Santa Barbara Humanist Society Newsletter for May 2001

• Meetings
• Membership Notes
• Upcoming Events
• Social Scene
• Web Site of the Month
• Getting to Know You - "Parkie"

• Editorial
• Name That Philosopher
• Miscellaneous Letters

We meet on the third Saturday of every month at 3.00 PM at Jefferson Hall, 1525 Santa Barbara Street, Santa Barbara, California (except in June and December when we have our biannual Solstice parties). It is not necessary to be a member to attend our meetings Everyone who is receptive to Humanist ideas and ideals is welcome. The views and opinions expressed in the Bulletin are the writer's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society. Society Board Meetings are usually held on the Monday prior to each monthly Society meeting. All members are welcome. See Upcoming Events

We are pleased to acknowledge the addition of FOURTEEN new members to our society, namely:

Eva Carasso

Lois Crowell

Mathew & Linda Hughes

Ronald Koegler

Francine MacMillan

Kathleen Maloney

Robert Perry

Diane Peterson

Mickey Plaut

LeeAnne Randman

Lois Rankin

Mariette Risley

Joann T. Rounds

The monthly Board of Director's meeting will be held at Art Brody's home, 1125 Camino Del Rio, 5/14/01. All members welcome.

Our next Society meeting will be on April 21st and our speaker will be Faye Girsh, the National President of the Hemlock Society.

We survived Round One! Well, of course there was never any doubt of that, but hopefully some more details will be interesting.

About six weeks ago, I received an e-mail from Mike Giuliano, Chairman of the Communications Studies Department at Westmont College asking if one or more Humanists would like to visit his class to discuss the Theistic/Christian viewpoint (for those who may not know, Westmont is a small, non-denominational Christian college here in Santa Barbara).

The class teaches "Advocacy" and, according to Mike, is successful if the students learn to be civil when engaged in advocacy discussions. Civility is measured by the ability to engage in a discussion and leave feeling that you:

$ Articulated your perspective with clarity and persuasiveness
$ Engaged empassionately in the discussion
$ Left your "co-arguer" feeling as if his opinions and feelings had also been heard.

The course proceeds by debating a subject (this year it was whether to legalize drugs) with the students having to argue both sides of the issue. As sort of a "final" however, Mike brought us in so the students would have to face people who differed from them on very basic issues. We certainly met that criterion.

Of course, I accepted the invitation on the Society's behalf, then decided I better bring the along more firepower so Ellen came too. The two-hour discussion took place on Monday, April 23rd with just the two of us facing 48 committed Christians.

Mike began the session by introducing us by name and repeating to the class that we were to engage in a civil discussion of the reasonableness of the Theistic/Christian world view, then simply went to the back of the room.

That left 50 people just sitting there looking at each other. So we primed the pump a bit by presenting some principles of Humanism which elicited a few questions, which prompted a few more comments and we were off to the races. For the next two hours both sides raised points, asked questions, probed for evidence, staked out positions on an extremely wide variety of topics. It was lively, engaging, passionate and - yes - civil. Both of us thoroughly enjoyed ourselves and it seems the students did too. In a post-meeting e-mail from Mike, he said he was delighted with the session and asked us to come back again. So all-in-all, it was worth the effort.

There are several ways to characterize the responses of the students to our questions. For example, when discussing the Bible, Ellen asked about a "loving God" who would order the bashing of babies heads. Of course, one immediate response was, "That's taken out of context" which is an almost preprogrammed answer we have heard and read many times. We could never get them to specify exactly WHAT context would be appropriate. Other students weren't so glib. At one point, someone indicated that the violence in the Old Testament bothered her too and she did not have a good answer for it. I respect that type of answer.

Another set of responses indicated that logic, reasoned discussions of the Christianity were just not relevant to their beliefs because their whole emotional world revolved around a personal, intimate and unquestioned relationship with Jesus. One notable example was a young woman who extolled the blessings of an all-loving God as evidenced by sacrificing his only son for our sins. I shot back at her by asking if she really thought it was "all-loving" to torture and kill your own son. While she tried to respond, her face had such a painful expression I just could not continue that particular discussion.

Ellen and I agree that one of the most memorable comments of the day followed my response to the question, "What would it take for you to believe?" I said I did not have a complete answer, but that at least one essential element would be a statement of principles that was unambiguous, internally consistent, coherent and "crystal clear" (obviously meant to contrast with the Bible). One student presented a fairly lengthy statement that because the Bible was prone to errors and inconsistencies, she could relate to it as a human being because she was not perfect either. She said she would not be able to identify with any document with the characteristics I would require.

Of course, no one was converted, but we had fun and it was refreshing to engage with the younger generation.

But there is more yet to come. You may recall that last Fall I had a more formal debate in a SBCC philosophy class on "Critical Thinking." I have been invited back this semester. The class will take place at 7 pm on May 17th and the topic will be "whether or not the Old Testament provides an accurate account of the history of the universe, the earth, and humankind." I will debate the same Jewish guy I met last time and I am sure this topic is his and, of course, reflects his own religious perspective. I must admit I find this topic to absolutely astonishing, especially coming from a person who is obviously smart, well-spoken and well-read. Is he really going to argue that, for existence, "the flood" is a real, historical event? Ellen thinks there may be a snake in the grass (in the tree?) here somewhere so I better be careful.

Last time, each participant was allowed to bring a very limited number of observers, so if you would like to get a first-hand look at the action, let me know.

Following is a letter I sent to the News-Press about a week ago concerning a 1150 word essay printed in the paper last Sunday written by Mr. Dan Bellarue, entitled "Controversy should be dealt with fairly". I'm doubting the paper will print my response, but I sure can (Your Editor). I e-mailed a copy of this to Bill Edelen and received a wonderful response and his desire to have the new owner of the paper (Wendy McCaw) read it.