Author Archives: jbernal

Some Remarks on a Blind Alley in Western Epistemology

By Juan Bernal

(A reading of Richard Rorty’s theses in his book, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, stimulated some of the thoughts contained in this remarks.)

A traditional approach to perceptual knowledge and associated distinctions misled philosophers in the western tradition for periods following Descartes.  The distinction between internal (subjectivity) and external (objectivity) played a major role, as did that between the merely contingent and the necessary.  In addition, there was the desire to grasp the noumenal (the purely object, thing-in-itself).

Assumptions: Knowledge is an assemblage of accurate representations; and in order to set knowledge on a firm foundation one must show knowledge to be analogous to the direct apprehension of an object.  [Rorty: They held to the notion of the foundation of knowledge based on an analogy with the compulsion to believe when staring at an object.” (162, ‘Mirror’)]

First:  Descartes’ meditation leading the ‘Cogito ergo sum’ brings in the stark divide between the internal-mental realm (subjectivity) and the external-material realm (objectivity).  With this comes the problem of establishing knowledge of the external on the firm foundation of ‘clear and distinct ideas’ clearly and immediately presented to the knowing subject.  The knowing subject is a thinking being, a mind seeking to make sense of ideas presented to it, ideas which must represent objects in the material-physical realm.

Secondly:  John Locke and other classical British Empiricists (Berkeley, Hume) accept a large part of the epistemological problem gotten from Descartes. They  see their task as being that of showing how the subject can have knowledge of the external world.  They focus on the mental processes underlying knowledge and beliefs about the external world; and on the subject’s apprehension of ideas or experience of impressions (putatively caused by external objects impinging on the senses).

Hence, they work with a notion of knowledge as primarily perceptual experience.  In their ‘analyses,’ they tend to confuse explanation and justification, so that one is often unsure as to whether they’re doing a quasi-psychological explanation of mental processes that base our knowing something or trying to defend a form of propositional knowledge. But mostly they ignore propositional knowledge, i.e., they favoring ‘knowing of X’ (knowledge by direct acquaintance) over ‘knowing that P’ something is the case.

The divide between the subject’s experience and external reality remains evident; hence, the skeptical problem remains prominent.

Thirdly, Immanuel Kant moves part of the way to recognizing the propositional character of knowledge with his focus on the rules that the mind must apply in order to know anything.  He recognizes that knowledge cannot simply be identified with perceptual experience, as the empiricists were inclined to do; but his focus on the structures of the understanding (mind?) indicates that he does not escape from of the idea that an explanation of knowledge requires some type of quasi-psychological analysis of mental processes.  (However, Kant appears not to have discarded entirely the Cartesian distinction between the internal-mental-realm and the external-material-realm.).

Accordingly, what we experience (and can know) results for the synthesizing activity of the transcendental ego.  But this, in turn, leads to a differentiation between objects of experience (phenomena) and the thing-in-itself (noumena).  Human experience and knowledge are limited to phenomena.

On pages 160-161 of his book (Mirror..), Rorty tells us that Kant was the first to think of the foundations of knowledge as propositional rather than objects (i.e., ideas, impressions, sensations). Instead of a search for ‘privileged representations,’ Kant searches for the rules of the mind that make experience possible. Thereby, he advances in the direction of a propositional rather than a perceptual view of knowledge.  But he only went half-way, because his ‘Critique’ was contained within the framework of causal metaphors —- “constitution,” “the working,” “shaping,” “synthesizing.”

[See Rorty’s summary statements of his assessment of the epistemological enterprise,  Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, pages 160-163.  See also he work on Kant by Robert Paul Wolff, Kant’s Theory of Mental Activity) ]

Epistemology and the problem of Justifying our Knowledge

The “Cartesian Problem”:   The subject (the thinking being = mind) apprehends ideas.  The basis for any knowledge outside the subject’s state of consciousness is the apprehension of clear and distinct ideas, because these are the only basis for the certainty required by knowledge.  So the problem of showing how knowledge of external (material) reality is possible is the problem of showing how the subject’s apprehension of clear and distinct ideas bridges the gap between subjective consciousness and external (material) reality.  This is often called the “skeptical problem”:

The problem:  How do we get from A to B?

A:  The subject apprehending his immediate impressions, perceptions, sense-data, etc , i.e. Subjective Experience.

B :  Knowledge of objective (material) reality

John Locke, Bishop Berkeley, and David Hume in turn take up this problem, with Hume showing that it leads to a philosophy of skepticism regarding both the reality of an enduring self and knowledge of objective reality.

 John Locke (primary/secondary qualities)  -> Berkeley’s Idealism  –> Hume’s Skepticism

In turn the challenge of David Hume’s skepticism was the subject of Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy (of the Critique of Pure Reason).

(Kant’s Critical philosophy)     purports to resolve   (Hume’s Skeptical philosophy).  

Kant argued that there were three responses to the Cartesian problem:

Humean Skepticism  (an untenable position)
Dogmatism  (Naïve Realism [e.g., Thomas Reid’s Realism?])
Kant’s Critical Philosophy  (Transcendental Synthesis of experience).

Only the latter was thought to constitute an adequate, philosophical resolution of the Cartesian problem.

Acordingly, skepticism develops from the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley.  Dogmatism or naïve realism simply ignores the divide between subject and objective reality and posits that the subject directly apprehends objective things and properties. In the Kantian approach, the subject contributes the forms of intuition and categories of the understanding to make experience and knowledge possible.  The Kantian ‘solution’ is presumably one satisfactory response to the Cartesian challenge.

The challenge of the Cartesian problem is handled by Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy (of the Critique of Pure Reason), satisfactorily in the opinion of many, but not all agree.  The crucial point is that Kant accepts the Cartesian problem as the starting point and then argues that his critical philosophy shows how experience and knowledge of objective reality are possible.

But there are alternative ways of dealing with the problem, such as representative realism and phenomenalism.  I will not discuss these, but instead will mention an alternative model of perceptual experience which avoids the skeptical problem altogether and, contrary to the accepted view, is not a piece of mere dogmatism.    The common-sense realism of Thomas Reid, can be developed into a Darwinist-Pragmatist model of sense perception.

Thomas Reid, a Scottish philosopher and contemporary to David Hume, rejected the Cartesian starting point, opting for a common sense premise that humans know and interact with a material world.  Reid’s common-sense realism [An Inquiry into the human mind (1764) & Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1786)] has the character of dogmatism only when viewed from a perspective of the Cartesian problem.  When that starting point is rejected, Reid’s philosophy has the advantage of avoiding the idea of perception as passive sensing in favor of a propositional account of perception. This has much to recommend it.   Furthermore, this type of realism can be seen as reinvigorated, first by the Darwinian evolutionary account of animal life, including the evolution of intelligent, mindful humans, competing for survival in the world; and secondly by a scientific based pragmatism, of the sort developed by John Dewey.

Here we have an alternative to the Kantian ‘resolution’ of the Hume’s skepticism.  Kant’s resolution accepts the Cartesian problem and offers the transcendental philosophy of the first Critique as a solution to that problem and all its offspring.

The alternative solution (Reid, Darwin, Dewey) starts by rejecting the Cartesian problem and, along with it, all the offspring (including Humean skepticism).  In its place we have the common-sense realism of Thomas Reid, which can easily be seen as harmonious with a Darwinian Evolutionary philosophy and with a modern pragmatic philosophy, such as that developed by John Dewey.

With the model of sense perception of sense perception, which I shall call the “Reid-Darwin-Pragmatic model,” we assume as a starting point the existence of the individual in a natural, social world.  Instead of saying with Descartes that there is a chasm between the perceiver (the subject) and the objective, physical world which must be bridged if we’re to avoid the skeptical trap, we assume that the subject occupies a place in that objective, material world, which he perceives and with which he causally interacts.  In other words, we start with a picture of the person (human being) located in a natural/social world, perceiving things (not apprehending perceptions),  interacting with other persons and participating in actions and events, all of which also are found in that world.  He does not just perceive things, but also causally interacts with many parts of the world which he inhabits.

Not only do we avoid the skeptical dilemma, but this model also avoids the serious conceptual problems of the Cartesian-Humean mode, some of which include: .

First, the subject of the Cartesian-Humean model  has to be an abstract ego, a mental subject or “homunculus” existing inside the head who apprehends the data (perceptions, impressions, sense datum) provided by the sense faculties.  The perceiving subject is not the physical person who walks the earth, but a mysterious “ghost-in-the-machine” receiving sense impressions.

Secondly, the Cartesian-Humean model assimilates the act of perception to a passive sensing or reception of sensation.  This ignores the fact that an adequate analysis of perception reveals that the act of perceiving presupposes that the perceiver applies  relevant meaning and concepts to the object perceived.  In other words, perception is concept-laden, propositional in nature, an activity,  and cannot be adequately analyzed as a passive sensing of immediately given data.

Thirdly, we avoid the problem of presented by a subjective, private language, whose concepts presumably do not rely on concepts applied to the external world.  Ludwig Wittgenstein and ordinary language analysts have fairly refuted the notion of a private language.  But the model of a subjective ego apprehending and identifying private impressions assumes the applicability of a private language, which ultimately turns out to be an incoherent notion.

C Rulon: Creationism & Intelligent Design: To debate or not to debate

By Charles L.  Rulon

Several years ago I participated in a debate at LBCC on Intelligent Design, the Trojan horse of creationism.  These were my opening remarks.

I want to be up front with all of you.  I have real mixed feelings about being here today to debate those who reject the established fact of our bio­logical evolu­tion.  Let me emphasize that word “fact”.  Evolution (meaning that all species, from trees and insects to fish and humans, have a common ancestry going back billions of years) is as much a scientifically settled fact as the fact that our earth goes around the sun.  We are cousins of apes and even more distant cousins of all mammals.  Our extremely ancient ancestor was a species of fish that went extinct hundreds of millions of years ago.

Scientific evidence for evolution continues to pour in.  Millions of fossils, including tens of thousands of so-called “missing links,” can be seen in museums around the world.  Strong evidence also comes from the fields of genet­ics, molec­ular biology, embry­ology, biogeo­graphy and com­­­par­­a­­tive anatomy and physi­ology.  Few, if any, scienti­fic concepts have been more exten­sively tested and more thorough­ly proven than our evolu­tion. Essentially the entire scientific community worldwide now accepts that biological evol­ution is a fundamental aspect of nature.

Millions of Christians in the U.S. have also now accepted the scientific fact of our evolution as God’s way of creating us.  They believe that, since God is the author of all truth, what­ever is demon­strated as being scientific­ally true is a signal that God made it that way.  They believe that the purpose of Scripture is distorted by those who try to make it a science text.  For some, the vast scope and scale of evol­ution only magnifies their admiration for a god who could set such an incredi­ble process in motion.

So why am I here today?  Have I actually deluded myself into think­ing that I have some silver bullet argu­ments to convert my opponent, not to mention all of the creationists in this audience?  No.  I gave up on that long ago.  Decades of personal experience have convinced me that there’s no scientific evidence I can present that would sway the large majority of anti-evolutionists.  Up to now, the only way that creationists have been defeated from introducing their dogmas into public school science classes have been in court cases where their fake science has been exposed.

So, again, why am I here today?  I guess it’s because I believe that science educators have a duty to defend the scientific method and good science from irrational attacks.  I also feel an obligation toward those stu­dents in the audience who are still undecided — students whose minds haven’t already been snapped shut by anti-evolution pseudo-science.  Even so, there are still several excellent reasons for both scien­tists and science edu­cators to not debate the anti-evol­u­tionists — for my not being here today.  Here are some of them.

Debating skills trump facts

 First, in science it’s the rigorous appli­cation of the scientific method that counts, not the oratory skills of the scientists. Yet, the over­whelm­ing majority of public de­bates are not won by the actual scientific evidence presented, but by the emotional rap­port, pub­lic speak­ing skills, likeability, and appar­ent authority of the debaters.  How could it be otherwise given the way our evolved brain works and given the audi­ence’s lack of scientific expertise?   Creation­ists know this.  Many are excellent deba­ters with impressive, entertaining, power-point presenta­tions.  In fact, for decades many Christian funda­mentalist colleges have been churning out lawyers and other graduates who are highly skilled in de­bating and in attacking evolution science.

Debates legitimize the creationists

The second reason for my not debating creationists is that there is no such thing as bad publicity for their move­ment.  It’s pure Hollywood.  If a scientist shows up to debate, it’s “proof” that a scientific controversy actually exists.  If the scientist declines to debate, it’s “proof” that evolu­tionists are running scared.  Let me say this again.  Creationists set up debates to mis­­­lead audiences into thinking that a sci­en­tific con­troversy actual­ly exists between biological evolu­tion and Intelli­gent Design — that evolution is just a theory, a weak and crumbling one at that.  Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.  Let’s not kid ourselves.  Regardless of superficial scientific appear­ances, today’s Intelligent Design arguments were mostly fabricated by a handful of Christian apolo­­gists and political organizations with the mission of dis­crediting evolution and of bringing biblical teach­ings and conservative Christian values into public school classrooms.

Debates spread misinformation

A third reason for my not debating creationists has to do with the subject of misinformation.  From my own frustrating personal experiences, the anti-evolu­tionists are capable of presenting more scientific misin­forma­tion in 30 min­utes than I could possibly refute in a week.  It is a relatively easy task for them to churn out dozens of pseudo-factoids in a very short time span.  They are counting on the fact that very few science teachers, much less students in the audience, have the necessary exper­tise in the scientific method or in evol­u­tion­ary biology, historical geology, anthropology and paleon­­tology to be able to quickly and skillfully expose the plethora of half-truths, poor logic, outdated references, mis­leading quota­tions, selective data, and outright false­hoods of those who con­tinue to attack evolution.

Equal time arguments

A fourth reason for not debating creationists is that equal time is given to both sides. So what’s wrong with that?  Isn’t that fair, the democratic way?  What’s wrong is that science is not demo­­cra­tic.  Equal time is not given to competing theories.  Instead, there is the rig­or­ous evalu­­ation of all the evidence on all sides.  Regarding our biological evolution, the scien­tific evidence in sup­port is monumental, enormous, vast.  Not so for creation/Intelligent Design “science”.  Thus, to require science teachers to give equal time to both (only possible by using spurious arguments to attack evolution and to support Intelligent Design) is to require teachers to lie to their students.  This appeal for equal time has been an effect­ive propa­ganda tool for creationists for decades.  By appealing to fair play and by persuading ignorant and/or religiously moti­vated legis­lators, judges and school boards, creationists have successfully wedged their anti-scientific relig­ious beliefs through the back door into science classes in school districts across the country.  Many powerful politic­ians con­tinue to support these efforts.

Debates are membership drives

A fifth reason for my not debating creationists is that these debates are also pub­licity stunts for the bene­fit of increasing the membership of conser­vative Christian clubs on high school and college campuses.  Such clubs across our nation now num­ber in the tens of thousands.  Most are spreading falsehoods regarding evolu­tion, thus creating seri­ous obstacles to the ongoing sci­ence education of those students who believe these falsehoods.  Let’s not forget that when Christian clubs convince students to reject evolu­tionary biology they are, in effect, also con­vincing students to reject large chunks of well-established phy­sics, chem­istry, astronomy, anthro­pology and geology. And they are persuading students to reject the most valuable tool humans have ever discovered to relia­bly advance our empirical know­ledge.  I’m talking about the scien­tific method, itself.  Thus, creationists are, in essence, trying to push us back into the dark ages of ignorance and super­stition.

To make matters worse, many of these Christian clubs hold religious beliefs that can seriously interfere with students’ ability to make rational, compassionate and scientifically informed decisions in other important areas such as emer­gency contraceptive pills, the abor­­tion pill, gay rights, death with dignity and overpopula­tion.  And let’s not forget the extremely scary End Times apocalyptic theo­logy beliefs cur­­rently held by millions of biblical creationists.  After all, why be concerned about global climate change, or the destruction of our planet’s life-support systems, or WMDs when the devastation of our world is inevitable anyway as foretold in Scripture.  Why work for peace and nuclear disarm­ament talks, since doing so could interfere with the timetable for Christ’s return.

In closing

America’s time-tested freedom of (and from) religion means that every sect may worship however it wishes in its own private church, but it cannot use the power of government to push its beliefs on others. Yet, today, the U.S. is being confront­ed with large num­bers of articu­late, scientifically ignorant, politic­ally active Christ­ians who are locked into ultra­-religious, anti-scien­­tific views and who want to force these views on others through our elected officials, our courts and our schools.  To quote Sam Harris in his book, The End of Faith, “Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary school education.”

This is why I’m here today.


Charles Rulon is an emeritus of Long Beach City College where he taught in the

ife Sciences for 34 years.  He can be reached at [email protected]

Notes from fall of 1987: Some Reflections on Philosophy I

By Juan Bernal

11/16/87

Traditional Philosophy (sometimes called “speculative philosophy”) is similar to some forms of religion in these ways:

1) ..it tries to achieve a synoptic view of reality (i.e. attempts to view reality as a whole);

2) ..it deals with questions concerning the significance of human existence;

3) ..it takes up questions of value and attempts to define the highest good.

***********************************

The more admirable type of philosopher is one who attempts to live and teach in accordance with the Socratic principle that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

The better part of philosophical wisdom discloses that the examination of human existence is lifelong enterprise, and that there is no assurance that we will ever achieve knowledge, much less achieve spiritual fulfillment or peace of mind.

***********************************

Religions claim to teach “higher truths”. They purport to teach about the spiritual aspect of reality, the significance and purpose of human existence, and the spiritual-moral obligations that apply to humanity. Religion –more than other institutions– assumes the role of telling us how we ought to live our lives (..also how we can deal with such aspects of reality as ageing, suffering, and death).

***********************************

Ch. 2, Why Explore Philosophy? (Making Sense of Things, Troxell & Snyder) approaches introductory philosophy by asking how people attempt to make sense of the world.

An attempt to make sense of things?   Maybe philosophy should be seen as simply being an attempt to make rational sense of our world, of both natural and social phenomena that we experience.  Of course other disciplines come into play here: the natural sciences, social sciences, history, ..So after we touch on the sciences and historical inquiry, what is the contribution of philosophy?  Can we say that it is an attempt to make sense of those aspects of our world not treated by the sciences and by history?

Do we …

Sort out, analyze and interpret the findings of the sciences (?)

Evaluate our claims to knowledge and justified belief (?)

Attempt to make sense of our experience and existence (?)

Analyze and clarify such concepts as knowledge, truth, reality, justice, moral evil, etc. (?)

Analyze the notions of moral value and human freedom. (?)

Evaluate such traditional problems as that of mind/matter, freedom/determinism; knowledge/skepticism; existence or absence of a deity; problem of evil. (?)

State the value or dis-value of religious faith (?)

Sometimes we just try to make sense of existence, both at the social and personal levels.

**************************************

We should distinguish between a philosophy of life (viz. a personal outlook on things), on the one hand, and philosophy as a discipline (the study of philosophy), on the other hand. These are two distinct things, although in some cases there can be a relationship between them.  For example, as when my study of philosophy results in my adopting a particular outlook on reality.

————————————

Questions sometimes arise regarding the value or desirability of a specific law, a set of laws, or even an entire legal system.

Suppose that we find ourselves arguing for or against a specific law: e.g. laws of apartheid in South Africa, segregationist laws in the U.S., or laws that require participation in a war even when this is contrary to the individual’s conscience. Could we say that in such a context philosophical considerations become relevant, even crucial?

Similar questions may be raised concerning other institutions: e.g., forms of government, economic systems, religions, technology, consumer-materialistic values, etc..

Arguments bearing on issues such as these would presuppose certain “deeper” values and assumptions. Undoubtedly, philosophical critiques and re-constructions would come into play here.

************************************

Most likely, the world that we confront every day is a reality open to philosophy. Understating it, we might say that philosophical values do not predominate.

How should a philosophically-minded person deal with this situation?  Should one be heroic and try to follow the Socratic model?

************************************

(12-3-87)

What is the Socratic model?

Socrates took the position of “one who does not know,” or one who makes no claim to knowledge; then he proceeded to expose others as being mere pretenders to knowledge; i.e., as really not knowing what they claimed to know (e.g., not really knowing what “virtue” is, or “courage”, etc.).

By exposing pretense and ignorance, Socrates was laying the groundwork for a genuine pursuit of truth.  Supposedly, he showed us that one cannot advance in the direction of truth until one has cleared away error, ignorance and pretense. In so doing, he also showed us how very difficult the pursuit of truth is.

 ”The destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor whether he soweth or not.”   Robert G. Ingersoll

 

“What we’re destroying is nothing but houses of cards, and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand.”                           Ludwig Wittgenstein

Here the philosophical spirit is found working to clarify things, to sweep away confusion and error, ….all as a prelude to the mind’s journey toward knowledge, understanding and truth.

“We cannot pursue the lady called wisdom until we clean up our mess and learn to walk straight” .—- Pale Moon

Notes from fall of 1987 – Some Reflections on Philosophy II

By Juan Bernal

What can the “philosophical spirit” mean to the non-philosophical world, a world that cares little about clarification, analysis and the pursuit of truth?  Should the “philosophical person” take the role of a missionary and work to win converts among the un-philosophical?

To go out and attempt to convert the world is silly and Quixotic. The world in general is not disposed toward philosophical work.  But some individuals within the large non-philosophical set are naturally disposed to ask philosophical questions or ask questions that require philosophical treatment. Such individuals are susceptible to the philosophical, Socratic sting. We might approach them.

What does one attempt to teach?  ….philosophy as a method for dealing with certain questions and problems?  ….a reflective, logical approach to life?

*************************************

It seems that most people do not perceive a need in their lives for philosophy.  But there are others (a minority) who regard philosophy as critically important.

(12-4-87)

Probably most people who complain that philosophy is a useless and boring subject do not know what philosophy is, but base their view on a misconception (e.g. philosophy as armchair speculation and groundless metaphysics dealing with the supernatural). Such people commit the “strawman” fallacy.  They have an erroneous idea of philosophy, and on this “basis”, reject all philosophy as useless.  For some, experience has given them a caricature of philosophy; hence, they see nothing to recommend it and hence is easily reject it as a frivolous activity.

————————-

But if people attempt to think for themselves on significant, vital issues, they will see a need for philosophy.  If people have some curiosity about the way things are; if they still retain a sense of wonder about existence; if they haven’t conceded all spiritual, moral and intellectual work to the “experts”; they have a need for philosophy.

***************************************

(12-9-87)

The human psyche is vast and has incredible depth. Individuals occasionally get lost within it. We are shocked by its distances and depths, and frequently are led to think that somehow we have stepped beyond it.  Thus we have belief in such things as: out-of-body-experiences, soul transmigrations, reincarnations, etc..

The psyche presents us with astonishing visions, and speaks to us with many voices —some awesome and terrible.

(It is not clear that the preceding remarks have much to do with philosophy.  Do they touch on religion?)

——————————

When I sit down (or stand up) and try to sort things out for myself…..Is this philosophy?

Most likely this by itself is not philosophy. Genuine philosophy requires a special kind of reflection and intellectual work.

***************************************

Philosophy is difficult to define.  Sometimes analogies and similes can help:

An intellectual exercise:

Philosophy can be seen ….

“      as a game ……(hobby).

“      as a way of life.

“      as a style of problem solving.

“      as a form of intellectual work.

“      as a form of spirituality ……(religion (?)).

“      as a type of illness ……(a nervous disorder).

“      as a life-long commitment to searching for truth.

***************************************

The psyche seeks to express its depth; this expression may take the form of philosophy, art, poetry, religion …etc..

Philosophy as an art form.

“      as imaginative literature.

The poet and the writer of literary works (e.g., novels) attempt to express their experience of human existence. They each work at giving expression to their vision of reality; and if they succeed, they enable us, their readers, also a share in that vision and offer us a “living”  of their experience. This is how great works of literature function.

Can we say correctly that philosophy also functions this way? The activity by which an individual attempts to express his/her vision of some aspect of reality?  (…attempts to express some significant experience in his/her existence?)

Our immediate inclination is to say that philosophical work must be distinguished from poetry and literary art.  The philosopher attempts to resolve (at least clarify) problems in a rational, discursive way. This is very different from the poetic, literary expression of a significant, moving experience.

However, we may hesitate when reminded that some of the great philosophers combined their philosophical work with expression of poetic and literary vision (e.g., Plato, Nietzsche, Santayana).

[Generally when someone expresses his vision of things, he is not engaged in the work of grappling with philosophical problems; however, someone's poetic view of reality or experience could lend insight to the philosophical worker, enabling him a to see things in a new light, or even lending a clearer view of something he could only see obscurely before.]

Great music or a beautiful song may be great art, even a poetic expression of something the composer saw or felt; but it would not appear to be a form of philosophy.  By appreciating it I may feel (experience, “see”) some of what the composer felt; and it may lead me to look at things (the world, existence, other people, suffering, joy) in a different way.  But only if we were  to speak metaphorically or figuratively would we refer to music as philosophy. (Yet there  could be a philosophy behind it.)

Religion, more so than philosophy, seems close to literary art and poetry.  Some forms of religion, at least, can be seen as human attempts to express certain visions, experiences, aspirations, hopes, fears, etc..

A song, a cry, a prayer may be the means by which I express what I feel or try to express what I see (experience).  If I am truly inspired and have sufficient talent, I might create some form of art (poem, musical piece, novel) by which I express my experience.  But my attempt to express my experience of the world does not imply that that I have created a philosophical work.

Notes from fall of 1987 – Some Reflections on Philosophy III

By Juan Bernal

Walt Kaufmann tells us that “in the end, true education is a process of self-education.”  But, as he also notes, there is still a great need for teachers and guides in this process of educating oneself.

An analogy might help: Suppose I set out to climb Mount Everest. If I accomplish my goal I will have realized a great personal achievement; something I will have done myself, but not entirely by myself. For this great personal achievement will have required the help of others; instructors, trainers, guides and such.

*****************************************

Genuine education involves self-development and spiritual growth.

Philosophical development:  All persons start as nature’s primitives; many have the potential to become much more, to develop their intellectual, creative and spiritual faculties.  But this growth and development does not come easily. Effort and sacrifice are required.   Most people are not willing to pay the price.

———————————–

(12-14-87)

Start with the premise that we are rational, autonomous beings; that we are meant to think for ourselves, …that we are not mere drones who perform functions mindlessly,  unquestioningly following appointed authorities.

Then ask: How much is truth and how much useful myth in the pronouncements of our religious, governmental, and military authorities?

———————————-

(12-21-87)

Truth-Seeking                |

God-Seeking                  |       Are these aspects of the same

Soul-Development         |        enterprise?

Seeking the True Self     |

It’s difficult to say how one would deal with this question.

The poet might say that all these seek to achieve the same goal.  But certainly such a proposition cries out for clarification, and even if we were to clarify it, we probably would have no way of evaluating it.

******************************************

(Nov. 24, 92)

…check W. Kaufmann’s Future of the Humanities (p. 26) for a statement of the utter failure of German academic philosophy in the 1930′s to confront the crisis of NAZI criminality.

(Nov. 30, 92)

A dilemma for academic philosophers: ..we prefer to deal only with “philosophical issues,” and avoid the messy arena of the world’s social, economic, political, and moral problems. We don’t want to become partisans and advocates for political movements and ideologies; and we surely don’t pretend to be prophets and wisemen.

Subsequently, we mostly avoid discussion of society’s political/economic, social and moral problems. Most of us don’t think it is our business to do critiques of other people’s behavior and values, or to criticize government policies and social conventions.

We go on as if things were generally all right. But things are not all fine. (“Peace! Peace!” they cry, “but there is no peace…”  Jeremiah (?) ) And there are plenty groups and individuals ready to step into the role we have abandoned and offer their “solutions” and ideologies as remedies, often to the greater detriment and increased suffering of society.

———————————————————————–

Two tendencies in philosophy:

1) ….to be impressed and excited by mathematical reasoning (& formal logic) and the scientific method as models for philosophical inquiry. [Here we find most rationalists such as Descartes, Spinoza; Logical Positivists; Bertrand Russell (at some stage of his development); the early Wittgenstein; and many Anglo-American, analytical philosophers.

2) ...to be excited by poetry, literature, drama, and thus see philosophy as imaginative work that attempts to express some aspect (or aspect(s) ) of human experience. [Here we find such philosophers as Nietzsche, Santayana, W. Kaufmann; some of the existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Heidegger)]

[Plato's work touches both camps.]

Roughly, the two tendencies are those of the positivist and the existentialist. One sees philosophy primarily as analysis; the other tends to see it as human drama.

————————————–

Our motto could be: Learn to think for yourself, but also work to discipline your thinking. (…suggests that genuine autonomy is conditioned by self-discipline.)

Practical ethics/morality: One should emphasize the need for fair dealing with our fellow humans.  . . . the need for honest, candid talk. The principles of seeking the truth and speaking the truth to the best of our ability. (Compare this to the attitude of the politician/salesman, who says whatever will gain him an advantage and help to achieve his purpose.)

From one style of critical philosophy: The study of epistemology in which we do an analysis of the concepts concerning knowledge, belief, is our central focus. . . .  We carry on inquiries into the different kinds of knowledge, the grounds for knowledge, the range of our knowledge.  We explore the many ways in which belief, opinion, conviction, and such pass for knowledge.

We argue the need for rational inquiry, empirical observation  and rational argument. We recognize the power of emotion and the effectiveness of different methods of persuasion.

We analyze the uses of language, the need for clarification and straight thinking.

We learn how better to handle information; how to find the relevant points; how to draw the logical or probable conclusion.

We shall consider whether there are limits to science and rationally-based knowledge. Is the range of reality far greater than the range of the rational mind?  ….whether science and the rational approach presuppose some conformity between nature and the human mind, which brings in questions as to the value of metaphysics. (…consider also the challenge of quantum physics.)

Abortion & the Battle for Women’s Reproductive Freedom

By Charles L. Rulon,

Emeritus professor of Life and Health Sciences at Long Beach City College, California.

Millions of Americans still want to force women with unwanted pregnancies to stay pregnant against their will — in effect, to be unwilling breeding machines.

For millennia, women’s reproductive rights have been legislated, adjudicated and religiously controlled by those who would never have to experience an unwanted pregnancy —men.  For millennia, poor young unskilled mothers had to do whatever it took to find food and shelter for their children. This often meant becoming sexual and domestic slaves to men.  Also, for literally millennia, unwanted pregnancies were often followed by extremely dangerous abortion attempts and/or by the wrenchingly painful smothering to death or abandoning of new-born infants.

But as science and technology continued to advance, particularly in the last century, birth control methods became increasingly effective, early abortions finally became much safer than giving birth, and powerful religious patriarchies began to weaken. The long sought for reproductive emancipation of women was finally beginning to take giant steps forward.  Since Roe v Wade (1973), over 40 million American women have opted for an early safe legal abortion. That’s more women than there are people in the entire state of California! That’s over 40 million women who had a major second chance to control their own destiny.

Yet, four decades after Roe there still remains in the U.S. a powerful backlash by America’s religious-political patriarchy and their followers.  The overwhelming majority of anti-abortion voices in power today—in our pulpits and political machines—are white, conservative, Christian male voices—the same voices that once opposed both suffrage and birth control for women.

Today, abortion facilities still remain in only 13% of our nation’s counties, while state and national efforts to further weaken Roe continue unabated.  The right of women with unwanted pregnancies to not be forced to stay pregnant against their will continues to lose ground to nation-wide campaigns like Personhood-USA with its well-financed attempts to have embryos, blastulas and microscopic zygotes protected by law as persons.

Pro-choice politicians, of course, recite their support for elective abortions (“safe, legal & rare”).  But then most hurry on as though they are uncomfortable with their position, or believe that there are more important issues to debate.  But is a woman’s right to be freed from reproductive enslavement really a less important issue?  After all, the right to excellent birth control backed up by early safe abortions is about the right of women to decide for themselves their own futures, a right that is fundamental to female equality and human liberty.

Valuing Women’s Lives

Two decades ago a State of the World report documented that globally, “what consigned so many women to death or physical impairment was not a deficiency in technology, but a deficiency in the value placed on women’s lives.” Today, the suffering to women and girls due to ancient religious dogmas, entrenched patriarchal laws and customs, plus the desire to punish “loose” women, coupled with abysmal ignorance and grinding poverty is simply staggering.  Anti-abortion laws, which try to force women with unwanted pregnancies to be unwilling embryo incubators, in effect, treat women as obligatory breeding machines. They place women in a permanently and irrevocably subordinate position to men.

Throughout history the large majority of women with unwanted pregnancies have been willing to risk almost anything to escape from such reproductive enslavement.  As a result, anti-abortion laws across our planet have been major public health and social disasters.  In just the past 30 years over 150 million girls and women filled the hospitals in these anti-choice countries with life-threatening infections, massive hemorrhaging, perforated intestines and uteruses, and kidney failure as a result of illegal abortion attempts.  Several million died.  In the U.S. before Roe, hundreds of thousands of women each year with botched abortions filled our hospitals. Medical costs soared, families were torn apart and disrespect for the law intensified.

The world’s lowest rates of abortion by far are found in Japan and Western Europe where few legal restrictions are placed on abortions and where contraceptive use and comprehensive sex education are widespread.  In fact, today it is increasingly rare to find anti-abortion laws outside of totalitarian, militaristic, and /or religiously fundamentalist societies.  Do we really want the United States to have the same laws suppressing women’s reproductive equality as do countries like Afghanistan and El Salvador?

A World of Wanted Children

Our world is already up to its ears in unwanted, hungry and abandoned children. In the last 30 years restrictive laws and coercive pressures have resulted in over one billion unplanned and mostly unwanted embryos carried to term. Tens of millions of abandoned children now wander the streets.  Poverty soars.  Crime escalates.  Massive ecological destruction, social unrest and militarization continue.

In the U.S. over 500,000 children have already been taken from their parents and placed in foster homes, and over 15 million children now live in poverty, with hundreds of thousands abandoned. Yet, most of our 2012 Republican Presidential contenders, plus tens of millions of Americans continue to try to pass laws that would force women into having more children than they really want, even though we can’t or won’t take care of the children we already have.

Mostly because of religious/moralistic obstacles, a depressing half of all pregnancies in the US are still unintended; for African-American women, it’s 70%.  Roughly half of all such unintended pregnancies are aborted. The abortion rate among Black women is five times higher than among White women; for Latinos it’s three times higher. Poverty remains a major factor. Thus, the passage of anti-abortion laws in the U.S. would heavily discriminate against poor minority women.

In this 21st century of science and human enlightenment to claim that microscopic human fertilized eggs and blastulas(!!), or even half-inch limbless, faceless embryos(!), much less 1st or 2nd trimester mindless, senseless fetuses are somehow equivalent to children already born and, thus, should have the same right to life and that this is America’s Holocaust is rationally absurd and ethically repugnant.  Fundamentalist religious insanity comes to mind.  Most Americans know this “absurdity” at some level. That’s why very few Americans want to send women who abort to prison, not even for a day!

Furthermore, to claim that human embryos have some kind of God-given sacred right to life is not even a biblical teaching according to most Christian theologians and millions of pro-choice Christians.  Instead, such pronounce­ments are basically incendiary propaganda generated by America’s powerful religious patriarchy with the ultimate purpose of controlling the religious/political thinking of tens of millions of conservative Christians.

 Closing Thoughts

The politician who gets my vote is the one who makes female equality one major part of his or her platform. After all, an investment in global economic opportunities for women, plus reproductive health care (including sex education, contraception, emergency contraceptive pills and early abortions) would provide one of the greatest benefits to humanity in the history of civilization.  Few other measures could make such a contribution to the health and well-being of women and children, reduce poverty and the threat of war worldwide, plus improve our chances of achieving a sustainable future, yet cost each of us in the affluent world only a few dollars a year in foreign aid.

The uncompromising position of the Christian Right and their political allies puts an ugly face on democracy and on the religious spirit of love and compassion. It’s a position that demeans the intelligence and moral character of women and returns them to the Dark Ages of dangerous illegal abortions.  How long can civilization continue to tolerate undemocratic, authoritarian pronouncements from male popes, ministers, televangelists, born-again politicians and others who demand religious obedience?  How long can we continue to tolerate men who are concerned primarily with the maintenance of ancient institutions and belief systems in a modern scientific world they do not want to understand and where the need to preserve their power has priority over all else?  How can any society ever expect its citizens to live in a way that is higher, nobler and more spiritual when it continues to try to force women with unwanted pregnancies (a persistent and major reality throughout the entire history of human­kind) to stay pregnant against their will?

A Dialogue on Armed Drone Attacks and Other Moral Questions.

By Juan Bernal

The characters of the dialogue:  I use Spanish terms for the frog, “El Sapo”  and the snake, “La Culebra.”  But don’t take for granted that la Culebra is the bad guy.  Actually I’m using the term “culebra” similar to the character in Old Testament mythology:  the serpent represents the wisdom of Satan, which all too often gets a bad rap.  My snake is not a villain in this short dialogue, and the frog’s moral intelligence has its limits.

——————————————————————————————-

El Sapo :  Someone sitting at a computer console in Nevada presses a few buttons to guide a military drone aircraft and fire deadly missile strikes in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and people are blown to bits.

La Culebra:  Yah, so what’s your point?

El Sapo:  Is this a justifiable act in a justifiable war?

La Culebra:  Sure, why not?

El Sapo:  But it is neither a justifiable war nor a justifiable act!

La Culebra:  From a military point of view it is certainly justifiable.  It’s effective and does not jeopardize lives of US soldiers. Inasmuch as they allow strikes on terrorists and insurrectionists with minimal jeopardy to our soldiers and airmen, drone air strikes are morally justifiable acts.  However, I won’t argue the merits of the original decision for military intervention in those countries.

El Sapo :  Leaving aside for now the question(s)  regarding the effectiveness of this action (tactic),  doesn’t the use of armed drone aircraft raise questions about the morality of such action (and the policy that leads to such action)?  Furthermore, what does it say about the moral values of people who allow such action?

La Culebra:  Our policy makers and military officials see drone strikes as effective and good tactics in killing more of the enemy and protecting our military persons on the battlefield.  Why shouldn’t citizens approve of such policy?  Surely it does not reflect badly on their moral values.

El Sapo :  But isn’t this just another indication that our military tactics and actions have become increasingly automated and impersonal?  Isn’t it an additional logical extension of war policies which call for obliteration of cities by air bombs initiated from bomber aircraft at thirty thousand feet altitude or missile strikes from ships or bases hundreds of miles away?

La Culebra:  So now you want to ponder the morality of aerial bombing and missile defense?

El Sapo:   But surely even you are bothered by some of this.  Do you rest easy at night (when do snakes sleep?) knowing that your country is ready to kill thousands of people who have nothing to do with the decisions of their leaders.  Can you say that abstract, computerized annihilation of human beings has become an acceptable way of doing war?

La Culebra:  I would put it differently:  the use of computer technology in military action against the enemy is surely an acceptable way of doing war.  War, after all, is not a picnic to make human beings feel good about them selves.

El Sapo:  The killing by remote control is apparently hardly worth more than passing reference by our leaders, news media, religious and academic spokes people.  They should be infuriated by it; but they hardly seem to notice anymore.

La Culebra:  Fighting a war by remote control is just part of what must be done to fight terrorism in distant parts of the world.  Surely, as a nation we don’t have to apologize to anyone for it.

El Sapo:  Maybe not.  However, imagine this scenario:  You and your family are camping in the Mojave Desert. (Your species likes the desert, right?)  At dawn, without warning and for no obvious reason, a drone flies over the ridge toward your camp ground, releases it’s deadly missile, and your family is obliterated.  Would this be worth more than a passing reference by our attractive, friendly news anchor on Channel Seven?

La Culebra:  Well, I surely would not approve of such a use of armed drones; and surely our society would not let such an atrocity pass without proper action.   But my family and I are not at war with anyone; and have a right to expect not be attacked by a remote-controlled drone.

El Sapo:  Well, I imagine that many victims of our remote controlled drone attacks feel the same way about the atrocities committed on them.  But let me turn to another implication of this computerized, remote control way of fighting a war. It is likely that the use of remote controlled armed drone aircraft and other automated, computerized weaponry will redefine what we understand by the ‘battlefield,’ and ‘combat.’ The concepts of agent and act become somewhat nebulous and ambiguous.  What is done takes place thousands of miles away and it is not obvious that the agent performing the act is the technician pushing the button on a computer console.  But in one sense, the fighter-bomber ‘pilot’ becomes a person sitting at a computer console thousands of miles away from the action, which is a missile strike destroying humans and property.

La Culebra:   Yes, I suppose the whole theater of battle begins to have a very different look.

El Sapo:  Combat by remote control implies that many of our combat ‘soldiers’ are more like teenagers playing a computer game than they are like the infantry soldier of past wars.

La Culebra:   Interesting point, but surely you’re not claiming that we should return to the violence and misery of infantry, trench warfare?

El Sapo:  No, that’s not my point.  My point relates to the morality and legality of our military ‘evolution.’  The moral and legal problems that arose with use of technology as a deadly weapon were recognized internationally around the time of World War I when gas warfare was outlawed.  Strangely enough the use of deadly machine guns and early tank attacks were considered fair play in the game of war.  Even more strangely, as we progressed to the war technology of World War II, the massive bombing of civilian centers (cities) was considered a morally acceptable way of doing war.  Finally, the use of atomic bombs and preparation for use of thermo-nuclear warheads, from aircraft and ICBMs were considered morally acceptable.

La Culebra:  War is deadly business; but we live in a dangerous world.  Surely you don’t think that our enemies will be deterred by moral qualms about their use of modern weapons?

El Sapo:  Did any international commission, sanctioned by the big powers or by the UN, ever take up the question of the morality of wholesale killing of people (non-combatant civilians) by dropping of atomic bombs or the use of thermo-nuclear warheads?  Besides the non-official declarations by anti-war and anti-nuclear weapons people, it seems that the answer is “no, they did not.”  No such commission of respectable diplomats and governmental officials ever seriously took up the question of the morality of policies which call for the use of deadly technology of war.  Citizens in most countries in general continued with their business and did not bother themselves with such questions.

La Culebra:  Yes, we have to be about our business of living and earning a living.  But we do to see ourselves as decent, moral people.  Why shouldn’t we?  We often act on humanitarian grounds and condemn violence, cruelty, and injustice inflicted on innocent humans throughout the world.  For the most part, we are morally decent people.

El Sapo:  Oh the grand myth that humans are noble, admirable, morally conscientious beings does have its application  in many cases.   But, when the subject is that of the nation’s war policy, the normal values of humanitarianism and compassion no longer seem to apply.

La Culebra:  Don’t you think that this is mostly an academic problem for moral philosophy, which does not even clearly see the nature of human reality?  Maybe you’re not recognizing that the actions of societies and human beings are not generally guided by moral thought and principles.  Isn’t this rather obvious in war, politics, economics and business?   Doesn’t this also hold true in many other aspects of human behavior?

El Sapo:   A good part of what bothers me is the hypocrisy.  We talk as if we were morally conscientious and ethically grounded beings; but often our actions belie our talk.  The teachings of moralists, ethicists, and philosophers, along the preaching of our church people, are attempts to bring attention to the moral questions.  But ultimately everyone is co-opted by the weight of institutional, political, and economic will.  Hence, there is little or no debate about the morality of our government’s policies and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Libya (in 2011).

La Culebra:  But let us not go overboard on this charge of hypocrisy.  Instead, let’s recognize that our society (in the US and other Western nations) is a ‘mixed bag,’ neither fully described as moral, immoral, or amoral.    For example, our people would recoil if they learned that our military carried out arbitrary, mass killing of civilians.  Americans would not accept a government program of genocide and the killing of innocents (children, women, old men), even if it was seen as required by “national security” interests.

El Sapo:  You’re right on that!  But I’m still very much bothered by the extent to which our people acquiesce in the killing of civilians and non-combatants (“collateral damage”) that results from US and NATO air-strikes on the territory of other countries, and the fact that they don’t demand the strictest safeguards against such ‘accidents.’

La Culebra:   What can I say?   Surely this is not the most perfect world, regardless of what Leibniz argued.

AIDS, Homophobia & the Religious Right

Charles L. Rulon

Emeritus, Life & Health Sciences

Long Beach City College

 Medieval religious beliefs intensified the persecution of AIDS victims

Scientists have been working around the clock for decades to con­quer AIDS, a tragic dis­ease spread by a deadly virus that has already killed tens of millions of people.  Like most crises, AIDS has brought out the best and the worst in human nature. Thousands of pro­fes­sional and voluntary care-givers have gen­­er­ously come forth to care for the sick.  Fund raisers have generated millions to fight this dis­ease.  These are expres­­sions of human compas­sion at its best.

But AIDS has also aroused mean-spirited responses due to the fact that the disease first struck already stigma­tized popu­la­tions: gay men, IV drug users and prosti­tutes. Attacks against gay men began to rise sharply in the late 70s, shortly after the epidemic hit.  In 1986, the presi­dent of the South­ern Baptist Convention announced that AIDS was God’s way of indi­cating His dis­plea­sure with the homosexual life­style.  His view was widely suppor­t­ed across our nation in thou­s­ands of Christ­ian churches and on hun­dreds of Chris­t­ian tele­vision and radio stations to tens of millions of follow­ers.

Over three decades later millions upon millions of Christians in the U.S. continue to believe that homo­­­­­sexual behavior is hated by God, that AIDS was brought by God as a punishment, and that those with AIDS must have deserv­ed it for their “wick­ed lifestyle.”  This is in spite of the fact that:

a. Mono­ga­mous gay men rarely got AIDS, unless they shot drugs.

b. Almost no lesbians were infected with the AIDS virus.

c. In Africa, Asia and South America, hetero­sexual popu­la­tions were the hardest hit with AIDS.

d. Many heterosexuals in the U.S. acquired AIDS via blood transfu­sions from contaminated blood.

e. Tens of thousands of newborn ba­bies got AIDS from their in­fected mothers.

This religious “wrath of God” explanation for AIDS has been used to explain deadly epidemics throughout history.  Yet, would the elimination of any disease have been possible if this disease really were caused by an angry god?  Kill the rats and fleas and the plague disappears.  Eliminate the mosquito and malaria disappears.  Sterilize the drinking water and cholera disappears.  Vaccinate enough people and small pox is eradicated.  If history is any guide, AIDS will also be eventu­ally conquered.  But it won’t be by Christians persecuting homosexuals, or by Muslims burying them alive.

In the meanwhile, those who believe that AIDS is God’s way of punishing homosexuals will not be donating money to fight this disease.  Nor will they be helping those who are dying alone in some hospital, or on some street corner, shunned even by their “God fear­ing” relatives.  Instead, their “wrath of God” beliefs and propaganda will actually help to spread AIDS.  This is because young males who want sex from women will rare­ly reveal any past homo­sexual or IV drug usage.  Neither will married gay men who are still in the closet to their wives.   So the virus spreads to women and then to their fetuses during pregnancy.

In addition, the Christian Right with its non-stop efforts to elec­t con­­ser­va­tive judges, legis­lators and school boards, plus its relentless error-filled propagan­da and watch­dog acti­v­i­­ties, has blocked many education­al pro­grams rela­ted to AIDS for the last three decades.  They have kept homo­phobia alive, kept sex educa­tion out of the schools, and kept IV drug addicts from obtaining sterile needles.

 The Catholic Church and AIDS

One of the biggest obstacles to AIDS education and to AIDS control pro­grams over the last three decades has been the Roman Catholic Church—a church that minis­ters to the spiritual needs of roughly one-sixth of the entire world popula­tion!

In 1986 the first condom commer­cials finally began to appear on television.  But it was not because the U.S. had the highest rate of unplanned teen pregnancies and one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases of all Western devel­oped na­tions.  No.  Instead, it was finally in response to the deadly serious AIDS epi­dem­ic that broke out in the late 1070s.  Even then the uproar, po­litical pressure and threatened boycotts from the Christian Right, in par­ticular the Roman Catholic Church, squashed most ads.

In 1989, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston even urged Catho­lic parents to pull their chil­dren out of pub­lic school AIDS classes because their discus­sions of sex and con­doms were “amoral.”  Just teach child­ren to be good and to abstain, said the Archdio­cese.

In 1995, Catholic officials in Brazil criticized the government’s new AIDS prevention campaign because it advocated the use of condoms to protect against the spread of AIDS.  In 1996, even though Kenya had a very serious AIDS problem, Kenya’s top Catholic bishop publicly burned several boxes of con­doms along with pam­phlets promoting safe sex.

Catholic Church officials have declared that condoms offered no protection against AIDS.  Some have even asserted that condoms actually caused AIDS by lulling people into believing they were protected.  Health professionals continue to strong­ly dis­agree.  Dr. James Prescott voiced his outrage back in 1987: “The willingness of the Roman Catholic church and moral funda­mentalists to subordi­nate the pre­vention of the spread of a deadly disease that will take millions of lives to their ill-conceived reli­g­ious beliefs of per­ceived evil in condom usage simply staggers one’s sense of moral conscious­ness.”[i]  Almost 25 years later, little has changed.[ii]

Some closing thoughts

There is no question that much Catholic Church ef­fort world­wide has been di­rect­ed to­ward aiding the poor, the sick, the elderly and the handi­capped, plus main­tain­ing child care centers, and pro­viding drug and alco­hol reha­bili­ta­tion programs.  Many kind and char­i­t­able programs are rooted in Catholic reli­gious teach­ings.  Also, many priests have been at the fore­­front of civil rights movements, cam­­paigns for dis­ar­ma­ment, struggles for economic equality and against capital punishment.  Many priests have also been active in cam­paigns to save our planet from be­ing envir­on­men­tally trashed by greed and power struggles.  Some have been killed for their efforts.  That’s why it’s so unfortunate that the Catholic hierarchy has chosen to continue to vig­or­ous­ly op­pose condoms in this age of AIDS, not to mention stem-cell research, all modern contra­ception, the morning-after pill, steri­li­za­tion procedures, all abortions, in-vitro fertilization, and gay marriage.

When certain reli­gious beliefs are being forced on others and result in the suffer­ing of inno­cent people, these beliefs deserve to be investigated and exposed if necessary.  Yet, when such harm is exposed, religious leaders often cry foul and accuse skep­tics of blasphe­my and reli­gion bashing.  However, history teaches us that religious be­lief systems, if not kept in check by ongoing skeptical inquiry, have the po­ten­tial of developing autho­ri­tarian, Holy Crusade systems of moral absolutes and truths.

—————————————————————-

[i] Dr. James Prescott. “AIDS, Sexual Oppression and Violence,” The Humanist, July/Aug. 1987.

[ii] For a detailed coverage of the Roman Catholic’s position on condoms and AIDS, including the Church’s justification,  see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_AIDS>

Cosmological Coincidences & God

By Charles L. Rulon

Emeritus, Life Sciences

Long Beach City College

Our universe appears to be fine-tuned

Astronomer, Fred Hoyle, commented that, because of what appears to be a “monstrous series of accidents,” our universe is exquisite­ly fine-tuned for the evolution of life.  In fact, says Hoyle, our uni­verse looks just like a “put-up job,” as though some­body had been “monkeying” with the laws of physics.”[1]  What Hoyle meant was that only tiny shifts in the relative strengths of var­ious forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, or the mass of var­i­ous par­ticles, or the form taken by the various laws of physics would bring about changes so drastic that car­bon-based life of any imagin­able sort could have never evolved.  In fact, physicist Freeman Dyson famously observed that our universe seems almost as if it “must have known we were coming”.

As just one example, carbon chem­istry is enormously richer than the chem­istry of any other element.  In fact, of all the 92 naturally occur­ring atoms found in our uni­verse, bio­chemists are convinced that only the carbon atom has the many unique and essential pro­per­ties neces­­sary to form the back­bone structure of life, not only on Earth, but through­out our uni­verse.  But carbon is very tricky for stars to syn­the­size.  With just the slight­est changes in the apparent fine-tuning of a few physical pa­rameters stars could never have made carbon in the first place.[2]

In 1999 Martin Rees, a leading figure in theoretical astrophysics and Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, in his book, Just Six Numbers, listed six fundamental physical constants, which are believed to hold throughout our universe.  Each of these six numbers is fine-tuned in the sense that, if it were slightly different, the universe would be completely different, making our form of life impossible.  Since then, other theorists have added several more numbers.  Currently there is no known law that requires these numbers to have the values that they do.  So how did we get so lucky with all these apparent cosmological coincidences?

Many theists see all of these “amazing cosmological coincidences”—all this “miraculous fine tuning”—as strong evidence for the existence of God.

Perhaps there are no knobs to tune in the first place? 

So how did we get so lucky with all this fine-tuning?  Physicist Tanner Edis (Ghost in the Universe, p. 88) agrees that the universe does look fine-tuned, but observes that future theories might reduce the number of dials to tweak, thus causing the apparent fine-tuning of these dials to disappear.  Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion – p. 144) also suggests that perhaps these six numbers of Martin Rees depend upon each other, or on some other unknown thing in ways that make them no freer to vary than the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter. If this turns out to be true, then there could be only one way for a universe to be.  To quote Dawkins: “Far from God being needed to twiddle six knobs, there [would be] no knobs to twiddle.”  Yet, observes Dawkins, and this is the critical point, if there are no knobs to tune “then why did that one way [the only way to make a universe] have to be such a set-up job for our eventual evolution?”

Many theists would see such a discovery (no knobs to twiddle, thus a ready-made universe for the evolution of humans) as further proof that God not only exists, but that He also created our universe.

The multiverse can explain our universe’s apparent fine-tuning

Currently, the dominant naturalistic expla­nation for all this apparent fine-tuning is the existence of a multiverse, a huge number of universes each with differ­ent randomly appear­ing fundamental constants and, therefore, differ­ent proper­ties.  Our uni­­verse just happens to be one in which the evolution of carbon-based life was pos­sible.  No supernatural designer is now needed; no “amaz­ing coinci­­dences” need to be explained.

 

Many theists see a designer God as a much simpler explanation and that multiple universe believers are merely desperate atheists grasping at imaginary straws. 

But, according to astronomer William Jefferys, theists are mistaken to think that the motivation for the multiverse is to get around the fine-tuning problem. Instead, the proposed existence of a multiverse is a consequence of the leading theory of cosmology — the theory of chaotic inflation — which is the theory best supported by the evidence.  According to Jefferys, “Chaotic inflation was invented to explain certain observed facts about our universe, for example its flatness and homogeneity. One consequence of inflation is that the universe… contains infinitely many regions that have each inflated into expanding universes much like ours, but perhaps with physical constants different from ours.” [3]

According to one model of string theory, there could be 10500   possible universes, all with different self-consistent laws and constants.  When asked if scientists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, physicist Andrei Linde responded that nothing else fits the data.  He explained that physicists don’t have any other explanation for the dark energy, or for the mass of the electron, or for the many properties of various particles.  Besides, if nature can produce one universe, why couldn’t it produce many universes? Indeed, it might even be expected.  Physicists know nothing in principle to prevent it.

Some theists actually hope that there is a multiverse because it would truly portray to them God’s power and inventiveness at being able to create all possible universes.  Also, the fact that it might take an entire multiverse to evolve us makes humans even more special and precious to God.

 

Maybe our universe is not fine-tuned or a set-up job after all? 

Physicist Victor Stenger takes a different route from the previous scientists mentioned.  He writes that our universe may not be that fine-tuned in the first place — that ‘artificial life’ computer simulations demonstrate that a wide range of physical parameters can lead to a life-friendly universe — that a number of such universes already have been found possible by twiddling with multiple knobs at the same time.  Stenger’s conclusion is that the fine-tuners have no basis in current knowledge for assuming that life is impossible except for a very narrow, improbable range of parameters. [4]  Furthermore, Stenger emphasizes, “the laws of physics are those that would be expected to exist if the universe arose from simpler systems mostly by chance — from… no matter , no energy, no structure and, most significantly, no information.”[5]

Many theists see the possi­bility of a uni­verse capable of creating “the miracle of life” under a whole variety of different physical constants as even more evidence for a mas­ter designer God.

Other tunings might lead to the evolution of other life forms

Neuroscientist Sam Harris writes that even if there are many other universes with different laws, different physi­cal constants and totally different atoms, we can’t rule out the evolution of life based on different chemistry.  Harris observes (Newsweek. -11/13/06): “To us carboniferous creatures, the dials may seem miraculously tweaked, but different physical laws might have led to universes harboring equally awe-filled forms of energy, cooking up [fine-tuned] arguments of their own.”

Scientific discoveries continue to challenge God beliefs

Rationalists ask: If humans really are central to some master plan, then why is our universe so unfathomably huge and old ….. and so violent?  Stars explode.  Black holes suck in entire star systems.  Gigantic explosions at the center of galaxies destroy millions of worlds.  Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics, does not see any evidence for God in our universe.  He observes: “If we were to see the hand of a designer anywhere, it would be in the funda­mental principles, the laws of nature.  But contrary to some assertions they appear to be utterly impersonal and without any special role for life.” [6]

A Designer of the universe is a scientific useless hypothesis

Real scientific hypotheses have to be vulnerable to evidence.  Not so supernatural ones, since there is no conceivable evidence that can refute the claim that our universe was designed by God.  No matter what scientists discover, that’s the way God did it.  If there are “amazing cosmological coincidences,” this is strong evidence for the existence of God.  If there is a multiverse, this portrays God’s power and inventiveness to create all possible universes.  If it takes an entire multiverse just to produce humans, this makes us even more likely to be God’s special creation.  And if it turns out that there can only be one kind of universe (i.e. no knobs to fine-tune), this is proof that God had to have created this universe—a universe that was set up to evolve humans.  Evolutionary biology per se does not need God, but theologians interpret the evolutionary process as a manifestation of divine creativity.

Of course, if an all-powerful God really wanted us to know that He created us, it would have been relatively easy.  As just one example, He could have created a universe where the constants are not right for the production of carbon and oxygen in the interiors of stars.  The result would be no carbon or oxygen atoms in the universe . . .  except on Earth where God sprinkled them so that life would evolve.

Even if the universe was created by some “cosmic being”, what evidence is there that this “designer” was the God of Abraham?

There is a huge leap from believing that an “Intelligent Designer” created our universe and believing that this designer is actually the God of the Bible.  After all, why couldn’t this designer be:

a) An evil designer who delights in his creation of millions of hideous parasites and who has been gleefully enjoying our endless wars, genocides, hatreds, famines and plagues, not to mention the horrendous levels of death, pain and suffering on Earth for hundreds of millions of year

b) An incompetent designer who had hoped to create a being that would reflect his wisdom and divinity, but, having obvi­ously failed so miserably, abandoned his project long ago.

c) A Gremlin collective that de­cided long ago to evolve just bacteria, insects and dino­saurs on Earth.  But then an asteroid sent by an evil force destroyed the dino­saurs… and, well, you make up the rest.

Or perhaps humans and other “meat” were only created as “fast food” for this Master Designer’s truly chosen species who is now tour­ing our galaxy.  Or…Or…The point is that once we introduce non-testable, non-falsifiable super­natural answers, anything becomes possible. We’re now only limit­ed by our extremely fertile imaginations and our immense gullibility.

Christian apologists, of course, disagree and argue in “zillions” of books, articles and web sites that only their god can be the one true creator/designer God of the universe.

Is Earth also “fine-tuned”?

Many articles and books have been written, which document all of the “amazing coincidences” we find regarding Earth, itself, — coincidences that permit the existence or evolution of sentient beings like ourselves — coincidences which all but prove to the authors the likely existence of an Intelligent Designer.[7]  A quick web search reveals that these writings have been seriously criticized by many other scientists, including Stenger and astronomer William Jefferys.

But to the extent that Earth (and our solar system) might appear “fine-tuned” regarding some of its properties, are there natural explanations?  Sure.  Here’s one:  In 2010, Geoff March, an astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley estimated that, judging from his observations, our galaxy may contain tens of billions of planets roughly the size and mass of Earth.[8]   Thus, with so many planets it’s not surprising that a planet here or there would be friendly to life.

Besides, perhaps there are numerous planets much more suited for the evolution of advanced, space-age species than Earth is.  After all, it took over two billion years for even simple multi-cellular life to evolve on Earth.  Then it took another two billion years for humans to evolve, an event that included so many accidents and contingencies of history that, were evolution to start over, the big money is on humans never evolving again.  In addition, catastro­phic events such as meteor impacts, gigantic volcanic eruptions, ice sheets cover­ing much of Earth, and plate tectonic movements tearing apart entire continents have devastated Earth’s surface for eons, resulting in at least five major mass extinctions over the last 600 million years.  Then throw in all the earthquakes hurricanes, tsunamis and pandemics.  Surely God could come up with a better planet for the evolution of His favorite species.

 

 

[1] Hoyle, F., 1983, The Intelligent Universe, p. 218

[2] Google “anthropic universe”, “anthropic principal,” or “cosmological coincidences” for thousands of websites and dozens of fine-tuned examples.  Here are just a few:  If the proton-neutron mass dif­fer­ence were not about twice the mass of an electron, the atoms that are essential for life as we know it would never have formed.  If the explosive force of the “Big Bang” had been slightly weak­er, or the grav­itational attraction slightly stronger, the stars would have burned out much faster and the cosmos would have soon fallen back on itself in a big crunch prob­ably long before life could have evolved.  On the other hand, had the reverse been true, the cosmic material would have dis­persed so rapidly that gala­xies would never have formed.  If the weak force were slightly different, helium rather than hydrogen would have emerged as the domi­nant element in stars.  The result would have been much shorter lived stars and almost no water.  Without ade­quate time, could higher life forms have evolved?  If the strong nuclear force was only 2% stronger there would be virtually no hydro­gen left over after the Big Bang. Thus, stable stars like our sun which burn hydrogen couldn’t exist.  Also, neither could water, nor or­ganic chem­istry, nor life as we know it.

[3] http://ncse.com/rncse/25/1-2/review-privileged-planet

[4]Victor Stenger has written several books dealing with physics and God.  For example, see his best-seller, God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist.  Stenger’s web site is: <http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html>

[5] Free Inquiry, Aug. 2008.

[6]Weinberg, Steven, 2001, A Designer Universe?  Skeptical Inquirer, Sept./Oct. 2001.  This article is based on a talk given in 1999 at the Conference on Cosmic Design of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[7]For example, see the 2000 book Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee and the 2004 book The Privileged Planet by Gonzalez and Richards.

[8] Discover, Jan./Feb. 2011, p. 34

C Rulon: The Homosexual Orientation & the Religious Right

By Charles L. Rulon
Emeritus, Life & Health Sciences
Long Beach City College

The homosexual orientation

Decades of research has documented that sexual orientation (which sex one is erotically and/or romantically drawn to) ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. Having a homosexual orientation means having essentially a life-long erotic and/or romantic attraction primarily to individuals of the same sex.

According to the American Psychological Association “Sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy . . . .Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.” {1]

Having sex with some¬one of the same sex is not synonymous with having a homosexual orientation. Such sex acts are not uncommon among those who are heterosexual, especially in early adolescence, or in the absence of opposite sex partners. Also, many gays have had heterosexual sex. And one can have a lifelong homosexual orientation, but remain celibate.
Also, one’s gender identity (the deep psychological sense of being male or female) should not to be confused with one’s sexual orientation.

Is having a homosexual orientation a choice?

Having sex with the same sex is usually a choice. Having a homosexual orientation is not. The homosexual orientation is not a lifestyle or preference. Nor is it a temporary condition, any more than a heterosexual orientation is a free choice or a temporary condition. Our own experiences tell us that we just can’t be erotically attracted to or romantically fall in love with just anyone. And remember, for centuries gays were tortured, castrated and burned at the stake. So one must ask, why would anyone, much less untold hundreds of millions throughout the ages, choose to be gay, only to spend their whole lives in mortal fear of being discovered?

Until just a few decades ago homosexuality was officially labeled a mental illness in the United States — an illness that could potentially be cured. In addition, since homosexual activity could be criminally prosecuted, gay men either sought out treatment or were often forced into treatment to avoid prison.

To treat this “mental illness” therapists and medical doctors used electric shock, drugs, prostitutes, and hormone injections, plus every kind of psycho-therapy imaginable, all with little to no success. Aversion therapy was common in the 1960s and 1970s. Gay men would be shown erotic pictures of other men. If they became aroused, they would receive an electric shock to their genitals, or be given drugs that induced vomiting.[2] Did these men change their sexual orientation? No. More drastic treatments such as castration and frontal lobotomies (cutting nerve fibers in the frontal lobe of the brain) were also attempted. They also failed.

It wasn’t just the United States that held homosexuality to be curable and that criminalized homosexual behavior. In 1952, renowned English mathematician Alan Turing (the key intellect in breaking the German codes in World War II, critical to winning the war) should have been “knighted and feted as a savior of his nation,” according to Richard Dawkins. Instead, he was convicted of gross indecency in the U.K. after admitting to a sexual relationship with a man in private. In private! He was given the choice of two years in prison or chemical castration through estrogen injections. He “chose” estrogen. Two years later he committed suicide with cyanide.[3]

Finally, “marriage cures”, of course, failed. Many gays married and had children in hopes of “out-growing” their homosexual orientation. But rarely was there any change. They just weren’t nearly as romantically and erotically attracted to their spouses as they were to those of the same sex; their sexual fantasies remained homosexual ones. Such marriages were usually doomed to failure.

In conclusion, considerable scientific re¬search over the last few decades continues to confirm that the homosexual orientation is a largely unchangeable core aspect of a person’s being. To quote Bryant Welch, executive director of the American Psychological Association’s Practice Directorate back in 1990: “Sexual orientation is at the very bedrock of our personality structure…It’s fair to say that mainstream opinion holds that a characteristic so fundamental as sexuality is not likely to change.” And gays, themselves, report having experienced little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Even if the homosexual orientation is not a choice, aren’t homosexuals still mentally ill?

Not according to the American Psychological Association. Several decades of research and clinical experience have led mainstream medical and mental health organizations in the U.S. to conclude that (if not being harassed or imprisoned by society, or taught to believe by their church that they are sinning and going to Hell) gay men, lesbians and bisexual people, on the average, live lives as healthy, happy, productive and well-adjusted as do heterosexuals. In one large study, 85% of gays interviewed did not see themselves as sick and did not wish to be cured of anything. For them, it seemed quite natural and normal to seek out love and sex with members of the same sex. In fact, 60% of gays are college graduates, compared to the national average of only 18%. And 50% of gays are in professional and management positions, compared to the national average of only 16%.

So if the homosexual orientation is not a choice, what causes it?

So far researchers have had the most success in determining what DOESN’T cause the homosexual orientation. For example, they have found very little support for any of the many proposed psychological and sociological theories. The homosexual orientation does not seem to be caused by being seduced or molested by an older person of the same sex. Nor are parents to blame. The dominating mother/distant father “cause” turns out to be a myth. Also, the sexuality of the parents does not appear to influence the sexuality of the children. Gay parents almost always raise straight kids. Nor is it “spreading”; gay teachers and other role models can’t “give it” to their students. The often heard claim that “since gays can’t reproduce, they are out to recruit the young” is a harmful myth that only perpetuates homo¬phobia.

Because all of the scientific research studies provided little support for any of the many psychological and sociological theories to explain homosexuality, researchers turned to biology. Decades of scientific studies have examined every conceivable biological possibility. Currently, the evidence points to sexual orientation being caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences during fetal development. Yet, the bottom line is that, although there are many smoking guns, the ultimate cause(s) still eludes scientists. But for that matter, scientists also don’t know what causes most of us to be heterosexual.

But if homosexuality is genetically caused, wouldn’t evolution have weeded it out?

Q. If the homosexual orientation has a biological cause, wouldn’t it have been eliminated through natural selection long ago? After all, isn’t the “evolutionary game” to have the largest number of successful offspring?

A. Since homosexual behavior has been documented in hundreds of different animal species and has persisted in the human species across the planet and throughout recorded history, several hypotheses have been advanced to explain its apparent survival value.
1. Although the homosexual orientation is believed to have a genetic component (the “gay gene”), it’s also likely that additional biological and environmental components combine with this genetic predisposition to influence brain development before birth. These non-genetic factors would not be weeded out by natural selection.
2. It’s possible that the “gay gene” has strong survival value in strengthening social cohesion and friendships between men and between women, very important for human survival. It’s only when other biological and/or environmental factors influence the fetal brain does the homosexual orientation emerge.
3. Women carrying the “male gay gene” may be more fertile and have more offspring than other women, thus spreading this gene.
4. Homosexuals are not sterile. Many do have children. In fact, ironically, persecuting gays has only succeeded in forcing many to stay in the closet, to marry and to have children, thus spreading the “gay gene.”

Conservative Christians disagree with scientific findings

Many conservative Christians strongly disagree that being a homosexual is not a choice. They are convinced that God would not create people to be homosexual, only to condemn them to burn in eternal Hell after His followers had tortured, castrated and burned them to death at the stake. These Christians therefore believe that homosexuality is a choice sinful people make.
Other Christians admit that homosexuality could be biological. After all, humans have been biologically and mentally degenerating since Adam and Eve. But these homosexuals can still choose not to sin by remaining celibate their entire lives, or by going to church, marrying and having children as God intended. After all, “God hates the sin, not the sinner.”

Still other Christians believe that “demonic spirits” have invaded certain sinful people and chemically influenced their brains and sex hormones to make them gay. But prayer and conversion to Christ will either overcome this disposition, or drive out those evil forces, thus restoring gays to heterosexuality as they were initially created by God.

Still other Christians remain convinced that homosexuality is the result of male children growing up without a loving father, or is the result of innocent children having been physically seduced by homosexual child molesters. They believe that conversion therapy can cure those who really want to change.

Conversion therapy

In the last few decades, various Christian groups have been touting conversion or reparative therapy programs to free gay men from this “sinful, immoral sickness”. “Ex-gays” have been paraded as success stories. The large majority of mental-health professionals, however, view these conversion therapy programs with strong skepticism. They now believe that conversion ministries and conversion therapists are trying to force gays into a mold that doesn’t really fit and that could lead to depression, even suicide. (Ironically, the two male co-founders of Exodus, a widely advertised conversion program, purportedly fell in love with each other and left the program.)

In 1990 the board of the American Psychological Association’s stated that scientific evidence does not show that any of the conversion therapies work and can do more harm than good. In 1998, the board voted to oppose conversion therapy, saying that it could “reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.” Again in 2009 the APA’s governing council, in a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote, put itself firmly on record in opposition to reparative therapy. This position was supported by 83 studies on attempted sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. [4]

Mainstream therapy today

Because of the scientific research, the large majority of therapists and counselors have changed their focus in the last few decades. Rather than assuming that they must try to cure their gay clients, therapists are now trying to help them to love, live and work in homophobic societies. This change in therapeutic practice is significant in that it defines homophobic societies, rather than gays and lesbians, as the source of the problem.

———————————————————-
[1] www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf. Also see www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html.
[2] see http://discover magazine.com/2009/sep/09 for a “century of treatments ranging from horrifying to horribly unscientific” in failed attempts to turn gay men straight.
[3] The God Delusion, R. Dawkins (2006) p. 289.
[4] www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf.