Sunday of each month in downtown Duluth at the Radisson Hotel (Location Map)
            Socializing begins at 9:00 am.
            Optional breakfast buffet at 9:30 am.
            Presentation from 10:00 until about 11:30.

            Co-Host: David Broman - (218) 349-7455
            Co-Host: Jim Lyttle - (218) 464-1652
             Videographer - Jan Resberg


October Meeting Notice and Newsletter

Time: 9 am – Social and Breakfast about 9:30 and Speaker about 9:45 am.
I.    Welcome – Bill Guse
II.    Announcements – Share your Thoughts.
III.    Bible & Morality Study, "Family Values" – Ron Kyllonen
IV.    Program – Chuck Frederick, opinion/editorial page editor for Duluth News Tribune Will talk about church/state issues and "getting our message out".
        Coming Programs: November – Fred Freidman, Chief Public Defender

October, 2011 Newsletter of the Lake Superior Freethinkers

Facilitators: Maxine Caserta - 525-8427, 348-4113 & Bill Guse - 834-4583, 343-4806
First Sunday - Radisson Hotel – 9:00 AM Social – 10:00 Brunch

George Erickson, editor, tundracub@mchsi.com


From Rodney Sheffer

According to one of Christianity's most profound thinkers, "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity ... It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, which man should not wish to learn."
Augustine [the "convert or die" saint]

Carl Sagan

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Its goal is to find out how the world works, to seek what regularities there may be, to penetrate to the connections of things—from subnuclear particles, which may be the constituents of all matter, to living organisms, the human social commu­nity, and thence to the cosmos as a whole. Our intuition is by no means an in­fallible guide. Our perceptions may be distorted by training and prejudice or merely because of the limitations of our sense organs, which, of course, perceive directly but a small fraction of the phenomena of the world. Even so straightfor­ward a question as whether in the absence of friction a pound of lead falls faster than a gram of fluff was answered incorrectly by Aristotle and almost everyone else before the time of Galileo. Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Accordingly, science sometimes requires courage—at the very least the courage to question the conventional wisdom.


Beyond this the main trick of science is to really think of something: the shape of clouds and their occasional sharp bottom edges at the same altitude everywhere in the sky; the formation of a dewdrop on a leaf….


The scientific cast of mind examines the world critically as if many alter­native worlds might exist, as if other things might be here which are not. Then we are forced to ask why what we see is present and not something else. Why are the Sun and the Moon and the planets spheres? Why not pyramids, or cubes, or dodecahedra? Why so symmet­rical?


If you spend any time spinning hypotheses, checking to see whether they make sense, whether they conform to what else we know, think­ing of tests you can pose to substantiate or deflate your hypotheses, you will find yourself doing science. And as you come to practice this habit of thought more and more you will get better and better at it. To penetrate into the heart of the thing—even a little thing, a blade of grass, as Walt Whitman said—is to ex­perience a kind of exhilaration that, it may be, only human beings of all the be­ings on this planet can feel. We are an intelligent species and the use of our in­telligence quite properly gives us pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When we think well, we feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.



From my friend and board member of the AHA - Herb Silverman

Published in the Washington Post

Mitt Romney: A reasonable man?

Here's a scene in which four presidential candidates are asked about their religious views.


Candidate 1: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." He adds, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."


Candidate 2: "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"


Candidate 3: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."


Candidate 4: "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."


Were this to take place at a public debate today, I expect Candidates 1 (Thomas Jefferson), 2 (John Adams), 3 (James Madison), and 4 (Abraham Lincoln) would be booed off the stage, their political careers ended.


None of the current Republican candidates seems to have the courage of the man once known as Mr. Conservative (Barry Goldwater), quoted in the September 16, 1981 Congressional Record: "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?" Are we better off with today's presidential candidates who pander to religious factions and cannot end a speech without "God bless America"?


I think the most reasonable Republican candidates are the two Mormons. My bar here is set pretty low: they never talk about their deity telling them to run or how to vote. Perhaps they have a good reason to downplay their Mormonism. The only thing atheists and Mormons have in common is that a significant number of Americans admit they wouldn't vote for either.


As far as the role of faith in the 2012 election, I can't say because I don't know the faith of the candidates. I can take them all at their publicly religious word, but why should I? The major truth-telling test for me among candidates is whether a candidate expresses a view that he or she knows will be politically detrimental. That's why I'll believe any candidate in this country who says he is an atheist, and I'll believe any candidate in Iran who says he is a Christian.


The important question to ask all candidates is if and how their private faith would impact their stands on public policy. I could be comfortable with a candidate who says she would compartmentalize her irrational, faith-based beliefs and govern rationally on evidence-based information.


I was appalled by the Christian values expressed by both the candidates and the audience in the most recent presidential debate. The audience cheered when Rick Perry proudly talked about how many citizens he was responsible for executing in Texas. And the audience again cheered when Ron Paul said the government should ignore the plight of a young person with a deadly disease because he failed to pay for health insurance. Even worse, in my mind, was that none of the other candidates publicly disagreed, though they had no problem challenging anyone who favored government money for health care.


As an atheist, I pick and choose from many books - including the Bible. I particularly like how the quote from Matthew 7:16 applies to the presidential candidates who were on stage that night: "By their fruits you shall know them."


No comments:

Post a Comment