LETTERS TO
EDITORS
and
Other Voices
TIMES-BEACON-RECORD 
Formerly The Port Jefferson Record
HOW WE FAIL TO
EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN Not submitted,
exceeded the 400 word limit that was published.
September 8,
2007
If it is desirable that a person
shall speak correctly, it is more desirable that he shall think
correctly.”
Ballard
I completely agree with such great thinkers as Albert Einstein, Bertrand
Russell, Marilyn Vos Savant, and so many more, that our schooling institutions,
including the college and university levels, emphasize what to think (and do it
well), not how to think. Nor do
they teach our children to think critically about how we abuse language,
particularly neglecting to distinguish the uses of unfalsifiable and verifiable
language, i.e., language that can’t be shown to be true or false from language
that can. Yet, ask any teacher if
she teaches her students critical thinking, our most recent educational mantra,
and the most likely reply will be, “Well of course I do."
For close to fifty years of
teaching experience, I pioneered, with little success as a voice in the
wilderness, for the introduction of Critical Analysis (now renamed
“Critical Thinking”) classes on the pre-college level.
In 1960, I introduced the subject at E. L. Vandermeulen High School.
In order to get in touch with the high schools throughout the nation, I
founded and published two international journals, opened a website, and
published books and articles on the subject.
When I moved to teaching on the
college level, I was, and still am dismayed to discover how little
“education” freshmen students had acquired from their pre-college studies,
i.e., how to think, as opposed to being well schooled, i.e., accumulating a
wealth of “facts.”
As a consequence of that
experience, throughout my career as a college professor, I had little choice but
to conclude that most teachers don’t have a clue as to the nature of
“Critical Thinking.” Our
universities failed to emphasize the importance of examining our abuses and uses
of language.
Most “educators” believe “critical thinking” can be achieved osmotically as a residue of their areas of expertise, analogously to teaching mathematics in a music class. They see little need for an autonomous class for teaching clear, critical, and analytical thinking. Most teachers encourage their students to ask questions without first teaching them the right questions to ask, when to ask them, and what their unexamined assumptions are.
A critical thinker, at one
time or another, possesses the following attributes: she is curious,
questioning, speculative, creative, inquisitive, reflective, thoughtful,
open-minded to evidence (i.e., verifiable claims), perceptive, persistent,
observing, resistant to gullibility and accepting absolutes, interested in
objective and rational discussion, prone to unambiguous definitions, sometimes
analytical, and more.
“Critical thinking,” in
its conventional usage, however, involves, not only these attributes
but, also, the application of them.
Teachers of different
academic orientation, define “critical thinking” in terms of their own areas
of expertise. They are rarely
concerned with examining the fundamental assumptions upon which their beliefs
are founded that, if examined, could expose the errors of those beliefs – to
mention a few:
Moralists and theists assume, and
blindly accept, the existence of moral principles and then, ignoring their
assumptions, imply their real existence.
Theists declare the existence of
their unverifiable, i.e., unknowable gods, and then proceed critically to
describe them in detail.
Scientists assume the existence of a physical world beyond our sense data and ignore the fact that the language of science (i.e., mathematics), describes our perceptions, not reality.
Poets and artists, not concerned
with truth and knowledge as defined by scientists, think critically about
choosing words or images that will stimulate personal meanings in those who view
their works.
Mathematicians are not concerned
with discussing the reality of geometric concepts.
Bertrand Russell aptly put it, “Pure mathematics is the subject in
which we don’t know what we are talking about is true.”
Most often the critical thinking of students of mathematics constitutes a
critical understanding only of the manipulation of little understood concepts.
They have no idea, for instance, that “1+1=2” is an example of the
fallacy of begging the question, i.e., assuming what is supposed to be verified.
In ordinary, i.e.,
conventional language, a child who is told to "Hand me that yellow pencil," clearly and discriminatingly understands which pencil to select.
She is unaware of the scientific evidence that since the pencil is
rejecting, i.e., reflecting the yellow, the “real” color of the pencil is,
in fact, a complex of all the colors not reflected.
At the very least our teachers
should be required to teach our children about the weaknesses of language as
well as its strengths, awakening them to the fact that language is the path not
only to knowledge but, unexamined, also to a continued debilitating ignorance
and great harm to humanity. Witness
the state of our world today!
Imagine what a nation of people
taught to be questioning, open-minded to evidence, interested in objective and
rational discussion, etc., could do for this world.
WATERGATE
A DENIAL OF RIGHTS
May 24, 1973
Published
The attitudes expressed in
"Watergate's a Drag, . . . " May 17, 1973, are frighteningly similar to
those manifested by citizens of other countries.
Their societies fell into a
morass of apathy and ethico-political neutrality which became the spawning of
totalitarianism.
Attitudes of apathy and
neutrality are real socio-psychological forces that have emerged either from the
frustrations of imagined inability to influence the political scene, from lack
of concern and initiative, or from lack of strength to commit ourselves.
The encouragement of such
attitudes undermines our moral and national character without which we could go
"the way of Rome."
To suggest of Watergate that "Everybody does
it, "etc., is to deny the ideals, the values, and the goals essential to
constitutional democracy.
The following was deleted by the editor.
[Through subversive
activities, White House administrators have sought to deny us the due process
which insures our right to choose our leaders and preserve our freedom.] [The scandal of such
administrative activity would not now be exposed had the framers of our
Constitution been of the cynical frame of mind that this is the nature of
politics, i.e., that the name of the game is "Don't get caught."] [They did not ignore the
base side of man's nature which allows even the best of us to succumb to
inclinations for power.]
[It was obvious to them that political power in the hands
of fools can both destroy the privilege of freedom and diminish us all-- ruled
and rulers alike.] EDITOR'S SPECIAL PLEADING 
1980s?
Published I was astonished by the
editor's special pleading against the teachers of the Port Jefferson School
system. I wish to point out that his
illogical appeal to sympathy does not address itself to the issues. If justice in this matter is
sought by both parties, there is no place for irrationality.
Furthermore, it goes without
saying that teachers by their very choice of profession are neither
unsympathetic nor unfeeling.
The editor's request that
teachers look to their advantages over "hundreds of Port Jefferson
families," 1)seems directly intended to fulfill his own prophecy that the
teachers lack the public support they think they have and 2) overlooks the fact
that all professionals (with their enormous investment of money and years of
advanced study) from the President of the United States to the editor of the
Record could heed the same admonition.
After all, if the President of
the Board had never raised his fees, those same families would be enjoying less
costly medical care and if the editor of the Record had never raised the price
of his paper, those same families would now be paying less for it.
Formerly The Port Jefferson Record
June 27, 2008
Published July 10 2008
It is unfortunate that Montgomery J. Granger and Donard Pranzo do not seem to be
informed about the relationship of language to our claims to knowledge. It
should have been clear to them that Professor Elof Carlson: The
inventions of life are largely molecular,” Port Times Record, June 26, 2008,
was not using the term, ‘inventions’ anthropomorphically or with any sense
of an underlying intelligence.
Moreover, even were Granger
correct that the “second law of thermodynamics proves the theory of evolution
is impossible,” it in no way would support his unfalsifiable and unverifiable
language that the “unique intuition or genius mentioned in the invention
definition above clearly belongs to the Divine “inventor” of all life,
natural and man-manipulated, and that it is a being spiritual in nature,”
which Granger states with absolute certainty and conviction without a smidgen of
evidence or even a clear understanding of what he means.
Is Granger aware that before the meanings attributed to the term,
‘spiritual’ evolved over the centuries, that it “meant” no more than the
“moving breeze?
And had Pranzo, or any other reader, understood that symbols have no inherent meanings and bothered to check
what meaning Carlson was attributing to the term, ‘inventions’ he would have
discovered that Carlson was not attributing “personal human causation” but
was, rather, alluding to man’s “discovery” of the stages of the
evolutionary process.
As knowledge of Emergent Evolution teaches us, just as in
human progress, the future is built on the progress of the past; in the
evolutionary process each stage of the process becomes the requisite for a
succeeding procession of a series of causes and effects giving emergence to
newly unpredictable qualities.
Carlson is, according to the
preponderance of falsifiable language and available evidence, correct in his
excellent description of the process of evolution, a fact that any student in a
chemistry class can verify by showing that it is not possible for Hydrogen
Peroxide, H2O2, to evolve, to the disappointment of bottled blonds, if H2O had
not first appeared in the evolutionary process.
In closing I will agree that
Professor Carlson might have been more careful in his choice of word when
writing for a society whose teachers have failed to inform their students that
the nuances of language, not taught them, are the source of much ignorance in
the world and that neglecting to teach, as they have throughout history, that
language, particularly theistic language, not susceptible to recurrent and
predictable perceptions, is the greatest source of unfalsifiable and
unverifiable language that will forever be the bane of clear, critical, and
analytical thinking.
This fact is clearly expressed
by J. Bronowski, in his book, The Ascent of Man:
Into this pond [at Auschwitz] were flushed the
ashes of some four million people. And
that was not done by gas. It was
done by dogma. It was done by
ignorance. When people believe that
they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave.
This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Formerly The Port Jefferson Record
July 23 2008
Published August 7, 2008
Myths of Antiquity Still
Hold Sway
Re: Montgomery J. Granger: Man: “God’s image or chimps DNA. July 27, 2008,
Port Times Record.
As I read Granger’s response, it is clear all my efforts to help
readers understand the weaknesses in the use of the symbols to which we attribute
meaning had no effect on him. His
response continues as a manipulation of convoluted language, innuendoes, and
false accusations that cannot be tested. It
bears the mark of proselytizing.
If
I were to answer his five questions, they would make more sense than Granger
could hope for from his spiritual world.
It is strange that he does
not seem to be aware of the difference between “religion” originally defined
to mean “togetherness” and theistic religion requiring a god.
As an agnostic, I am an ardent proponent
of a god -- free religion defined to mean, I am my brother’s keeper.
I have lived a moral life for all my 94 years, and am offended to be
branded by Granger as someone who is frightened by his believing neighbors, I
live in peace with them all.
Granger claims, “Atheists and agnostics hate and fear those who argue that
God’s existence is a necessary presupposition [A presupposition is not
reality] of there being any moral judgments that are objective . . .”
Morality existed long
before theistic authorities claimed it as their, “invention.” including in the mythologies of the
Paleolithic period of an infinite number of gods. [EDITED OUT: and before the pre-Socratic
Xenophanes, in jest, suggested the concept of one god,]
However, I do fear and
detest the Golden Rule. It justifies allowing a masochist to impose pain upon me
just because he’d like me to do it to him.
I corrected it, in my book, Hey! IS That You, God?
Moreover, a god that murders everyone on earth except Noah and his family and,
also, visits evil on those He is offended by, is an evil god [EDITED OUT:
the mother of
mass murders. – and hardly a role model.
Granger should study the history of how the great religions began.
He may learn that the language of spirituality is not all he enjoys interpreting it to be.
Bewildering
to me, however, is how an intelligent person like Granger, can still be saddled
with the myths of antiquity that the most renowned mythologist in the world,
Joseph Campbell, insists are not good enough even for children any more.
I
only wish I had the space to list the thousands of atheists and agnostics from
Jefferson to Lincoln, Billy Joel, Gloria Steinam and on and on who contributed
and still contribute mightily to our culture.
Check them out on Google! What
a revelation it will be
NEW YORK TIMES
MIND vs UNIVERSE
February 9, 1992
No Response This is in regard to David
Sobel's review of Ferris' The Mind's Sky, "New York Times Book
Review," February 9, 1992.
If even Plato never succeeded in
verifying a connection between universals and particulars (forms and the
"Physical" world--i.e., appearances), and subsequent philosophers (and
scientists) have not, on what grounds can it be determined that Ferris, as Sobel
suggests, has succeeded in relating the universe of stars to the universe of the
mind?
All Ferris is experiencing is his
universe of mind.
He cannot, in fact, get beyond
his experiences.
He is assuming, even if rightly
so, that there is a universe of stars "out there."
If he is guilty of other
metaphysical suggestions like "The mind and the universe are complementary
bodies of information" (my italics), I think Sobel should allow Ferris the
right "to pass off this book [accurately] as 'a ramble.'"
TIMES RECORD RELIGION IN OUR SCHOOLS
August 10, 1995
Published
I'm amazed that Timothy Mount
could have so profoundly misread Kenneth Schreiber's letter-to-the-Editor on the
subject of religion in our schools.
Mr. Mount chose to interpret
Schreiber to be saying, or at least implying, that playing religious music at a
school event is unconstitutional.
In fact, he was merely stating
that there is a great deal of religion infused in public school teaching and
that "religious" music is an example of that.
He is absolutely right!
As to what Schreiber's
"misguided" principles could be, I cannot fathom.
Maintaining the separation of
church and state is hardly a "misguided principle."
Think back to when the Church was
the State.
"Those who forget history
are doomed to repeat it."
We are, of course, far from that
state of affairs today. But there are powerful forces supported by
multi-millions of dollars trying to make the United States a
"Christian" nation despite the fact that one of our basic principles
as a democracy is that each of us shall be free to worship -- OR NOT -- as and when
he pleases -- even silently and privately in the classroom.
As for "religious
music" in the popular but inaccurate use of that phrase, it is beautiful
and spiritual -- as is all art and all beauty -- especially the beauties of nature.
MUSIC, however, in a strict sense
of the term, is pure sound -- NOT WORDS OR INK ON PAPER.
It is usually theistic language
or lack thereof that through the passage of time has, through association,
determined whether music is called "religious" or "secular."
By no sense of logic can it be
declared that UNVERIFIABLE theistic language PUT TO MUSIC, however
constitutional, spiritual, or beautiful it may be, is not still proselytizing,
teaching, and indoctrinating young, uncritical, unanalytical, and
impressionistic minds.
Schreiber, as am I, is one of the
millions -- not "of a few individuals"-- who are profoundly concerned
with the possibility that our multi-religious freedom may "inch by
inch" be slowly eroded by unrecognized, deceptive, and/or
innocent-appearing activities or methods.
ASKING QUESTIONS IS NOT THE SAME AS
CLEAR, CRITICAL, AND ANALYTICAL THINKING
August 21, 2003
Published
It is extremely unfortunate
that our pre-college institutions of learning, excellent as they may be in
training, rote learning, and a smidgen of critical thinking, have little
interest in offering "Critical Thinking" courses.
The consequence is that we become
pawns of those, especially in government and seats of power, who are adept at
using language as a regulatory device.
Many teachers proudly proclaim
that they are teaching their students critical thinking.
It is a shibboleth of our age.
In fact, few of them understand
the complexities of clear, critical, and analytical thinking or can distinguish
one from the other.
Children cannot become critical
thinkers by osmosis just because we expertly teach them the three Rs.
Nor can a few years of rote
learning of other academic subjects such as English, History, Mathematics,
Psychology, etc., achieve it.
Not only must students be taught
but teachers must learn to recognize and analyze basic assumptions and the
complexities and nuances of uses of language -- especially the basic rule: No word
has an inherent meaning.
"Critical Thinking" is
an autonomous subject with its own complex subject matter including processes of
thought that the average person and the vast majority of teachers not only do
not use but also are incapable of using or even imagining.
They, with rare exceptions, have
not been subjected in our institutions of learning to the rigors of analytic
thought.
It must be taught using
examples
from various academic studies and life experiences as the medium through which
an understanding of the facts and rules fundamental to clear, critical, and
analytical thinking can be achieved.
Until our teachers become
proficient in understanding the complexities of clear, critical, and analytical
thinking and the concepts, language, truth, and knowledge, they will remain
mistakenly content to believe that inducing students to ask questions is a
sufficient "method" for producing critical thinkers.
THEISM vs SCIENCE
October 9, 2006
Published November 30, 2006
Objectivity
If
Joe Darrow’s report, Science and Religion -- not so far apart after all?"
The Port Times Record, November
09, 2006, of Reverend Guy J. Consolmagno’s lecture at Stony Brook
University is accurate, it is evident that not enough attention has been given
to the proper interpretation of language particularly since so much of it is
couched in metaphor and poetic irrelevancies, i.e., nonobjective expressions.
It is important to distinguish between “religion” and “theism.”
Not all religions are predicated upon the existence of a god.
As Einstein said, “I am a deeply religious non-believer.”
There may well be a god. However,
as defined, there is no way to verify it.
Obviously
faith plays a role in science. However,
it is not blind indoctrinated faith in a god that eventually
evolved out of countless concepts of gods in the polytheistic ages or gods of
today.” Nobody worships a god.
Each worshiper has faith in his personal, nonobjective concept
of a god.
The
Reverend claims science “is ultimately nonobjective -- it requires a belief in
a universe characterized by order and intelligibility, a belief similar to faith
in God.” The dictionary defines
“objective” as “having to do with a known or perceived object [such as
a tree] as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of a
person thinking” [like the concept of a god].
Faith in science, however, is trust in perceptual and recurrent evidence
[the tree] until new evidence shows a need for refinement or correction.
It is not
enough to say, “science and religion rest on belief.”
Much depends on the nature of the belief.
Is its language warranted (based on evidence) or unwarranted (incapable
of being based on evidence)?
The Reverend says: “All scientific discovery comes from the motivation and
perspective of the scientist making the observation.”
In this day and age, not only do scientists work in teams but also, the
claims and discovery of any one scientist are immediately subject to the final
judgment of the world-wide scientific community.
When the
Reverend says, “Thinkers like Stephen J. Gould miss the point: Science and
religion meet in the human being who is the scientist, the human being who is
the believer,” it is he who misses the point.
Obviously “science and religion” are intended to mean, “the beliefs
of science and religion (which is to say, theism).”
If so, he does not seem to understand that countless nonsensical and
unfalsifiable beliefs held by the uninformed also “meet in the human being”
who is firmly convinced they are true.
Scientific
achievements and language are self-corrective, predictable, public, testable, and
verifiable. Theistic dogmas and
conditioned beliefs are not.
SEE PERENNIAL QUESTIONS FOR AN EXTENSIVE CRITIQUE ENTITLED:
The Unbridgeable Chasm Between Science and Theism
USAGE OF WORDS
Sent March 23, 2007
Published March 28, 2007
Leah
Dunaief, “Between You and Me,” March 22, 2007, deserves much credit for her
exposure of the strange way in which we use words, i. e., language.
I fear, however, that the deeper implications to be drawn from her
excellent display of different usages, will be lost on the general public as a
result of the great failure of our society and schooling institutions, and
especially most teachers in general. Words
have no more meanings than is music the “musical” notes on paper.
Almost everyone mistakenly refers to our
conventional usage of words as “meanings” of words. No linguistic symbol has an inherent meaning.
Evolution of language clearly attests to that.
Each of us attributes to words what each of us means according to the
conventional usages of our cultures and according to instruction by our parents,
teachers, religious authorities, etc.
Both our society and schooling institutions,
including much of the college and university levels, fail in their
responsibility to educate our students in the true sense of that term.
Generally, they teach us what to think not how to think. They neglect to
emphasize the abuses of language and the distinctions of the various kinds of
language that affect our webs of belief related to truth and knowledge.
Few teachers on the pre-college level bother to
distinguish for their students the uses of language that is either unfalsifiable
and/or unverifiable. Most students
as freshmen in college, not to mention those who never get to college, are even
acquainted with those terms.
It goes without saying, though I will say it,
anyone incapable of distinguishing unfalsifiable or unverifiable language from
falsifiable and verifiable language is not an educated person, no matter his
degrees.
As George Orwell so dramatically
conveyed in his book, 1984 and President Bush and
company, as well as arrogant leaders throughout the world, so clearly
demonstrate: who controls language controls our beliefs and actions.
NEWSDAY
FREEDOM
FROM WORSHIP OF A GOD January 29, 1990
Published In his letter, "God and
American History," [Jan. 12], Harry Dwyer equates the mottos "in God
we trust" and "one nation under God," both the result of
political and organized religious persuasion, with our nation's history. He seems to infuse them with the
force of constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion. Moreover, he confuses freedom of
religion with freedom to worship, but not with not to worship God.
[Here, Newsday
edited out the double negative.]
He should know that there were and are
religions, in the true sense of that word, that do not worship gods. Consequently, a guarantee of
freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from worship of a god. So little were our forefathers
concerned with the concept of gods that they made no reference to one throughout
the Constitution. For that matter, even the
Declaration of Independence made only one passing reference to the "Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God" [not man's gods]. Our forefathers, some of whom
were non-believers, wisely did not specifically guarantee freedom to worship a
god because they were aware that no one can know whose, of the innumerable
concepts of gods, is the true one, what a god is, and whether there is a god. SCIENCE GOD AND MYTH
November 9, 1993
Published In essence, I agree with David
Lindley ["Physicists, Come Down to Earth," Part II, October 27, 1993]. I have long contended that
science has been, for some time, confusing the expansion of mathematics
(language) about which Einstein, himself had doubts, with the expansion of
knowledge of "reality," just as theologians do using theistic
language. However, Lindley should know that
any logician can "prove" that " god exists" as readily as
one can prove that He does not. Verifying that "God
exists" is another matter. Furthermore, proving or verifying
God's existence or non-existence would no more undermine religion than
David Hume's contention that one cannot verify the existence of cause and effect
undermined science. After all, there are religions
that are not founded on the existence of a god. But more to the point, to think
that "proving," -- or verifying, for that matter -- "God's
non-existence" would undermine religion shows a lack of understanding of
man's inherent need of myth, which only education in critical and analytical
thinking can, though if insufficient won't, expel. ON POSITIVISM
August 6, 1994
No response In replying to my critics, "Philosophy
doesn't Prove solid Case," Newsday, August 5, 1994, I shall not address
extensively the issues "faith" and "morality" which both
critics have misconceived and misunderstood. Any freshman student of philosophy
knows the difference between "conditioned" (blind) faith which has an
absolute absence of reason and faith involving trust, confidence, etc., about
which one must eventually reason.
He knows, also, that morality emerges among
members of intelligent sentient beings in their interactions and behavior in
social intercourse. I shall address, rather, the
so-called illogic and inconsistencies of which I have been accused. In most introductory philosophy
courses, every freshman learns, "Positivism fails its own test."
If
Bob Fresco's article had been studied carefully, my two critics might have seen
this implied. They missed the point of the
article entirely. "Positivism fails its own
test since it is predicated on an act of faith that cannot be empirically
validated." EMPIRICAL?
Nowhere in the article
does the term "empirical" appear either as a synonym for or as a
necessary quality of "verification." Good teaching should among other
things, especially motivate students to learn how to use the tools and rules of
clear thinking, how to ask penetrating questions, how to recognize nonsense
language -- particularly statements that are true by definition -- and when to
demand verification of claims. Both critics used the very
principle of verification they so adamantly decried in their ill-advised rush to
verify the validity of their misplaced criticisms. My critics seem to have an
extremely limited definition of what constitutes the complexities of the
"scientific method" which involves art, math, theory, constructs,
predictability, observation, faith (i.e., trust in evidence), to mention a few. Moreover, competent philosophers
would not use a straw man argument to make a point. Theirs is a strange claim
inasmuch as it in no way diminishes the power of verification in the pursuit of
knowledge.
Of course such faith can't be empirically validated. Perhaps my critics meant that
"Positivism" can't be empirically validated.
If so, they are right
again. It is itself not empirical.
It is not physically possible to encounter
the infinite number of claims in need of empirical verification.
No principle by
its very nature can be empirically validated -- or, for that matter falsified.
Only empirical instances (or uttered claims) of the principle can be tested. From this principle emerges
another principle implied by my two critics:
"Any principle that fails its
own test is invalid."
But this principle, too, cannot be verified or falsified -- ad infinitum.
Where does this leave my critics? Or any of us? We may
as well give up the search for knowledge which requires verification of
epistemic claims.
Verification is not absolute nor necessarily empirical. It is
predicated on the available evidence which also is not necessarily physical. I do not accept the
"existence" of man-conceived principles except (in the philosophy of
John Dewey) as instruments for research.
It is my duty as a scholar to examine
each individual "instance" of a "principle" on its
individual merits. When a claim, be it "God exists," or "God does
not exist," is made, I do not resort to a "positivistic"
principle. Instead, I examine the conventions of language usage in the claim to
determine its epistemic significance. For example, the Bible states repeatedly
that God is unknowable. Then it goes on to tell us all about a personal God as
if the men who "wrote" the Bible had firsthand knowledge of
"Him." Any person who cannot see this inconsistency needs a course in
definitions. If the language has no epistemic significance, I do not reject it
as meaningless.
I do, however, reject it as epistemically meaningless. And, when
the Biblical scholars interpret the Bible to mean anything for everyone, it is
even more epistemically meaningless. Give your claims any meaning you
wish. Each of us does.
Believe what you will; but, do not conflate your meaning -- your belief --
with knowledge unless it is warranted, i.e., supported by
evidence. And, do not teach as knowledge what you cannot verify. It is self-evident that there are
impossible claims, wishful thinking and false beliefs.
We must not encourage an
"anything is possible -- requiring no evidence" mentality to permeate
the minds of those in pursuit of knowledge.
If we do, then Jews are not human,
blacks are subhuman, elephants grow on trees, and the gods of man's many and
diverse religions are in their heavens dispensing goodies and committing the
atrocities of Rowanda, terrorism, Nazism, the wars of man, the fires of
California, and the floods of the Mississippi. Though the principle of
verification may be hoisted on its own petard, each instance of a claim can be
shown to be 1) verified, 2) falsified, or 3) incapable of either. Experience has
shown this to be the case through the centuries ever since science stopped being
handmaiden to theism and religion.
And, if a claim cannot ever be tested, it has
no epistemic significance. Philosophers now recognize,
or at least should, that
the strength of the principle of verification lies not in whether it can be
absolutely verified but, in self-corrective scientific fashion, whether it can
continue to function as a tool to be applied in the pursuit of verification of individual claims. It
is this methodology that has brought respectability to philosophy which for so
long had been bereft of rigor and self criticism.
COMPETITION vs CRITICAL THINKING
December, 19, 1995 Published Cal Thomas ("Failing
Public Schools Need Competition," Newsday, December. 5, 1995) is right--for
the wrong reasons.
We don't need "competition." Rather, we need
critical thinking, the definitive definition of "education," and the
ability to recognize verifiable as opposed to unverifiable language, i.e.,
claims. Our children blindly accept what
they are taught by the schools, the media, their religious authorities, and
those parents whose lack of education and use of theistic language predisposes
their children to a non-critical and non-analytical mindset. It is impossible to undo the
damage imposed upon them by such uneducated, uncaring and non-disciplining
parents, the entertaining media, and a world dominated by religious authorities
spending billions of dollars (trillions over the centuries), propagating,
aiding, and abetting a HISTORY of false and unfalsifiable beliefs. When subjects like mathematics,
physics, history, English, and literature permeated with secular-theistic
language, are absorbed, parroted, and manipulated with little or no examination
of their underlying assumptions, "education" is little more than
"schooling," i.e., rote learning. Thomas resorts to the theistic
claims that he heaps scorn upon Lewis Lapham for condemning. He may be in
communication with the unverifiable "wisdom" of HIS god but this
merely accounts for his inability to understand the thoughts of reasoning minds
and that the arts, natural beauty, verifiable knowledge, and constructive
inquiry are sufficient sources for spiritual (uplifting and fulfilling)
development. The continued failure of our
schools is guaranteed 1) by his kind of "thinking," 2) by the
calcification of anti-rational and blind beliefs, 3) by the anti-intellectual
and conservative mindset of the nation, and 4) by the forces, social, political,
commercial, religious, and theistic which have a vested interest in keeping us
well schooled but uneducated.
AT STAKE IS THE HUMAN MIND AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF INQUIRY OR AS AN OBJECT FOR MANIPULATION. POPE IS RIGHT
Evolution and Faith Can coexist
November 8, 1996
Published My original letter of October 29, included
[I cannot understand why
Newsday gives so irrational a person as Cal Thomas (The Pope and Evolution:
Unholy Alliance, October 29, 1996), the power of the printed word.] [The Bible is not proof of
"in the beginning," however one may interpret the phrase of the
Biblical STORY (not theory) of creation.] Regarding Cal Thomas' column
chastising the Pope for his position on the theory of evolution ["the Pope
and Evolution: Unholy Alliance," Viewpoints, Oct. 29]: the Pope is to be
commended, not criticized, for his comments on evolution.
Evolution is supported
by instances of evidence far too numerous to enumerate.
What evidence can Thomas
offer that there is "a God [sic] who exists objectively"? Let Thomas ponder the fact that
no believer [including himself] worships a god [regardless of the
views of the pre-scientific men who, borrowing heavily from centuries-old extant
myths, wrote the Bible.]; rather, a believer worships his personal
conception of a god, whether the believer conceived it himself or he was
conditioned, as was Thomas, to accept the conception of others. As for Thomas' reference to
"arrogant science," he is grossly ignorant of science's most noble
characteristic; to wit, self-correction.
Would we [could] say the
same of theism. A RICH SECULARISM
March 1, 2000 Published I commend Bill Reel in his
defense of McCain's remarks about "religion's true meaning." (McCain
Delivers a Profound Message on Religion, Newsday, March 1,2000). Unfortunately, Reel goes off the
deep end when he declares ". . . separation of religion from public life is
sterile (my italics) secularism."
He apparently has a very sterile concept
of secularism and is completely ignorant of the meanings of the terms
'spiritual' and 'religion', neither of which is synonymous with "belief in
a god." One dictionary meaning of the
term 'spiritual' cites: "of the intellectual and higher endowments of the
mind." If Reel knew of the great and
many secularists of the world, and of history, one of whom was Einstein who
declared, "I am a deeply religious non-believer," " he would know that
they have made far greater contributions to the beauty, literature, art, music,
science, and progress of mankind than most theists have. [Added after
publication: Einstein said, also, "I cannot conceive of a personal
God who would directly influence the the actions of individuals, or would
directly sit in judgment on the creatures of his own creation."] ON EVOLUTION
May 16, 2000 No response Mark Parascandola's article,
"A New Pop Science Refrain: Evolution For What?" (Newsday, May 14,
2000), is seriously lacking in its commentary by its complete absence of
reference to the facts of Emergent Evolution, which underlies Darwinian
Evolution and everything else in the universe, when he declares, ". . .
genuine experiments in evolution are nearly impossible to conduct."
From my
readings, genuine evolution, both new and recurrent, is being performed
extensively in the laboratories of science. Moreover, when the right matter
combines in the right quantities, liquidity (a quality of water) emerges (i.e.,
evolves) from the two gasses, hydrogen and oxygen, in a two to one proportion.
Make
it a two to two proportion (same matter in different proportions), and the
propensity to make bottled blondes evolves. This function, of matter and
quantity, gives rise (i.e., evolves into) cat bodies (brains) and
"minds," monkey bodies and "minds," human bodies and
"minds," etc., along with the so-called survival (or lack of
survival), of instincts and other "personality" traits. Parascandola misreads Stephen
Gould who is correct when he says we are lucky. All instances of evolution,
Emergent or Darwinian, according to available evidence, occur randomly except
when intelligence imitates nature in the laboratory.
This is attested to by the
"infinite" diversity of forms of life, matter, and their qualities and
characteristics. THE BIG BANG
May 18, 2000
No response
Adrian Peracchio in
"Story of Universe's Fate Begins With a Shag Carpet," (Newsday, May
18, 2000), falls into the category of those who enjoy abusing language, giving
the impression that they are saying something meaningful, when he asks, "
What was there before the Big Bang?" Obviously, it was what big
banged!!!!! Does any intelligent person really believe, in this day and age,
that a big bang can be gotten out of NOTHING? Perhaps, however, he had his
tongue in his cheek? THE AMERICAN DREAM
August 27, 2000
No response
Howard I. Rine in
"Lieberman shows the way" (August 27) says, "A revolution has
been wrought; the workplace will finally reflect the multi-faceted American
dream." HOLD ON! NOT QUITE!
We have yet to see, and are unlikely to see
soon, an American citizen with a heritage as a Latino, a Muslim, an Asian, an
Indian, an ADMITTED Atheist or Agnostic, to mention a few, be considered for his
democratic and inalienable right to be nominated for the "workplace"
of President or Vice President of the United States.
A LOST MORAL FOUNDATION?
August 28, 2000 No response According to Newsday, Senator
Joseph Lieberman said that the nation has lost its moral foundation in part
because the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion has been confused
(my italics) to mean "freedom from religion" (August 28, 2000).
Assuming by "religion" he means theistic religion, as most people do,
he is, in a word, declaring all non-believers to be immoral!
If so, to confuse non -- believers (including Einstein, a self proclaimed "deeply religious
non-believer), and irreligion with immorality is the height of ignorance.
Some
of the most moral, creative, and productive people in history, including popes
and cultural Jews have been atheists and/or agnostics while uncountable numbers
of "religious" people have been grossly immoral in the name of their
gods. And may I add: Philip J. Rooney:
God and our Country, August 28, 2000, Newsday, DOESN'T GET IT!
Why should
millions of non-believers, in a professed democracy, be forced to have imposed
upon them, against their will, a non-verifiable "God"?
So long as our
theistically conditioned populous remains in the majority, there is NO danger of
theistic religion disappearing in America or for that matter in the world.
Blind
faith is a conditioned propensity among those who have chosen not to question
claims that have not been supported by evidence and has been the source of the
rise to power of unscrupulous leaders. SCIENCE vs RELIGION
July 26, 2001
No response
Both Reverend Randall B. Bosch
and Edward F. Strasser (Science and Religion are not Incompatible, July 26,
2001), miss the point related to James P. Pinkerton's article, "No Matter,
Science will Win -- Viewpoints, July 17. Neither seems to understand the
difference between "religion" and "theistic religion." It is true that when religion's
pursuits are the "goal of alleviating of suffering, disease and pain,"
as cited by Reverend Bosch, Science and religion are not incompatible.
However,
it is also true that Science and THEISTIC religion ARE incompatible. When theistic religion attributes
to an UNVERIFIABLE, and according to the Bible, UNKNOWABLE and INCORPOREAL god,
the proprietorial rights to the ethical and social judgments of man, and equates
life of a stem cell which is barely above the status of a conglomerate of
molecules, with being a human being, which requires a history of human
experiences, then it is encroaching upon the domain of science where theistic
religion is incompetent to make judgments. Strasser says "on the other
hand, when people use scientific ideas to oppose religion, they also lose."
He may be right -- sometimes. But when scientific ideas (i.e., philosophy of
science) are used to oppose THEISTIC language which is unfalsifiable (i.e.,
unverifiable) and is the foundation of theistic religion, then science does win.
9/11 MEMORIAL
January 31, 2002 Published Osama bin Laden's terrorism
against the United States, in the name of his god, was, in fact, an attack
committed against the peoples of the world represented by those so evilly
murdered on September 11, 2001.
This atrocity should never be forgotten any more
than should the Holocaust. According to news reports, former
Mayor Giuliani and Mayor Bloomberg have differing opinions as to what should be
erected on the Trade Center 16 acres of hallowed ground.
These opinions need not
be ignored or become fractious. There is a reasonable solution that should
ameliorate the possibility for compromise. Let the "twin towers"
be rebuilt as an act of defiance against terrorism and its horrific and
saddening affect upon the peoples of all nations. Reserve the ground level
completely and only as a memorial to the fallen lives at the World Trade Center
and environs. But, on the walls, engrave all names of the fallen in large
lettering with perhaps short summaries of the lives of those murdered or wounded
including the rescuers and heroes involved in the aftermath. Such a memorial will forever
serve as a permanent reminder to anyone working at or visiting the Center, of
the cost to humanity such forces of evil can and have wrought. BIBLICAL STORY vs THEORY
March 18, 2002
No Response
John Floresta in his letter,
"A Big Question," March 16, does not understand the deep chasm that
exists between Biblical Creation STORIES and THEORY.
The former, absent a method
for acquiring knowledge and unsupportable by verifiable evidence, were conceived
by pre-scientific minds. The men who wrote the Bible borrowed heavily
from centuries-old extant tales and myths.
THEORY in general and the
"THEORY" of Evolution in particular, however, must be and are
supported by instances of verifiable evidence too numerous to enumerate. Moreover, Floresta erroneously
synonymizes science with the physical applications of technology. He also confuses his confidence
(read: deep, blind, and conditioned conviction), "in the veracity and
literal understanding of scriptures," with his mistaken claim that he
understands the complexities of science, its methods, and principles.
Even professional theists cannot
agree upon or offer evidence for the assumed "veracity and literal"
understanding he claims he has. STONING WOMEN
August 22, 2002
Published
Newsday is to be commended for
its editorial on behalf of Amina Lawal (Nigerian mother's Death-by-Stoning Must
Be Halted, Aug. 21,2002).
What is distressing, however, is
the appalling absence of attention by the UN, news media, its columnists,
women's organizations, and the world's public in general.
For nations which mouth about
human rights and are so openly enamored of sexual freedom to sit silently by,
except for one lonely editorial, speaks mightily about their values.
To stone even a dog, here in
America, raises the hackles of animal lovers. But to stone a woman -- what the
hell -- "She's a nobody."
Any nation that resorts to such a
brutal and murderous act under the guise of its religiously supported and
outdated laws ought to be condemned by civilized nations.
How is it possible for people of
the world, who raise a hue and cry about the most inane matters occurring in the
entertainment and sports worlds, stand by silently while this atrocity is in the
making? What has happened to our concepts of morality that we do not, in
outrage, rise to the defense of this woman?
The silence is deafening!
TEN COMMANDMENT MONUMENT
October 16, 2002? No Response James P. Pinkerton seems to be
missing the larger implications for our nation in his column, "Ruling on
Monument Defies Common Sense," Newsday: September 2, 2003.
He declares, "Nobody was
being hurt by the presence of the . . ." monument.
The term 'hurt' is given many
meanings. Atheists, agnostics, and even advocates of different religions, have
attested to the harm of the monument's public presence.
Pinkerton declares, also,
"But the rule of common sense has been defeated." There is no such
"rule." One man's common sense leads to another's argument.
He speaks of attacking
". . .the historic culture and character of the United States."
It has
no single culture. Our democracy and its many and diverse cultures are its
character. The Ten Commandments are
certainly worthy, though insufficient, moral advice.
They are, however, open to
interpretation even though they are "set in stone." But one cannot
read them and not attribute them to a theistic source.
Public icons of THEISTIC
religions cause political, racial, and religious divisions -- as is daily attested
to by the news media. Rather than whittle our constitutional rights, "inch
by inch" by unrecognized, deceptive, and/or innocent-appearing activities
or methods to a greater weakening of Separation of Church and State than has
already been accomplished, such icons should be relegated to the privacy of our minds, religious edifices, and homes.
If not, politics in religion will continue
to lead us down the slippery slope of erosion of our multi-religious freedoms. COLONIZING "THE HEAVENS"
February, 10, 2003
No
response
William F. Reilly's response,
"Fool's Paradise," 2-10-03, to James P. Pinkerton's column, shows an
absolute ignorance of the consequences of not colonizing "the
heavens." I for one prefer the comforts of massive "encapsulated ---
habitats," underground cities, whatever to dinosaurian-like extinction of
the human species should the earth be unfortunate enough to be impacted by an
astral body so massive that even our most powerful bombs could not shatter it. DON'T COUNT GOD OUT
February 14, 2003
No response
Dave smith's comment,
"Don't count God Out," 2-14-1993, shows that his "education"
has not been advanced much beyond that of the male writers of "the
books," i.e., the Bible. He is unable to distinguish
between the creditability of the "theory" of evolution, supported by
countless facts, and the STORY of a god's proclaimed existence supported by none
-- other than the poetic language written, at least almost two thousand years
ago, by a "handful" of pre-scientific and highly creatively
imaginative writers in conflict with each other. SPIRITUALITY
April 20, 2003
Published
Though theologian, Mary
Ford-Grabowsky,
has correctly spoken of the value of religion and its loss of spirituality
("Where Is Religion's Spirituality," Newsday, April 20, 2003), she
seems to be completely unaware of the enormous meaningfulness to our lives
contributed by atheists and agnostics throughout the ages. When she states that
"...atheism and agnosticism had deprived life of meaning...," she
seems to be unaware that life, being an accidental emergent of the elements of
nature, has no meaning until individual human beings give meaning to their
lives. Albert Einstein, declaring
himself to be "a deeply religious non-believer," spoke of the depth of
his spirituality experienced in his awe of the mysteries of the universe. THE CHURCH SCANDAL
September 2, 2003
Published
In defense of columnist Sheryl
McCarthy against William Donohue's response to her column ["Column Reflects
Bigotry," Letters, Oct. 30], I ask him: How many of the 99.3 percent of
priests who are "not being questioned about sexual misconduct" adhered
to the white collar black wall of silence within the Church hierarchy?
AMEND THE PLEDGE?
March 31, 2004
No
response
I heartily agree with Pete
Hoegel's astute observation and proposal to "amend the Pledge,"
"More Leeway," March 31, 2004.
However, if we are to preserve the
poetry and semblance of prayer of the Pledge, it would be more readily
acceptable to insert merely "under gods."
SOURCE OF OUR BELIEFS
MAY 17, 2004
No response
I admire Bob Hoffman, for his
response to "Pat Tillman's beliefs," Newsday, May 12, 04, wherein he
states "...who arrive at their set of beliefs in much the same way as those
with religious convictions."
He may be
correct about atheists. As for agnostics, however, they derive their "set of beliefs" through study, education, (as opposed to
schooling), and reason.
Believers have been
indoctrinated, i.e., conditioned by theistic authorities, their parents, and
society to believe theistic language that cannot be tested, verified, or
falsified, from the day they were born as non-believing babies.
THE CHURCH
June 19, 2004
No response
I found
Timothy J. Gleason's
response, June 19, 2004, "Church has right to views," to "From
church to private club?" to be either disingenuous or, at best, naive. One has to be incapable of
thinking critically not to recognize the creeping and expanding intrusions of
religion into governmental affairs, always under Republican Stewardship, over
the past few decades. What I find interesting, however,
is Gleason's use of the phrase "the church" with apparently little
understanding of its meaning. "The views," i.e., the
so-called "teachings," of the legend of Christ and the rules and
concepts of "the church" are, in fact the teachings of the very small
minority of those in positions of influence and power over the centuries who
have imposed these "teachings" on billions of Catholics throughout the
world.
JUDICIAL POWER
December 8, 2004
Phone called received, not
published
Judge Sol Wachtler did not “miss the point,” in Newsday, “Opinion,
December 1.”
It is Michael Egnor
who misses the point in “Judicial Power, Newsday, December 8,” who does not
understand that words do not have inherent meanings.
They have only the meanings human minds attribute to them.
Our forefathers apparently had the wisdom Egnor seems to
lack, when they signed the Constitution that was written in terms requiring
interpretation related to the mores of a given epoch as opposed to those of the
18th century.
They
intended the Constitution to be a document, not of absolutes, but as a guide, a
“living document,” that can relate to the changing mores resulting from the
evolution, not only of technology but also, and especially, of ideas.
Otherwise, no provision for amendments, i.e., living documents, would
have been an essential part of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not “mean" what
conventional usage of the 18th century "seems"
to say.
Lawyers and
politicians of the 21st century interpret the words, i.e., give them meanings, according to their
beliefs, convictions, prejudices, and political inclinations, to apply to the
judicial issues of an evolving society.
Hence,
a living Constitution is an absolute necessity.
Our forefathers had the wisdom to recognize that fact in view of their
inability to predict or even conceive what the moral, legal, societal, cultural,
and judicial problems of today and future centuries might be.
To believe otherwise is to denigrate their intelligence.
SCIENCE VS RELIGION
March 11, 2005 No response To my utter
astonishment, Newsday's editorial page shows its ignorance of the crucial
difference between science and religion, "Awe Together," March 11,
2005, ". . . what -- or Who -- behind the universe and its abundant
wonders." Religion has no
method for acquiring knowledge. It speculates, proclaims edicts, and
indoctrinates with its unverifiable and unfalsifiable theistic language; i.e.;
it conditions our children's minds.
Through the ages, its dogmas, rising
out of the primitive beliefs of troglodytes, has caused divisiveness
throughout the world and the history of humanity, as they are still doing today,
even as they brought and bring comfort to the uninformed.
Science, to the
contrary, with a self-corrective method, despite the probabilistic nature of all
knowledge and the theories that have fallen by the wayside, has helped mankind
immeasurably in spite of the misuse of its discoveries by our world
leaders. It has proved, over the centuries, that its knowledge and its
methods work as shown by its achievements and the predicable recurrence of its
evidence.
Peter King and
Pope Benedict XIV April 26, 2005 Phone call received, not published
Are both Representative Peter
King and Pope Benedict XVI, "With This Pope, etc," Newsday, April 26,
2005, ignorant of or willfully blind to the fact that, according to available
evidence, absolutes do not exist?
Are they also willfully blind to the
fact that the espousing of belief in absolutes, often fractures a relationship
with anyone with whom one may disagree and that throughout the history of
theistic religions and the world such deep conviction in the existence of
absolutes has been and still is responsible for the behavior of terrorists,
extremists, anti-abortionists, anti-gays, anti-agnostics, anti-atheists, even
some politicians, as well as diverse individual religious believers?
Both King and
the Pope have a moral responsibility to accept the evidence, and to use their
powers and influence to teach the people of the world to espouse beneficial
values AS IF they are absolutes, and to behave in a manner that will uplift
humanity rather than pit us against each other because of beliefs in
absolutes.
Intelligent Design
September 4, 2005 September
No response
Newsday is to be commended for its stand regarding
Intelligent Design. This disguised
form of Creationism, devoid of evidence, is old candy with a new color or, more
to the point, a centuries-old untestable idea dressed in new nomenclature.
Until the governments of the world demand that the authorities running
our schooling systems insist that teachers be required to instruct our students,
thoroughly, about the difference between verifiable language and unverifiable
language, generations within the unforeseeable future will continue to believe
in pie in the sky allowing those in government, as George Orwell prophesied in 1984,
and in religion, to continue to fool the public.
PUT EVOLUTION TO
THE TEST
September 15, 2005 September
Phone call received, not published
How naive of Frank J. Russo, Jr., and Valerie Spiller, “Put evolution to the
Test,” Newsday, Sept. 15, 2005, 1) to suggest that it has never been tested,
and 2) to espouse the need of vermin in the ecological system in defense of
Intelligent Design. Just how intelligent is the Intelligence, of
Intelligent Design, that is incapable of creating an ecological system without
the need of vermin, not to mention evil, suffering, misery, etc.?
More to the point, it is outrageous that the proponents of Intelligent
Design first, distance themselves from Creationism, since the existential claims
for both are almost identical, and second, insist that Intelligent Design,
without presenting verifiable evidence, is a scientific inquiry into their claim
that Evolution does not explain all the issues of the advent of life and the
universe. Clearly to maintain such a position blazingly
exposes their ignorance of history and of the open-ended and self-corrective
nature and methods of science and the vacuity of their claims from a linguistic
point of view. They are blind to
facts of biology acquired over the centuries and to the investigative
characteristics of all branches of science.
They are the monkeys on the backs of the scientists
and philosophers who have long been, and still are, concerned with these ancient
questions only now being re-discovered by proponents of Intelligent Design. Long before Darwin, his contemporary, Alfred
Russell Wallace, their predecessors, including J. B. Lamarck, and their
opponents wrote of their differences as to how living species evolved, the
concept, if not the terms, was born at least six centuries BC.
Even as the Greeks were creating their gods in the image of man, there
were thinkers pondering not only the evolution of species but especially
Emergent Evolution that investigates both the appearance of life
and the evolution of all things out of which life does or does not
emerge, an issue to which proponents give little attention or even recognition.
I can only conclude that these Johnny-come-lately “thinkers” have
resurrected, in phoenix fashion, the Trojan Horse of history in order to
undermine the methods and integrity of science in the pursuit of truth
and knowledge.
Is
Public Expression Of Faith A Right?
October 19, 2005
Phone call received, not Published
In regard to the comments of Ronnie Lago and Christina Prufita, “A Public Expression Of Faith Is Our Right,” Newsday,
October 19, 2005, would they admit that a banner displaying one’s lack of faith in THEIR personal unverifiable god, whose “acts of god” permit such
suffering and evil throughout history and the world,” displayed on a public building, to be “our right” also?
ACLU Should Display Religious Tolerance
December
3, 2005 Phone call received, not
published
As a Social Studies teacher,
Thomas E. Dennelly’s comments, Newsday, December 2, 2005, “ACLU should
display religious tolerance,” seem to belie his understanding of the force
politics plays for the purpose of acquiring votes and anything relating to
government. Thomas Jefferson,
according to some sources, was not a devout believer.
He was a politician fully aware of what would be accepted by a nation of
people, particularly other politicians, predominantly well conditioned to the
concept of a divine entity.
The
Declaration of Independence was not a governing document.
It was only what the title states, implying one of the chief reasons for
the exodus from Europe: freedom of religion that necessarily includes “from theistic
religion.” I am sympathetic with Dennelly’s unhappiness with
the ACLU’s selectivity, ignoring the danger of supporting ideas undermining
our democracy. However, such a
stance is no reason for supporting the conditioning of accepting unverifiable
ideas. Dennelly makes no mention of the
fact that our governing document, the Constitution of the United States, offers
no reference of an unverifiable divine entity.
Nor does it offer any implication of a relationship between the
Constitution and an unverifiable divine entity. Rather it emphatically states, “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion. . . .” Notice the term, “respecting.”
Is Dennelly
insisting, despite the Constitution, that the political decision to place the
term, “God,” a theistic-religion term, obviously in a Christian dominated
nation, in our salute and on our money, is not respecting the
biblical god? Where in the
Constitution does one find the consent of our forefathers to do that?
Is Dennelly unaware that Laws are man-made and do not
have to be written? They are known
as “unwritten laws.” And an
unwritten law, by any other name, is still a law so long as the citizens of this
nation are compelled to accept it.
ON TEACHING MATHEMATICS
Phone call received, not
Published
I
could not agree more with Alfred S. Posamentier: Add math at home where it
counts in kids lives, Newsday, April 14, 2006, when he emphasizes the importance
of encouraging the study of math at home and in the schools.
I would add, college as well. Overlooked,
however, is the issue of how Math is taught.
In short, it is taught in rote-learning fashion, comparable to
grade-school arithmetic, as the manipulation of symbols with little to no
understanding of its character and function as a language. Posamentier
is correct when he speaks of the “power and beauty” of mathematics. But let us not forget, “Beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder.” It is true that most
parents and students find little use for math, beyond grade-school arithmetic,
in their lives considering the plethora of concerns, pressure to survive
economically, interests, and calculators thrust upon us in today’s world. If
our teachers of math continue to teach the subject as rote learning with no
concern for emphasizing its function as a linguistic tool in its relation to the
“physical” world and our perceptions of it, I see little hope of increasing
interest in it. It should
especially be taught as an examination of its role as a language about
our perceptions of the world showing clearly that geometric figures and
mathematical symbols in general are ideas and do not, in fact, exist in the
“real” world. This has been clearly stated among many great thinkers and
especially by Albert Einstein, G. H. Hardy, and Bertrand Russell.
If Math were taught in this manner it would certainly
pique the interests of those who are in college for a true education beyond
merely satisfying their economic style of life and the needs of Corporate
America. Our students would learn
the very important fact that not only the language of math but every other form
of language when abused, particularly unfalsifiable (theistic) language, has a
profound effect in creating the horrific problems that plague our world.
Consequently, language should never be accepted at face value as
indicators of truth and knowledge when they are presumed to relate to our
perceptions of reality.
ACTIVIST JUDGES
JULY
14, 2006 Published July 23, 06
slightly revised with deletions Raymond J. Keating in his
diatribe against “activist judges,” refers to “Gay Marriage” in his July
10, 06, Newsday column entitled, “Marriage ruling showed proper restraint.”
He draws an analogy with Justice Byron White’s statement on the
problem of abortion rights, “This issue, for the most part, should be left to the
people and to the political process the people have devised to govern their
affairs.” History shows that Justice
White's conclusion is doomed to failure.
Inescapably, the general public and those in
government involved in creating, judging, or interpreting what laws will
determine how we are to be governed are influenced by their secular, theistic,
or emotional convictions and political inclinations as well as societal and
parental upbringing.
Despite a majority that is opposed to gay
marriage, in this day and age it should be clear that laws conceived in an
evolving culture will require change as its intellectual temper improves, and
its prejudices and bigotry become less severe.
[deleted: Our forefathers were amply aware that they should not write laws,
absolute in their meaning that could not be “adjusted” to “fit” a
society beyond their ability to conceive in their unforeseeable future.]
A study of history, human nature, and the negative
aspects and interpretations so blatantly evident in a money-driven political
process, seem to have eluded Keating’s thought processes.
If he had his way, we could still be buying and selling slaves and women
would not have the right to vote.
For all its capacity for being wrong, the very
nature of the human process for determining the laws we are to be governed by
demands the intelligent contributions of “activist judges.”
[deleted: John Staurt Mill had it right: someone has to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority, “the people”-- as well as against the minority. If not “activist judges,” who?]
NATURE vs SAME-SEX RIGHTS
JULY
15, 2006
No response
Msgr. Daniel S. Hamilton in, “Nature says same sex rights
not ok,” Newsday, July 15, 2006, shows not only an abysmal ignorance of the
nature of nature but also the role of sex in nature.
He claims, “It is nature, not opinion that dictates marriage as
exclusively a man-woman relationship.”
To personify nature he fails to understand, or
ignores, that nature is nothing more than the existence of physical things in
the universe and their necessary interactions with each other.
It does not and cannot “dictate.”
There is nothing in nature that gives heterosexual entities exclusive
rights to social privileges, human needs, or the definition of marriage.
All are subject to human
opinion. Nor can nature
“dictate” that a child will be nurtured and raised by its biological
parents, one parent, foster parents, or same sex parents.
All
of nature’s creatures have sex in one form, or another. If
the Monsignor would bother to study the history of sexual behavior throughout
nature’s domain, he would discover that same-gender sex, and/or commitment, is
not one of its “prohibitions.”
To attribute intention and deliberateness to
nature, and to equate the possibility for propagation of children by opposite
sexes, as a rationale for a social invention called “marriage,” he seems to
be unaware that pre-Homo sapiens sexual relationships existed, other than for
the purpose of propagation, long before social strictures and marriage rituals
were imposed -- and according to a preponderance of evidence, since.
Moreover, the natural biological urge for sex should not be equated
merely with a desire to propagate children.
It is, after all, a natural and beautiful expression of love and
commitment.
Even Monsignor’s god did not make marriage a
requisite for the propagation of children when, “male and female He created
them,” and told them to “Be fruitful and multiply;”-- through incest and
without the ritual of marriage.