Daytona Community - News

Dr. Reinhold Schlieper letter on evolution in the News-Journal, May 1, 2008

2008-05-01T12:16:00-05:00

May 01, 2008

Why the evolution vs. science row replays again and again

By REINHOLD SCHLIEPER
COMMUNITY VOICE The "evolution vs. intelligent design" debate seems to be marred by a most fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific reasoning works and what it is trying to achieve; in other words, the distinction "religion" and "science" is really not very clear, except by way of the belief on both sides that we'll know it when we see it. But that's too simple to be accurate.

What advances science is the willingness on the part of a large community of persons to revise its judgments. What advances a religion is the willingness on the part of large communities to hold on to judgments and not to revise, despite evidence to the contrary. To find out whether a person belongs to the one or to the other community is to simply ask for the minimal evidence necessary for the person to change his or her mind about any issue. If the person acknowledges no conditions under which s/he will retract, then that person is of the religious community. Ironically enough, some scientists belong into that category. If the person can say clearly and unambiguously that, if X conditions were to obtain, then the person would change his mind, then that person is clearly in the scientific community.

Interestingly enough, some religionists also belong into that category. I strongly suspect the Dalai Lama, for example, to be part of the scientifically thinking community when he cautions against violence in the "Free Tibet" movement because of the harm that violence has done and will do; I strongly suspect the former Cardinal Ratzinger and present Pope to be of the religionist community when he insists on avoidance of birth control in the face of suffering imposed by overpopulation and poverty.

Let me illustrate with a simple example. We know that if litmus paper is dunked into acid, it will come out red. If I think about this matter scientifically, I will not get my knickers into a twist by simply acknowledging that if I ever were to dunk what really is litmus paper into what really is acid and come up with some other color than red, then the original rule would be wrong. I'd have to revise my rule in accordance with the new findings.

Suppose I believe that a god handles the affairs of this world in a benign manner. Under what circumstances will I change my mind? Thinking scientifically, I conclude that with the death of millions in pogroms, genocides, imbalanced economic distributions, or terrible health-care systems, that ruling god is either not ruling or not good, since goodness would require moral intervention of one capable of moral intervention without great harm to him-/herself. Scientifically thinking, I should reformulate my view of the deity. Religiously thinking, I am going to pad my theory with a lame excuse such as god's transcendence of my understanding -- never mind the very obvious fact that, in that case, I shouldn't even talk about something I have acknowledged not to understand.

I think that intelligent-design theory is or could be a viable theory if the adherents to it show clearly an alternate universe where they would be willing to abandon the theory. I suspect that they will not do so. The evolutionist, on the other hand, is not insistent on the truth of the theory; the evolutionist finds the theoretical framework pragmatically adequate for new evidence. Once evidence to the contrary comes in, I am sure that no evolutionist will cling to the theory. If a parasite manages to swim up a urine stream to live on and in the body of a man or if a worm munches on the heart of a dog, then these are all sufficient to give evidence of, at best, "stupid design" or "malicious design" while the evolutionary framework can handle those phenomena just fine.

If we were to reflect about this basic fact, namely that religionist thinking seeks certainty and truth without sufficient evidence and without acknowledgment of falsifying characteristics and that scientific thinking seeks probabilities with acknowledged falsifying conditions, then we probably could bury this silly debate about evolution vs. design quite quickly. Let's hope that our schools will also teach the rudiments of inductive reasoning so as to help students develop their own judgments properly no matter what legislators with limited intellectual horizons are trying to do to them.

Schlieper, Ph.D., a philosophy professor, lives in Palm Cost.

CFI Washington policy blog

2008-04-18T01:28:00-05:00

"Center for Inquiry launches Office of Public Policy Blog:

CFI's Office of Public Policy recently launched an online blog to inform
members about CFI's legislative activities on the Hill. The OPP blog will
include press releases, OPP updates, and action items which will allow
readers to learn about and participate in the legislative process. The blog
is located at http://www.cfidc.wordpress.com and can also be found on the
CFI-Washington, D.C. website at www.centerforinquiry.net/dc
For more information about CFI-OPP, please contact Toni Van Pelt, the
Director of Government Affairs, at tvanpelt@cfidc.org"

SOS meets every Sunday at 3 PM at City Island Library

2008-03-05T21:53:00-05:00

Secular Organizations for Sobriety meets every Sunday at 3 PM at City Island Library in Daytona Beach.

SOS is a non-12 step program which offers a practical, scientific solution to addictions to acohol, tobacco, and other drugs, food, etc.

The following is the basis of almost all recovery program in the United States -- EXCEPT SOS:

The 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous:

1 We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable.

2 Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3 Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4 Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5 Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6 Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7 Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8 Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9 Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10 Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11 Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12 Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

From: ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS The Story of How many Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered from Alcoholism NEW AND REVISED EDITION (Second Edition) ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS PUBLISHING, INC NEW YORK CITY 1955 pp. 59-60

Dr. Goldthwait (FOC) letter to FL Board of Education

2008-02-05T12:06:00-05:00

5 February 2008

To the Florida Board of Education

Dear Board Members:

I urge you to adopt the new standards for teaching science in Florida schools. Here I shall outline a framework for a decision on a part of that issue that I suspect is a bit different from others recently under your attention.

I am a retired professor of philosophy. The question of standards for branches of knowledge of any sort is external to those branches, but lies within the branch of philosophy known as epistemology, or theory of knowledge.

Knowledge is conventionally thought to be the holding in mind, as belief, of propositions--statements--that are true. Hence, to consider standards of knowledge, we need to consider what truth is.

There is afloat in the recent discussions about evolution an informal notion of truth as "the way things really are," suggesting that all you have to do to have truth is to match up the words of your propositions correctly to that which is not words, and you'll have truth--knowledge worth teaching.

Each side in these discussions speaks as though this ideal is functioning for it, whether reached or not. But I believe that the proponents of the two sides, though they accept the above concept of knowledge, are actually using different definitions of truth, without saying so and perhaps without being aware of it.

In extended discussion, the pro-science speakers find themselves saying, "But you don't understand what science is. You don't know why we always talk about theories and hypotheses, not final truths. We don't claim final truth. You don't realize what we mean by a theory. All theories are subject to correction, and to teach a theory is simply to teach the best available set of beliefs."

Their opponents find themselves saying, "You're just agreeing with us. You're saying you don't have truth. And if you don't have truth, you shouldn't be teaching it as if you did. We on the other hand have truth, and we want opportunity to spread it, alongside the opportunity you have in your science classes to spread your (unbelievable) theory."

This latter group speaks of the truths of religion. They appear to regard truth as a body of propositions that exemplify the kind of belief for which mankind yearns. Yet their discourse contains no test whether these beliefs are in some additional sense true. It makes only the appeal to authority. But the appeal to authority doesn't supply criteria for belief. It merely shifts that responsibility to somebody who came earlier.

Science accepts the deliverances of the eyes, nose, ears and touch, the physical senses. It gathers and organizes these, using multiple observers to create an intersubjective and rationally consistent structure. Though it acknowledges that sometimes the senses deceive us, it asserts that on the whole they deliver a workable and ever-improving conception of the way things really are.

On the other side, in place of a test, what is offered is faith. (Remember the Judy Garland song, "Wishing will make it so"?) One of the most acute minds of the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas, addressed this question. In his Summa Theologica, he reviewed five well-known proofs for the existence of God. He found that none was conclusive. What he did about it was to praise faith as a virtue, and exhort prospective believers to believe in God on faith, without any evidence, or even in the face of contradictory evidence. This was the value judgment that at bottom the opponents of teaching evolution are acting upon. This, obviously, is simply not science, creational or otherwise. Its time is the Sabbath, and its place is the place of worship.

Thus the fundamental question underlying endorsement of new, stricter standards for teaching science, without dilution, is the question whether the basic mechanism to justify what we teach is to be an act of faith, unsupported by any structure of evidence, or is to be rational, scientific method, backed by disciplined fact-gathering and production of possibilities for experimental testing.

As a society, a culture, or a government, we could make the value judgment that what we want is a body of belief whose "truth" matches what we desire, not our sense perceptions and projections from them. If that's our choice, we might as well have stopped improving our schools in the twelfth century, when Aquinas lived.

On the other hand, we could make the judgment that we want an ever-self-improving picture of the world, gained by the disciplined, cumulative thinking of science, through which we may move steadily to a better future shared by all mankind rather than solely our dominant religious culture. If that is our choice, then we will teach the sciences as intensively as youthful minds can absorb them, inculcating skills of fact-gathering and thinking that are vitally needed in a highly competitive world.

Sincerely,

John T. Goldthwait

49 Sandpiper Drive

St. Augustine Beach, Florida 32080

jtgoldthw8@aol.com

Letter to the Editor of the News-Journal by Russ Pizer OCT 16, 2007

2007-10-16T21:00:00-05:00

McCain's misconception
The report on John McCain's statement in The News-Journal about Christian principles and the Constitution (Sunday, Sept. 30) shows a grave misunderstanding of that historic document.

I have often thought the Constitution of the United States should have a provision that persons wishing to run for political office -- and especially for president of the United States -- be required to take a test like the FCAT. The test would cover the provisions found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The test would be administered by a group like the League of Women Voters. The results of the test would be given in the usual fashion of A, B, C, D or F. A report on the grades of each candidate would then be given to the The New-Journal for publication -- in advance of any primaries.

If such an election policy were to be followed, John McCain would have had to study for the test many months ago. If he had studied these documents with the open mind of a free-thinker he would have discovered -- contrary to his recent statement -- there is one reference to religion in the Constitution and one in the Bill of Rights. Both references to religion, however -- Article VI of the Constitution and the First Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) -- are in the negative.

These references definitely establish the United States asnotbeing a Christian nation. With all due respect, McCain probably has confused the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration does mention a "creator," but not a "god" of any kind.

A good argument could be made by Muslims that the Declaration could also refer to Allah. For example, after the famous opening of the section that states, "We hold these truths to be self evident . . ." it continues with, "they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . ."

The words in question are "their creator." It does not say whose creator. George Bush would like to think it is his "creator," or rather the person he believes to be his creator, i.e., the God of the biblical Old Testament. It could even relate to the creator of the Quran.

And, it should be noted that the founding fathers who wrote the Declaration spelled the word "creator" with a lower case "c." Recent editions of the Declaration mistakenly spell it with an upper case "C."

RUSSELL A. PIZER, Palm Coast

Letter to Editor of News-Journal submitted by Jim Strayer (FOC)

2007-10-02T17:26:01-05:00

A Christian Nation

Sen. John McCain is wrong in his assertion that the United States is a Christian Nation. The United States is based on the Jewish faith not the Christian faith. Out currency says, In God We Trust, Not In Jesus we trust. Our pledge of Allegiance says, One Nation Under god, Not One Nation under Jesus. the Ten Commandments are that are placed in many government owned places are from the Old Testament. The Reference to a Creator in the Declaration of Independence is to the Creator in the Old Testament, as are all the other reference.
The Only Christian things of in government are holidays, Christmas and Easter with the alleged birth and resurrection of the Son of God.
It is one thing to have citizens so ill informed on this subject. It is quite another to have a Presidential Candidates so uninformed.
Perhaps we should all, citizens and politicians, understand that the Constitution says nothing about any religion and to say or imply that it does is dishonest.

Jim Strayer

Ltr to Ed News-Journal by Bob Stevenson (FOC)

2007-08-27T15:53:00-05:00

Treatment for addicts

I read with interest The News-Journal's Aug. 16 editorial "Treatment under lock: County should use jail to fight addiction cost," and I agree with the overall argument.

I also read the Community Voices column "County's math doesn't add up to justify end to treating addicts" (Aug. 15) written by Edie McKnight, and I strongly disagree with her position. She states that "there is a solution to this disease through a 12-step program and divine intervention."

The government should not be purchasing "divine intervention."

The experts agree that the most addictive drug and the drug most difficult to overcome is nicotine, more difficult than heroin, or cocaine, or meth or any other of the illegal drugs. However, most of the Americans who have ever smoked cigarettes have quit, usually on their own with no help! Now, does that tell us something?

The best program any jail can provide is a voluntary self-help group to discuss among themselves the problems of their incarceration, how they got there and what they plan for the future. Group interaction helps some people to quit and to stay quit. It would be a valuable opportunity at a time when they have been removed from all drugs. The decision they must face is whether they will start again when they are released.

It is their choice. Programs, or treatment, or mama, or sponsors or meetings cannot do it for them.

ROBERT STEVENSON, Daytona Beach

http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion.htm#letters

This is the letter as I submitted it:

Taxpayer financing religious indoctrination ?

I read with interest your editorial "Treatment under lock; County should use jail to fight addiction cost," and I agree with your overall argument.

I also read the Community Voices article "County's math doesn't add up to justify end to treating addict" written by Edie Mcknight, and I strongly disagree with her position. She represents the group FAITH which was being financed by Volusia County to the tune of $160,000 per year to indoctrinate prisoners with fundamentalist religion.

She states that: "there is a solution to this disease through a 12-step program and divine intervention."

The government should not be purchasing "divine intervention."

The experts agree that the most addictive drug and the drug most difficult to overcome is nicotine ---more difficult than heroin, or cocaine, or meth, or any other of the illegal drugs. However, most of the Americans who have ever smoked cigarettes have quite --- usually on their own with no help!

Now, does that tell us something?

The best program that any jail can provide is a voluntary self help group to discuss among themselves the problems of their incarceration, how they got there, and what they plan for the future. Group interaction does help some people to quit and to stay quit. It would be a valuable opportunity at a time when they have been removed from all drugs. The decision that they must face is whether they will start again when they are released.

It is their choice. Programs, or treatment, or mama, or sponsors, or meetings can not do it for them.

Bob Stevenson

Coordinator, Center for Inquiry Community of Daytona Beach

www.centerforinquiry.net/daytona

Submitted only to the News-Journal

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

Marti King (FOC) letter published in News-Journal

2007-08-21T23:21:01-05:00

Mexico's workers poorer

Re "NAFTA not a panacea," letter, Aug. 10:

To say that the North American Free Trade Agreement is not a panacea may be the understatement of the century!

Having just spent time in Mexico traveling with a Unitarian Universalist group that goes there each year to check up on the state of human rights in that country, I can say from my observations that NAFTA has not done anything positive for the workers. As in the United States, the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting much poorer. Anyone interested in this devastating topic might want to read "Confronting Globalization: Economic Integration and Popular Resistance in Mexico." It tells what is going on from the people's point of view, not from the standpoint of what is politically correct!

MARTI KING, Ormond Beach

News Journal article about Jim Strayer (FOC) and Camp Quest

2007-07-17T15:10:00-05:00

July 14, 2007

Camp Quest: Summer without the prayer

By JIM HAUG
Staff Writer

A boy who did not want to get up from his computer and explore the great outdoors compromised with his father.

"Find me a summer camp where I don't have to pray and I'll go," the 14-year-old told his father.

So he ended up at Camp Quest where it's "OK not to believe in God," said Jim Strayer, a retired biology teacher from Ormond-by-the-Sea who served as a resident scientist and camp counselor.

Camp Quest, which started 10 years ago as a reaction to the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding atheists, is a rarity since even nondenominational camps like to give children some religion.

YMCA's Camp Winona near DeLeon Springs, for instance, tries to accommodate children of all faiths and does not push a particular doctrine, but the camp does have a spiritual component, said camp director David Larrabee.

There is evening prayer and grace is said at meals. Campers who want to explore their faith can participate in a voluntary program involving Bible readings.

Children wanting to avoid religion would "be politely told that this might not be the right mix for them," Larrabee said.

Instead of dinner-time prayer at Camp Quest, children learn about famous free thinkers. The camp makes a game of showing how hard it is to prove or disprove supernatural claims. Invisible unicorns are the camp mascots. The first child who can prove their nonexistence will win $100 in godless bills, or money printed in the 1950s before adoption of the "In God We Trust" motto.

Nationally, about 29 million Americans identify themselves as having no religion, with one in five of 18- to 25-year-olds claiming to be atheist, agnostic or to have no religious affiliation, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies.

At Camp Quest, Strayer has been involved as both a camp counselor and a patron. He is president of the Humanists of Northeast Florida, which has raised money for scholarships. The cost for the weeklong camp is $500. Strayer said many children come from low-income households.

Camp Quest has six locations across North America but has not yet found a place in Florida.

The demand is there, but Strayer said humanists have had problems finding the right mix of facilities since Quest Campers do all the traditional summer camp activities like swimming, canoeing and arts and crafts.

Because it does not own property, Camp Quest must lease its facilities, which often leads to some odd pairings, Strayer said.

Christian groups sharing the same campgrounds, for example, have often refused to eat with the nonbelievers, Strayer said.

As a consequence, Camp Quest has had to eat dinner inside a barn or outside the dining hall, Strayer said. "It was OK (to be outside), we had a nice view," Strayer recalled.

Because their children often come from nonreligious households, the camp makes a point of teaching the practices and beliefs of world religions and preaching tolerance for others' beliefs said Amanda Metskas, president of Camp Quest Inc.

Many children who attend Camp Quest have not always enjoyed the same courtesy. They are often mocked at school for not believing in God and told they are going to hell, Metskas said.

If the popularity of atheism books is any indication, acceptance may be growing.

"The God Delusion," a critical book on religion by evolutionary scientist by Richard Dawkins, has sold 500,000 copies. It mentions Camp Quest in a footnote.

Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" is the surprise hit of the summer, selling 296,000 copies. Hitchens has gotten a new contract to edit "The Portable Atheist," a compilation of essays by writers like Mark Twain and Charles Darwin to be published this fall.

Strayer, however, thinks the books' popularity only proves only that people like to argue over God. "That's fine," he said.

The retired teacher enjoys a good debate. At Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, he once debated evolution with the creationist and evangelist Ken Hovind. The pastor from Pensacola is currently serving a prison term for not paying his employees' payroll taxes.

Strayer feels fortunate to have avoided religion himself.

"I'm one of the lucky ones," he said. "I grew up in a nonreligious household.

jim.haug@news-jrnl.com

The Wall Street Journal contributed to this story.

Dr. Schlieper letter to N-J Editor

2007-05-31T15:32:00-05:00

Random forces behind havoc

Printed in the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Jan. 7, 2007

The Dec. 24 tornado experience was not very nice, I am sure. But the silliness of some comments of otherwise very intelligent people is more disturbing. So, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University was very blessed, according to its leading personnel?

Well, did the divine bless-er of ERAU not have time enough to add to the "bless-ee list" that woman of Pierson who was unblessed enough to have had to use her own body as a shield for her daughter's safety while the rented trailer crumbled all about her? Or what about all of the folks at various trailer parks and at Sutton Place? In fact, divinity, for some perverse reason, never gets the blame for when manure happens and gets miracle credit when someone has a narrow escape from it. Can't lose on those job ratings, huh?

Comments such as these make one wonder about the acuity of human reason, don't they? My vote goes more for the power of random forces and the need for people to stick together than for any blessings or un-blessings from anywhere.

REINHOLD SCHLIEPER, Palm Coast

News Journal Online

Note: Dr. Schlieper spoke at the CFI Daytona Beach Community lunch in August, 2006