WINTER LUNCHEON CHANGED TO
JAN. 9
at
THE FISHERY, CENTRAL SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE
We will be celebrating the New Light, the New Year, and the New Millennium at
our annual luncheon at 12:30. Sunday, January 9 in the private room at The Fishery, 720
Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge.
There are parking areas on the street behind the restaurant.
All you have to do is choose from the menu below, enclose a check, and return
the reservation to us by Jan. 5. Note that the gratuity is included in the price, and
what’s more, you will also have chowder, salad, vegetable, rice, coffee and dessert!
HAM Reservation Form - Please Mail
in
The Humanist Association of Massachusetts
P.O. Box 381125
Cambridge MA 02238-1125
THE MILLENNIAL WINTER SOLSTICE LUNCHEON
On Sunday, January 9, 2000 at 12:30 PM
THE FISHERY 720 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA 02139
Salmon ($20.00) Number _____
Swordfish ($20.00) _____
Shrimp Scampi ($20.00 _____
Baked Scrod ($16.00) _____
Grilled Chicken ($14.00) _____
Payment enclosed $___________ (Cost includes
gratuity and tax)
By Jan. 5th.
Yes, A Prediction for 2000 :
___________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
We will not only celebrate our Association of nearly 25
years, but recognize this special time and enjoy it with imaginative predictions. Prepare
the wisest, or the silliest, the funniest or the most dire forecast of the future; write
it down and we'll choose the best for a time capsule to be opened a year from now. The
elections, the economy, the weather, the media, the Religious Right, Hollywood, Health,
and the Holy Land, all and more are grist for the creative mind peering into the times
ahead. You may be outrageously absurd, very wise, or both.
As a kind of brief postscript to this future-gazing, Tom Ferrick will turn to
the past and present a likely outline of his projected “memoirs.” Several
members and friends have been urging him to tell his story of faith exalted and then
displaced that he has finally made a modest beginning. We’ll have a glance at it.
NEWS FROM WASHINGTON
The American Humanist Association now has its national office on T Street in
the capital, where Tony Hileman, our new executive director, has taken up his duties with
verve and skill. His predecessor, our long time friend, Fred Edwords, has assumed his new
post as Editor of The Humanist . These have been wise moves but they will be
costly. Let’s pledge generously when called.
After the fun, there is work to be done. We have to elect (or re-elect) the
officers of HAM, (they are: president, Joe Gerstein, treasurer, Eleanor Babikian,
secretary, Bob Price, and executive director, Tom Ferrick. Nominations are open. We have
an advisory committee to confirm and its members will prepare this year to constitute a
Board of Directors in 2001.
We shall meet in the Parlor of Phillips Brooks House, (a gracious old building
in the northeast corner of Harvard Yard, directly across from the Science Center). Members
will have prepared some very tasty sandwiches, cookies and coffee -- to be enjoyed when
the business is done.
We must approve both a budget and a general program for this coming year. We
should review our relationships with the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, (we and it will
not always be so closely joined) and with the American Humanist Association, as well as
with Smart Recovery. The Newsletter can bear some examination and new ideas too. Future
growth must be assured. Voluntary participation on committees, such as membership,
hospitality, socials, etc., must be encouraged. Experience has taught us all that getting
involved brings some very real rewards. On this day especially, we want your advice.
An added surprise will be one of our own members. This guest of honor has had a
career in education and politics and now, as a graduate of the Humanist Institute, will
have some wisdom to share. Can you guess who it is?
A LUNAR WONDER
On this Solstice, Dec. 22, we’ll have the first full moon in 133 years
when its orbit will be closest to the earth and it will appear about 14% larger than when
at its apogee. And since the Earth will also be several million miles closer to the sun,
sunlight striking the moon will brighten it all the more.. If the weather is clear,
headlights will seem superfluous. And to think humans have walked there. Enjoy!
HOW MACCHIAVELLIAN!
By now, observations comparing the Internet Revolution to
the Movable Type Printing Press Revolution have become pretty hackneyed. Still, learning
what Peter Drucker has to say about it seemed prudent. Heís the sagacious business
consultant who couldnít peddle his ideas about Continuous Quality Improvement in Detroit,
so took them to Japan. Japanese manufacturers dubbed him a guru and ended up almost wiping
Detroit off the map and creating a giant Rust Belt in America. Heís 92 now, so one hopes
also that he has developed more than the average perspective on the subject. [Our own
Ernst Mayr, who is on the Honorary Board of the Humanist Chaplaincy, last year published a
prizewinning book on Evolution, so it is becoming rather commonplace for nonagenarians to
be putting out significant and insightful writings. Maybe Artur Rubenstein shouldnít have
put himself out to pasture at 88.]
One of Druckerís most fascinating insights relates to
the fact that the REAL movable type revolution didnít occur until many years AFTER the
invention. For the fist 50, or so, years, nothing was printed except those books which
were already extant. This, of course, moved them out of the musty libraries where they
already existed and allowed more common access, but didnít produce the creative
efflorescence that was inherent but only implicit in this invention. Such books are
actually given their own niche in literary history as incunabula. (Incidentally, we should
add that despite his Far East credentials, Drucker makes no mention of the fact that the
concept of the movable type printing press evolved in China somewhat earlier than the late
15th century).
Despite this caveat, the revolution was revolutionary
enough, since part of Lutherís strategy was the availability of a widely-circulated
vernacular Bible that would help promulgate a Protestant Reformation. This was an integral
factor in rending Europe asunder for a hundred years and redrawing its map with roughly a
Protestant North and a Catholic South. Henry the Eighthís carnal appetite finished the
job.
Certainly, one of the things which propelled the
Renaissance was the rapid diffusion, via printing, of the translations of the rediscovered
Arab scientific texts which were available to Jews in Spain via the Arab culture which
existed there after the Moorish conquest.
The most startling observation which Drucker makes is
this: Nicolo Macchiavelliís book, The Prince, which was published in 1558, fully 60 years
after Gutenbergís invention, was the first original printed book
published which did not mention a deity at all.
Naturally, I am going to take his word for this without doing extensive research on the
genre, but it is a rather startling observation. This was obviously a manifestation of the
start of the humanist revolution in Western culture. Perhaps this culminated in Alexander
Popeís cheeky assertion that ìThe proper study of Mankind is Man.î
I would remind you that our most common usage of the word
ìrevolutionî does not exhaust itís roster of subsidiary meanings: 1. An overthrow or
repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system.
3. A sudden or complete change in something. 8. A round or cycle of events in time or a
recurring period of time. [Random House Dictionary].
It is this eighth definition that has got me worried.
Several events of the last few months exemplify the challenge that we humanists face in
trying to maintain this revolution of objective study of mankind and of life in general.
One is, of course, the well-known fiasco of the Kansas Board of Educationís decision in
overturning the recommendations of a learned panel on the study of Evolution in the
schools.
Although there is no dearth of such absurdities, the
second, and most troubling to me, occurred the other night in the debate among the
Republican presidential candidates. They were asked which political philosopher was most
influential in their lives. Three candidates, including George Bush, nominated Jesus
Christ. Now, how much of this is political cant, sanctimoniousness and posturing for the
Religious Right, how much is just plain political scientific ignorance and how much is a
manifestation of a conscious plan to integrate the dogma of the Southern Baptist Covention
into the Constitution of the United States I donít know for sure. But I am pretty damned
worried.
In some ways, even the arch-conservative Roman Catholic
Church has learned to accommodate to Science and Reason and to recognize that the
Renaissance did actually happen: Galileo has been rehabilitated, Evolution has been
accepted as a valid scientific doctrine, even Reason has been venerated in Papal
encyclicals (although with the totally illogical conclusion that human reason would
clearly end up verifying the reality such arrant nonsense as the resurrection,
transsubtantiation, etc. )
We now actually face the repeal of the Scientific
Revolution and the return to the Dark Ages in which all that people had to know was
written in the Bible. The proper study of Mankind will again become the scriptures as
interpreted by Reconstructionist Christian ìscholars.î Start collecting stones so
youíll be ready for the first executions by those among us who will be without sin. And
this in the Age of the Internet!
Joe Gerstein
Stephen J. Gould: Rocks of
Ages: Science and Religion in the Fulness of Life.
The thesis of this book is simply that there should be no controversy between
science and religion. Gould proclaims NOMA, i.e., Non Overlapping MAgisteria. As he puts
it: "The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made
of (fact) and why does it act this way (theory). The mageisterium of religion extends over
questions of ultimate meaning and moral value." Thus, in Gould"s mind the
historic conflict should never have happened, and would not have, if both sides obeyed his
NOMA principle. Much of his book recounts the evplution-creation battles spawned by the
Religious Right and the conflicts of the Catholic Church with science in the past. Gould
claims, however, that only a minority of religionists and scientists actually do violate
NOMA. His treatment of the violations made by the religious is well detailed, but
expressed with gentle sympathy. His treatment of violations by "dogmatic
atheists" is much less specific, but at the same time more vitriolic.
How has the thesis of NOMA been received? Apparently magazines like Time have
accepted it very well. Many of Gould's fellow humanists, like E. O. Wilson and Richard
Dawkins, have rejected the idea. The Religious Right, of course, would be expected to
reject any such concept. Several articles in the liberal Catholic magazine, Commonweal,
have made some interesting points. First, evolution, as proclaimed by Gould and his like,
is based on a materialist philosophy, positing a universe without purpose, direction, or
mercy. Gould has to reject the idea of God playing a role in evolution. But the notion
that God plays no role, not even in introducing the human "soul" at some point
in the process is not acceptable to Catholics.
John F. Haught, writing in Commonweal, praises Gould's sincereity. However, he
points out that even Gould has the same materialist philosophy of the outspoken atheists
he castigated, and claims that science must move beyond materialism. He also criticizes
Gould's "rather croped and condescenfing interpretation of religion."
Phillip
E. Johnson, a renowned opponent of Darvinism, in his review of Gould's book, strongly
rejects Goulds's idea that science deals with facts and that religion deals only with
values. He says that Gould "would forbid the church to teach that miracles have
actually occurred." Also, the church would have to give up claims for the
Resurrection, Virgin Birth, God directed evolution, and the belief that animals are
fundamentally different from humans in that they lack souls. Like Haught, he insists that
science must give up its materialist philosophy.
hillip
E. Johnson, a renowned opponent of Darvinism, in his review of Gould's book, strongly
rejects Goulds's idea that science deals with facts and that religion deals only with
values. He says that Gould "would forbid the church to teach that miracles have
actually occurred." Also, the church would have to give up claims for the
Resurrection, Virgin Birth, God directed evolution, and the belief that animals are
fundamentally different from humans in that they lack souls. Like Haught, he insists that
science must give up its materialist philosophy.
Humanists also will have a problem with NOMA, for Gould wants to give religion
authority over values and morals, Certainly secular philosophers also have much to say on
those issues. Moreover, religious pronouncements on moral issues such as current
opposition to abortion, even thinkung about assisted suicide and birth control, are just
plain wrong. In previous centuries religion has supported slavery, the murder of witches
and heretics, and has opposed painless childbirth on Biblical grounds, as well as other
medical advances.
Yet there are two factors which favor Gould's NOMA. One is a practical matter
of strategy. As Haught says, "Gould has awakened to the fact that in a theistic
culture the cause of science education is hardly served by tying Darwin's ideas as tightly
to the death of God as do his rivals." Yes, scientists shouldn't offend religion too
much if they want to keep on getting funding. Also, at present, opposition to evolution
seems to be increasing. If Gould is preaching caution, perhaps he has a point. Religion is
stronger in our country than we care to realize.
Also, Gould would be almost right if we can truly separate true religion from
superstition and the supernatural. Humanist religions like Ethical Culture can live quite
happily with science, no matter how materialistic it is. But even then, when Humanist
consider ethical problems they should be willing to use scientific methods of thinking.
Peter B. Denison
HOLIDAY TIME
We Hunanists, when we are feeling generous, provide a secular translation to
religious holy days. It’s called demythologyzing. Christmas, for me, is a celebration
of and for children. Hanukkah extols freedom and courage. The Winter Solstice of our early
forebears salutes the return of Light and the reasons for hope. We choose in our time to
call that Light a symbol of Learning, knowledge that is strictly natural and empirical.
We Humanists tend to be individualistic, private, and skeptical, but we
generally share with eachother a mutual assent to natural human values which give meaning
to our lives. Summed up, they lead to the freedom and happiness of all humanity based on
knowledge and experience. This is the bond of our community.
Among us there are heroes who go unremarked. Three who deserve notice died this
past year. Mabel Lepper of Springfield was an indefatiguable activist for humanist causes,
for separation of church and state and for the rights of the dying. Her bright
personality, her baking skills, and her letters to editors are memorable. Bill Lennon of
Cambridge focussed his fine, well-read but untutored mind on irrational religion, with
little patience for pompous claims and magical rituals. While his was a hard honesty, he
gave to us financially with amazing generosity. And then there is David Lawson, PhD, from
Montreal who was a poet, educator, traveler, and wise commentator on human folly; austere,
candid, but immensely loyal. A true friend.
These fine persons contributed to the fabric of our community -- they probably
didn’t know one another much at all -- but we are more knowing and sensitive for
their being with us. Community is to be prized.
Tom Ferrick
|
umanist
Association of Massachusetts
