Subscription: $15 / year Membership: $15/year All correspondence to: Editor: Joyce Bates All correspondence to: P. O. Box 1744 Greenville, SC 29602 February, 2010

The Voice of Sanity THE NEWSLETTER OF THE UPSTATE S.C. SECULAR HUMANISTS Visit our web-site for current and back-issues at: www.uscsh.org e-mail: secularhmnst@aol.com

CALENDAR

The next brunch will be 10:30AM on Saturday, February 13th; at Denny’s restaurant; 2521 Wade Hampton Blvd, Taylors.

CHILI NIGHT 

Our 4th Sunday meeting will be our annual Chili Night at the home of Lee Deitz, 21 Walnut St., Greenville. Date of chili night -- February 28th. The time is 5 p.m. Please call Lee at 864-233-0905 or email at LeeInGvl@aol.com for a suggestion of your contribution to the meal. 

What? Annual chili night

Date? February 28th

Time? 5 p.m.

Place? 21 Walnut St., Lee Deitz

Belief vs. Non-Belief: A Matter of Degree

I’m one of those non-theists who struggled for most of my going-on-seventy years of life with numerous questions regarding the existence of God, at least, that is, since I matured into the beginning of what was for me my very own age of reason, about the time I was a sophomore in high school. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and attended a Catholic grade school, so that my religious indoctrination/brainwashing was thorough and intensive. I was even an altar boy!

I am, therefore, not a natural atheist, as is, for example, David Eller, author of the 2004 Natural Atheism (American Atheist Press: Cranford, New Jersey). He was never raised in a “religious tradition” like so many of us who had to struggle through perhaps many years of agonizing questioning, doubt, ambivalence and guilt.

About seven years ago, when I was an “agnostic leaning toward theism,” I discovered and subscribed to Free Inquiry, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. It is still one of the few serial publications that I look forward to receiving with great anticipation every other month and that I read cover-to-cover.

Through Free Inquiry, I learned about and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the contributions of “freethinkers” from Thomas Paine and Robert G. Ingersoll to several of my contemporaries, such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Susan Jacoby, Paul Kurtz, Peter Singer and several others.

While all of these authors have helped me understand and reinforce numerous reasons and arguments for my non-belief (and helped to assuage the enduring guilt feelings inspired by my Catholic upbringing), Richard Dawkins’ 2006 The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin Company: New York) has had the greatest influence on my thinking while helping me to understand my own personal progression from theism to atheism.

I should also point out that I am a sociologist as well as a “retired/reformed Catholic.” My graduate training in sociology emphasized the “quantitative/scientific” research approach and I also read extensively in the literature of the philosophy of science.

The exposure to both of these bodies of knowledge familiarized me with the methodology of science, one aspect of which included exposure to and emphasis upon the value of the advantages of conceptualizing phenomena of interest as often representing differences in degree, rather than in the categorical and mutually exclusive terms of “either” – “or.” Applied to the description of one’s own personal religious belief, it is sometimes difficult to choose among the common descriptors of “theist,” or “agnostic,” or “atheist.” Richard Dawkins, himself a scientist, argues that an individual’s belief or non-belief are most accurately and heuristically characterized as representing differences of degree, as opposed to differences in kind, ranging on a continuum from extreme theism to extreme atheism. He has described various points or stages on this continuum as follows:

“1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, ‘I do not believe; I know.’”

“2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’”

“3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning toward theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’”

“4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’”

“5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning toward atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.’”

“6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’”

“7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.’”

I find this characterization of degrees of belief vs. non-belief to be beneficial in my understanding of both where I personally locate myself on the continuum as well as how I got there. Throughout the Catholic socialization of my childhood and through the ninth grade, I was a “1. Strong Theist.” From approximately grade ten through most of my adult years until perhaps about age fifty-nine, I was a “2….De facto theist.” By age sixty-three, when I discovered Free Inquiry, I was a “3.” Because of Free Inquiry and my extensive readings of the works of historic and contemporary freethinkers, I skipped stages “4” and “5” altogether and have arrived (may I say “evolved”) to stage “6,” so that I am now a (may I say “proud”) De facto atheist, leaning toward “7.” The open-mindedness required of my commitment to the methodology of science does not allow me to assert or embrace 100% confidence in anything except my own mortality. Where do you place yourself on the continuum? When and how did you progress to that position? Food for thought.

R. Georges Delamontagne

FEBRUARY 14TH

February 14^th at first glance seems a secondary holiday at best, sandwiched as it is between the birthdays of Lincoln and Washington. We notice pressure to buy flowers, candy, and cards and after the day is over we go back to our usual routine. But, the date, like December 25^th has an interesting history.

The Valentine’s Day we are familiar with became prevalent in the 18^th century in both Great Britain and America. At that time Valentines were sent mostly by women and were intricate, carefully decorated with bits of ribbon and lace. Before the 18^th century there is no mention of a secular holiday although researchers believe a love poem from Charles Duke D’Orleans to his wife in the month of February was a valentine of sorts. He had sent it at the time of his imprisonment in the Tower of London after the battle of Agincourt in 1415.

The Christian Feast of Purification on February 14^th, came into existence at the beginning of the 6^th century. Pope Galesius instituted this holiday as a replacement for the old Roman Lupercalia, a time of preparation for the Roman New Year, which, by the way, was the Ides (15^th) of March not January 1st. Shakespeare even mentions the Lupercalia in “Julius Caesar”. We might think that this was a somber holiday, but the Romans were interested in more than cleaning house and putting their affairs in order for the New Year. Lupercalia began on the Ides of February with a fertility festival dedicated to Faunus, the god of agriculture. During the festival urns would be put in various public places. Single women would put their names in the urns, bachelors would draw names, and the couples would pair off for a year. If things worked out these couples would marry on the new year’s day of the following year. If not, well, the urn would be there again.

Another, less romantic feature of Lupercalia was a rite in which the priests would sacrifice a goat to Remus and Romulus, founders of Rome. They would give skins smeared with the goat’s blood to boys who would run through the surrounding area and whack women of childbearing age with them. The rite was believed to increase fertility.

Evidently, Pope Galesius desired emphasis on purification over fornication when he made the change to the Christian feast.

There were two St. Valentines believed to have generated the holiday. Both were martyrs. The first was a priest who is said to have married couples illegally after Emperor Claudius II outlawed marriage for young men of military age thinking they would be less preoccupied. This Valentine was discovered and put to death. There is no historical evidence of such a person. The second was a man who helped Christians escape prison. He was also caught and put to death, but while he was imprisoned he fell in love with the jailor’s daughter. According to the story he wrote a love letter to her before his death and signed it “From your Valentine”.

These days, though, there are better ways to win hearts than by heart shaped boxes of candy and bouquets of roses. For a mere $100 you can give your loved one the experience of a Corvette thrill ride. Or, if you are thrifty, a much less expensive set of vouchers labeled “good for one kiss”, “good for one hug”, and “good for one (fill in the blank)” might be appealing. There are pillowcases available with personalized messages, perhaps for those away from their loved ones frequently. If none of the above are suitable, a pantygram, or edible chocolate body paint may convey the appropriate message.

Happy Valentine’s Day. J.Bates