informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/NULLIFIDIAN/echo9405

1080 lines
60 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

===================================================================
*******************************************************************
===================================================================
____
/ ) ___ ()
/ __ * / / ^
/ / / / ) / _/_ ___ /__ / \
__| / / / / / /___) / ) \/ \
(_/ \____(__/___(___)___/_____/______(________/________/\___ )
_____
/ ) /
/ _ / _ _
>-- / ) /___ / (_)___
/ / / ) / /
(_______)___(___)___/ (____(____/
===================================================================
******The*E-Zine*of*Atheistic*Secular*Humanism*and*Freethought*****
===================================================================
###################################################################
########## Volume I, Number I ***A Collector's Item!***##########
###################### ISSN 1198-4619 ###########################
########################## May 1994 ###############################
###################################################################
In the mythology and symbolism of our name, "Lucifer" is not to be
confused with ha-Satan, the mythological source of evil. Lucifer's
ancient identity was a bearer of light, the morning star, and it is as
such that this journal intends to publish.
As the religion virus depends on obscurity, obfuscation, confusion,
irrationality and darkness in order to flourish, it is natural that it
would see light as an enemy. Rational, skeptical inquiry has ever been
the enemy of all religions and is ultimately fatal to all gods.
The purpose of this magazine is to provide a source of articles dealing
with many aspects of humanism. Humanists have been vilified by the
religious as immoral. Apparently, the most horrible thing they can think
of is an atheist.
As we find their values, such as faith in the non-existent, obedience to
the imaginary and reverence of the ridiculous, repulsive, we adopt the
name of their ancient antagonist with pride.
We are atheistic as we do not believe in the actual existence of any
supernatural beings or any transcendental reality.
We are secular because the evidence of history and the daily horrors in
the news show the pernicious and destructive consequences of allowing
religions to be involved with politics and nationalism.
We are humanists and we focus on what is good for humanity, in the real
world. We will not be put off with offers of pie in the sky, bye and
bye.
==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><==
|| Begging portion of the Zine ||
==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><==
This is a "sharezine." There is no charge for receiving this, and there
is no charge for distributing copies to any electronic medium. Nor is
there a restriction on printing a copy for use in discussion. You may
not charge to do so, and you may not do so without attributing it to the
proper author and source.
If you would like to support our efforts, and help us acquire better
equipment to bring you more and better articles, you may send money to
Greg Erwin at: 29, ch Grimes / Aylmer, Qc / J9J 1H4 / CANADA.
==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><==
|| End of Begging portion of the Zine ||
==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><==
Articles will be welcomed IF:
(
they are emailed to: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA; or,
sent on diskette to me at the above Aylmer address in any format that an
IBM copy of WordPerfect can read; ) and
they don't require huge amounts of editing; and
I like them.
If you wish to receive a subscription, email a simple request to
ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA, with a clear request for a subscription. It
will be assumed that the "From:" address is where it is to be sent. We
will automate this process as soon as we know how.
1994-05-08 Yes, please DO make copies! (*)
Please DO send copies of Lucifer's Echo to anyone who might be
interested.
The only limitations are:
You must copy the whole document, without making any changes to it.
You do NOT have permission to copy this document for commercial purposes.
The contents of this document are copyright (c) 1994, Greg Erwin and are
on deposit at the National Library of Canada
/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\
Shameless advertising and crass commercialism:
\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/
Atheistic self-stick Avery(tm) address labels. Consisting of
180 different quotes, 30 per page, each label 2 5/8" x 1".
This leaves three 49 character lines available for your own
address, phone number, email, fax or whatever. Each sheet is
US$2, the entire set of 6 for US$11; 2 sets for US$20.
Indicate quantity desired. Print address clearly, exactly as
desired. Order from address in examples below. Laser
printed, 8 pt Arial, with occasional flourishes.
_________________________________________________
|"Reality is that which, when you stop believing |
|in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick] |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley |
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA |
|________________________________________________|
_________________________________________________
|"...and when you tell me that your deity made |
|you in his own image, I reply that he must be |
|very ugly." [Victor Hugo, writing to clergy] |
|Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley |
|Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada Ph: (613) 954-6128 |
| email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA |
|________________________________________________|
Other stuff for sale:
Certificate of Baptism Removal and Renunciation of Religion.
Have your baptism removed, renounce religion, and have a neat
8" x 11" fancy certificate, on luxury paper, suitable for
framing, to commemorate the event! Instant eligibility for
excommunication! For the already baptism-free: Certificate
of Freedom from Religion. An official atheistic secular
humanist stamp of approval for only $10!
Poster 8x11: WARNING! This is a religion free zone!
All religious vows, codes, and commitments are null & void
herein. Please refrain from contaminating the ideosphere with
harmful memes through prayer, reverence, holy books,
proselytizing, prophesying, faith, speaking in tongues or
spirituality. Fight the menace of second-hand faith!
Humanity sincerely thanks you!
Tastefully arranged in large point Stencil on luxury paper.
Likewise $10.
4. Ingersoll poster: "When I became convinced that the
universe is natural" speech excerpt. 11"x17" See the June
1994 issue of the _Echo_ for full text. $15
Order from the same address as above.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-TABLE OF CONTENTS-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1. Mary at Medjugorje: A Critical Inquiry by Hector Avalos
2. WHY I AM NOT A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST by Larry Reyka
3. Equality by Greg Erwin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
__________________________________________________________________
|From Free Inquiry, (ISSN 0272-0701) published quarterly by the |Council
for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH, Inc.). |Domestic
subscription rates are: US$25 for one year, US$43 for |two years and
US$59 for three years. Back issues are available. |Address all
subscription enquiries to: Free Inquiry, Box 664, |Buffalo, NY 14226-
0064. Phone (716) 636-7571. FAX (716) 636-1733. Tell them you saw it
here.
|_________________________________________________________________
Mary at Medjugorje:
A Critical Inquiry
Hector Avalos
Medjugorje, once a sleepy little town in the province of Bosnia-
Herzegovina (old Yugoslavia), became in the 1980s one of the world's most
visited destinations, attracting perhaps as many as fifteen million
visitors. The attraction had nothing to do with amusement parks or hotel
casinos, but with claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus in Christian
tradition, was making special appearances in Medjugorje. Cover stories
have been published about the phenomenon in Life (July 1991), Time
(December 30, 1991), and other respected publications, which are not
always as critical or accurate as they should be.
For the past few years I have been studying reports and videotapes of
supposed Marian apparition experiences, and I have spoken to some of the
people who claimed to have witnessed them or who believe in them. The
most frequent defense of Marian apparitions among believers whom I have
encountered usually revolves around one central question: How can a
group of seemingly honest and apparently normal people report seeing Mary
if she is not appearing there? Other defenders point out that a
"scientific" team has supported the authenticity of the apparitions at
Medjugorje. Ironically, it is the dramatic events themselves at
Medjugorje that support a nonsupernatural explanation.
The Medjugorje reports are different from those of earlier sightings of
Mary in a number of respects. First, written accounts have been produced
while the series of apparitions were still occurring. Second, most of
the principal witnesses are still alive and have made themselves
available for extensive interviews. More important, modern video and
audio equipment has recorded the visionaries as they are supposedly
experiencing their visions. Finally, the visionaries have submitted to
various medical and scientific tests such as encephalograms during their
experiences.
The first reported apparitions at Medjugorje began on June 24, 1981, when
six Croatian-speaking children claimed that the Virgin Mary had appeared
to them on a hill. They were met with initial skepticism and harassment
from some authorities. Surprisingly, one of the most vocal skeptics was
Pavao Zanic, their own bishop, who, according to one transcript of an
interview, declared, "In my opinion Medjugorje is the greatest deceit and
swindle in the history of the Church." In particular, Zanic complained
that the apparition stories were part of a conspiracy instigated by a
group of popular Franciscans who have protested efforts to replace them
with secular clergy in the parish of Medjugorje.
Despite the political conflicts caused by the apparitions within the
local diocese, and despite the fact that the Catholic church has not
officially affirmed the authenticity of the visions, the number of
pilgrims who have gone to Medjugorje since 1981 has been placed by some
at over fifteen million. This number of Marian devotees at Medjugorje
far surpasses the believers of the Jesus apparition stories of early
Christianity. Only the recent civil war in Yugoslavia has discouraged
massive visits. The `Scientific' Investigation of Henri Joyeux
According to his own account, Henri Joyeux, a surgeon and a professor of
oncology in the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier, France, carried out
an extensive battery of tests in four separate missions between March and
December of 1984. Joyeux and Father Ren Laurentin, an ardent Marian
apologist and historian, then synthesized their findings in the
definitive work Scientific and Medical Studies on the Apparitions at
Medjugorje.
Joyeux concluded that the visionaries had no mental illness of any sort.
The apparitions are not sleep or dream or hallucination in the medical or
pathological sense of the word. This is scientifically excluded by the
electro-encephalogram and by clinical observation. He also excludes "any
element of deceit." Since Joyeux could not find any condition that he
would label "pathological," he concludes, "We are dealing with a
perception which is essentially objective both in its causality and in
its scope." As to the cause of the youngsters' experience, he says, "The
most obvious answer is that given by the visionaries who claim to meet
the Virgin Mary, Mother of God." In sum, Laurentin and Joyeux conclude
that there is no scientific or natural explanation available to account
for the reports of the visionaries. More important, they conclude that
the absence of any condition labeled as "pathological" is evidence that
the reported experience of the visionaries is authentically supernatural.
Can `Normal' Persons Report Seeing and Hearing Non-Occurring Events?
Contrary to the conclusions of Laurentin and Joyeux, abundant and
empirically verifiable evidence and experiments demonstrate that persons
with no known pathological conditions can report hearing and seeing
events that are not occurring. Psychological experiments show that such
reports of non- occurring events are part of well-known and relatively
natural psycho-social processes experienced to some degree by most human
beings.
One of the most noted of such experiments was published by T. X. Barber
and D. S. Calverley in 1964. Seventy-eight unselected "normal" female
secretarial students had volunteered for what was described to the
subjects only as a "psychological experiment." Barber and Calverley
divided these seventy-eight subjects into three groups of twenty-six.
One group was subjected to suggestions to see and hear non-occurring
events under hypnosis. A second group was given "task-motivating
instructions" without the use of hypnosis. The third group served as a
control that received the same instructions without hypnosis or
task-motivating requests.
The second group's "task-motivating instructions" consisted of asking
subjects to see and hear events that were implied to be real but were
actually nonexistent. The subject was told, "I want you to close your
eyes and to hear a phonograph record with words and music playing White
Christmas. Keep listening to the phonograph record playing White
Christmas until I tell you to stop." The astounding result was that 38
percent of the "normal" subjects in the second group stated that they
clearly heard White Christmas, even though nothing was played.
Sixty-five percent of the subjects in the control group reported the same
result. An average of 5.1 percent of these unselected people in each
experimental group state that they not only heard the record, but they
also believed that the record was actually playing.
Immediately after this portion of the experiment, the subject was
instructed as follows, in a firm and earnest tone of voice: "I want you
to look at your lap and to see a cat sitting there. Keep looking at the
cat until I tell you to stop." An average of 33.3 percent stated they
saw the cat clearly even though they believed it was not there. However,
an average of 2.5 percent of the subjects in each group (3.8 percent in
the second group) reported they not only saw the cat clearly but also
believed it was actually present.
Similar results were reported in experiments performed by K. S. Bowers
and by N. P. Spanos and T. X. Barber. Even if many subjects reported
non- occurring events only to please others (Bowers), these experiments
clearly showed that otherwise "normal" people under relatively "normal"
conditions can and do report hearing and seeing events that, by
recognized objective measures, are nonexistent.
The Barber and Calverley experiments also showed that the subjects used
the strongest objective terminology available to describe non-occurring
events. For example, the subjects in the experiments used the terms see
and hear to describe their experience.
Why do otherwise normal people come to believe that they are witnessing
non-occurring entities and events? The Barber and Calverley experiment,
as well as a host of recent research, indicates that human acts of
perception always involve interpretations and inferences that may be held
in common by large groups of people. Raw visual and auditory data are
combined with inferences about what was thought to be seen and heard. We
often select out of the large raw input of visual and auditory data those
that we regard as important and that confirm expectations, especially if
they are desirable.
Many recent experiments show that the human mind is biologically wired to
interpolate many expected images or portions thereof, even if such images
are not objectively present. People often form mental images of all
types of objects, real and unreal. We've all heard how difficult it is
not to form an image of a pink elephant when someone tells us not to.
One can also form mental images that are believed to be situated in real
time and space (e.g., imagine a pink elephant in the middle of a parking
lot).
Believers may be following a rationale with premises that can yield, at
least in their minds, very solid conclusions. Once a believer is
convinced that an inference is valid, then the conclusion may be
considered sufficiently certain to contradict or suppress raw visual
data. Any further disconfirmation of their interpretation may be either
ignored or disregarded in favor of the inference. This type of avoidance
of disconfirming data among Marian devotees is clearly manifested in the
oft-repeated dictum: "To those who believe, no proof is necessary; to
those who doubt, no proof is sufficient."
The implications of these experiments for the reports of Medjugorje are
quite clear. If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiments, an average
of at least 33 percent of people with no obvious pathology can report
clearly seeing or hearing events that are not occurring, then it would
not be extraordinary to find 333 "normal" people in a parish of at least
one thousand believers who could report seeing or hearing non-occurring
events, especially when, as is the case with supposed Marian apparitions,
the events in question are believed to be not only possible but desirable
as well.
If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiment, at least 2.5 percent
believe what they are seeing or hearing is actually present, then it
would not be extraordinary to find at least twenty-five people in a
parish of one thousand members who actually believe what they are seeing
and hearing is present in real time and space. In fact, there are many
more reported visionaries in the parish who did not receive the attention
of the six principal ones.
If the results obtained by Barber and Calverley occurred after only one
suggestion to hear and see non-occurring events, then what would we
reasonably expect from persons, and especially impressionable youngsters,
who are repeatedly requested to see non-occurring events? Does anything
akin to the task-motivating suggestions exist in the subculture of the
visionaries?
Imagine living in a subculture that constantly and repeatedly suggests to
its members the desirability of experiencing a Marian apparition.
Imagine living in a subculture where young people who have claimed to
have seen Marian apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima, and other places also
are beloved role models. Suggestions presented to believers in sermons,
prayers, and written materials may be just as effective as the simple
requests made by Barber and Calverley. Although conspiracy or formalized
coaching is not required to produce people who will report non-occurring
events, it should be noted that Bishop Zanic declared that the
visionaries were indeed coached and manipulated by the Franciscans.
Not only can the subculture of the visionaries encourage the apparitions
with words, it also provides detailed and coherent imagery of how the
Virgin Mary ought to look and speak. According to P. and I. Rodgers, a
picture of Mary supported by a cloud rising above Medjugorje has been
present in the church of the visionaries since about 1971. Not
surprisingly, the youngsters' description of the Virgin is quite
consistent with the picture to which they were exposed for years. Is
Group Simultaneity Always Evidence of an Objective Experience?
Aside from the supposed lack of pathology in the visionaries, Laurentin
and Joyeux cite the simultaneity of their key movements during the
supposed apparitions as evidence for the objectivity of their
experiences. For example, they point to the convergence of their gaze as
confirmed by video recording made face-on to the visionaries during the
ecstasy and the simultaneous raising of their eyes and heads as the
apparition disappears upwards.
I have studied Joyeux's report and have looked at the videotape of two
separate events that show such alleged simultaneous behavior. My
examination reveals nothing so extraordinary as to demand a supernatural
explanation.
Joyeux and other writers often make statements that may mislead the
reader into thinking that the whole group exhibits simultaneous behavior
that, at most, occurs in only part of the group. For example, they
report administering an electro-oculogram to Ivan and Marija on December
28, 1984. The movement of the eyeballs of both youngsters reportedly
showed simultaneity to the second in the cessation of movement at the
beginning of the ecstasy and again, simultaneity to the second in the
return of movement at the end of the ecstasy. But in a Paris Match
interview, Joyeux generalizes this result to the visionaries as a whole
("des voyants"). In his translation of this interview Father M.
O'Carroll makes the generalization even more emphatic by saying that "all
the visionaries" had such simultaneity.
Likewise, sometimes the ecstasy that is taken to be evidence of a real
apparition experience is not as uniform as might first appear. For
example, regarding the youngsters' supposed disconnection from the world
during their ecstasy, Joyeux says that "disconnection is not total;
rather it is partial and variable."
More important, the supposed vision experiences have a regular schedule
and duration that may result, with or without sinister collusion, in
simultaneous behavior. Laurentin and Joyeux themselves note the
regularity of the behavior, for they divide the experiences into three
phases: contemplation or conversation; prayer with the apparition; and
contemplation or conversation.
Insofar as duration is concerned, Laurentin and Joyeux themselves note
that "no apparition has lasted for more than one or two minutes since the
end of 1983." This is important because they made their measurements of
simultaneity in 1984, when the duration of each event was quite short and
predictable. In fact, they report recording the precise duration of only
five ecstasies, with each one lasting sixty-five to eighty-five seconds.
The schedule for the start of the ecstasy is certainly familiar to
Laurentin and Joyeux, who themselves say: "Since the end of 1983,
ecstasy begins before they have finished the first Our Father." They
also note, following an earlier study of Dr. Lucia Capello, that: Their
voices become audible at the same time, on the third word of the Our
Father, the apparition having recited the first two. This phenomenon
militates against the theory of a prior agreement and cannot be put down
to natural causes. Even without a sinister conspiracy, the regular
schedule noted by Laurentin and Joyeux clearly is sufficient to produce
the type of simultaneity they find so unnatural. Indeed, beginning to
pray audibly with the third word of the Our Father is as good a cue as
beginning to pray audibly with the first word. It is, of course, poor
science to represent as a verifiable fact the belief that the apparition
recites the first two words.
Likewise, the convergence of the gaze is usually toward the front of the
room when the visions take place within a church. Even Laurentin and
Joyeux observe: "The visionaries' gaze converges on the same
well-located spot." Again, gazing at a well-known location is something
that may be learned and conditioned naturally, thus producing the
simultaneity reported.
In one videotape recording the experience of visionaries Jacob and
Marija, I observed that after assembling at the front of the room to
begin the supposed encounter with Mary, Jacob began to gaze upward as he
crossed himself. About one second later Marija did the same. Aside from
the fact that the supposed apparition takes place at the same time in the
schedule, both children had peripheral vision and could observe each
other gaze upward.
The kneeling, which even Joyeux admits is not perfectly synchronized,
occurs at the end of the recitation of the Our Father, which in turn is
usually recited after the initial crossing. Another videotape shows that
the near simultaneous kneeling by five of the visionaries also occurs at
the end of the initial Our Father. A visual cue to kneel is not even
necessary here because the end of the audible prayer could be a
sufficient cue. Such simultaneity in kneeling can even be achieved
without visual cues in multiple locations if the worshippers are all
listening to the recitation of the Our Father on a radio.
Although near-simultaneous behavior is considered an indication of an
"objective" experience for Joyeux, non-simultaneous behavior does not
appear to be evidence for a "subjective" experience. Laurentin and
Joyeux report, "The visionaries had independent conversations and even
had different conversations simultaneously at times." They use an
unverifiable phenomenon to explain the variable conversations--namely the
possible use of different channels of supernatural communication by the
Virgin. However, each informant may be constructing his or her own
imaginary dialogue. Furthermore, the type of coherence that they cite in
the apparition reports can also derive from the common imagery and forms
of speech that are stereotypical in the Marian subculture.
Joyeux wasted a unique opportunity to design experiments that would have
provided more of a challenge to skeptics on the issue of simultaneity.
Indeed, his experimental design was quite careless. For example, since
even Joyeux repeatedly claims that normal vision or hearing is not
necessary to perceive the apparitions, each of the visionaries could have
been blindfolded before they assembled at the front of the room.
Earphones that render any external sound inaudible could have been placed
upon them. Yet, there were no reported attempts to cover their ears or
eyes throughout an event.
Partitions could have been placed between the visionaries to exclude the
possibility of cues from air disturbances produced by body movements
(e.g., kneeling). A more rigorous experimenter might have spun all the
visionaries around and pointed them in different directions within the
partitions. If those visionaries truly had a special ability that was
not based on normal hearing or seeing, then we would expect them to have
all heard the apparition calling them from the same spot at the same
time. We would expect that each of the children initially pointed in
different directions would turn simultaneously toward the same direction
even if blindfolded. If a recorded version of the Our Father were
recited to each visionary at different times through the earphones, we
would still expect them to ignore the voice on the earphones and kneel in
synchrony with the supposed actions of the apparition.
Insofar as experimental design is concerned, the exaggerated claims of
Joyeux are most apparent in the "screening test" he discusses. What
Joyeux describes as a "screening test" and a "screen" actually refers to
the brief placement of a postcard-size object in front of Marija and
Ivanka. It does not block out peripheral vision. Note how Joyeux
interprets the brief visual screening test: a screen which is held up
does not block out the perception of the apparition. Again Joyeux
assumes a priori the existence of the supernatural object that the
youngsters claim to perceive. What Joyeux actually observed is that the
gaze of two visionaries remained fixed when a postcard-size card was
placed in front of them. Such a fixed gaze does not constitute proof for
the existence of an object at the point in space where the visionaries
are looking because one can observe that during prayer many worshippers
in Christian and non-Christian religions gaze upward at what they believe
to be heaven even when temple walls or other screening objects are
interposed.
However, even if rigorous visual and auditory blocking procedures were
used, they could not eliminate the possibility of a learned simultaneity
after 1983 when the whole schedule became very regular and lasted one to
two minutes. In sum, the simultaneity cited by Laurentin and Joyeux,
even if genuine, is not extraordinary, and it does not constitute
evidence for the objectivity of the experience at all, especially in
light of poor experimental design. The Incoherence of Laurentin and
Joyeux's View of `Objectivity'
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the conclusions of Laurentin and
Joyeux is that they use the word objective in a wildly inconsistent
manner, resulting in special pleading and in logically absurd
conclusions. For example, in a discussion of whether the phenomena
exhibited by the visionaries are supernatural, they state, "As research
has not reached any objective proofs, it would be difficult to discuss
the matter in the absence of definite criteria." But they still purport
to have proof in favor of the objective experience of the visionaries.
Note their reasoning: The mere fact that others present do not see the
apparition which is visible only to the visionaries in no way proves that
it is a perception without an object. It simply proves that the manner
of perceiving is not the same as that involved in the perception of other
ordinary material objects. . . . Bats, for example, are capable of
discerning certain radiations that escape us. Other, more radically
different, means of perception may well exist. A claim for an ability
does not prove that one possesses the ability, and Joyeux's example of
animals who possess abilities that humans do not will not help his case.
And in the case of bats, the existence of their ability to hear high
frequency sounds is not based on a claim made by the bats. We can verify
empirically (e.g., by means of instruments) and with mathematical
precision the existence of both the object (high frequency sounds) and
the special and quantifiable ability of bats to perceive that object.
The criteria and methodology are sufficiently objective to elicit the
agreement of both atheists and Christians.
Such is not the case with the visionaries. Laurentin and Joyeux
themselves admit that no experiments, videotapes, or other instruments
have been able to detect the object that the visionaries claim to
perceive with an equally unverifiable and non-quantifiable ability. They
are apparently aware of this difficulty in their logic, and so they
attempt to plead the case of the visionaries by using even more
speculative hypotheses and conclusions. Our tests tend to lead us to the
hypothesis of a person-to-person communication which takes place at a
spiritual level, analogous to the angelic act of knowing. Such statements
clearly show that theology, not rigorous science, motivates their plea
for the visionaries.
Note also the logical problems produced when they discuss the definition
of a "hallucination." The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines hallucination
as "apparent perception of external object not actually present," which
might fit the case of Medjugorje if a priori one held that an object from
another world does not exist or if one understands "not actually present"
in a purely empirical way. Medically speaking "hallucination" indicates
a pathological state and it would appear to us that use of the word
should be restricted to psychiatric illness. But if one does not deny a
priori the existence of the object that the "psychiatric" hallucinator
claims to see, then it follows that the claims of the latter have no less
validity than those of the Medjugorje visionaries. Since the objects
seen by the psychiatric hallucinator and the Medjugorje visionaries are
equally invisible to other people and to cameras, then it is only special
pleading, not verifiable criteria, that leads Laurentin and Joyeux to
affirm the credibility of the Medjugorje visionaries while denying
credibility to the "psychiatric" hallucinator. Thus, Laurentin and
Joyeux provide no verifiable reason to ascribe accuracy to the perception
of the six who claim to see Mary, and yet deny the accuracy of the
perception of the thousands who claim to be equally certain that they do
not see Mary. `Solar Miracles' as Evidence for Marian Apparitions
Solar miracles are cited often by theologians and laypersons as proof of
the authenticity of the visionaries' experiences. Ironically, the
reports of such solar miracles are the most definitive proof that people
can and do report the occurrence of non-occurring events at Medjugorje.
One dramatic case may be found in a 1988 videotape recorded by "20/20,"
the ABC news program. Stone Phillips was sent to accompany a group of
pilgrims to Medjugorje. At one point in the report a crowd of pilgrims
reported seeing the sun "coming closer" and "dancing" at the same time
that ABC cameras were trained on the sun. Of course, any such movement
of the sun would be an event of astronomical proportions that should have
been witnessed by a large part of the planet, astronomical observatories,
and hundreds of different types of instruments. Yet, the videotape
showed no movement in the sun, and Stone Phillips likewise confirmed that
he saw no movement in the sun. As in the case of the subjects in the
Barber and Calverley experiment, the report by a group that a
non-occurring event is occurring indicates that a psycho-social process
is the best explanation.
The report of a "dancing sun" also demonstrates other important points
about group delusions. The reports of non-occurring events need not be
due to lying, which involves making statements that the speaker believes
to be false. For example, a pilgrim may say, "I see the sun moving," to
express the following interpretation of raw perceptions: "Marian
apparitions should be accompanied by a moving sun, and therefore that is
what must be happening." Once the believer assumes that this rationale
is true, then he or she allows the use of phrases such as "see" (e.g., "I
see the sun moving") even though empirical evidence says otherwise.
Crying Icons, Metallic Transformations, and Healings
Crying icons are often reported at sites of Marian apparitions. I
examined one such case in Arizona in 1982, when a group of Mexican
immigrant neighbors reported that a statue of the Virgin outside their
apartment "cried" around dawn. I found that the liquid under the eyes of
this "crying icon" was indistinguishable from dew that also was present
on other objects and on many parts of the icon. One may characterize as
"selective seeing" any claim that ignores the moisture on most parts of
the icon and yet attributes to crying the moisture below the eyes.
Psycho-social processes can explain all of the reports of icon "miracles"
at Medjugorje with which I am familiar.
Reports of metal transformations are also common. There is indeed a long
history that associates the Virgin with metal workers. The fact that
metal color can change is a known phenomenon, most often due to
oxidation. However, the instantaneous metallic changes reported by
Marian devotees have simply never been verified by science.
Reports of healings are also poorly investigated. Most of the
testimonies come from people who, by their own words, already have had
medical treatment, and so it is virtually impossible to distinguish the
effects of medical treatment from those of supposed miracles. Another
problem is that most of the reports represent as facts diagnoses and
symptoms that the compilers have not verified. Equally important, most
readers of reports of supposed miracles are not apprised of negative
follow-up reports. For example, a book by R. Laurentin and L. Rupcic
relates the case of Venka Bilic- Brajcic (of Split) as follows: In
January, 1980, the patient had her left breast removed, and afterward,
she received postoperative radiation treatment. Nine months after the
operation there were numerous metastases. These had reached the right
breast on which radiation treatment began in April, 1981. . . . Venka
herself reported . . . "My sister said that Our Lady of Medjugorje could
help me, and suggested that I pray to her. . . . Two or three days after
this prayer the appearance of the sores started to change. . . ." Venka
feels well, and the medical certificate confirms that there is no sign of
further metastases into the bone or other organs. Venka returned to
Medjugorje to thank Our Lady. She submitted medical documents on
September 8, 1982. But Father O'Carroll's book reports that, in response
to Laurentin and Rupcic's claims, Zanic noted that this patient died in
June 1984, and that her doctor protested the claim that she was cured at
the time that she had stated. Conclusion
A supernatural explanation for reports of Marian apparitions is
unnecessary, unverifiable, and ultimately self-defeating for believers.
It is unnecessary because we have verifiable and repeatable experiments
that show that otherwise "normal" people can and do report seeing and
hearing non- occurring events. It is unwarranted because the criteria,
methods, and assumptions are unverifiable. It is ultimately
self-defeating because believers themselves would have no way to refute,
by verifiable means, the claims of "apparitions" made by non-Christian
religions.
We need not firmly diagnose the experience of the visionaries as a
psychiatric hallucination or a delusion in the sense of the authoritative
definitions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM- III) (American Psychiatric Association [APA] 1980). Though we do
not a priori exclude psychiatric factors, our point has been that the
normal social processes and internal logic of their Marian subculture are
sufficient to explain their behavior. To refute Joyeux,, we also need
not enter into the recent debates about whether the criteria of the APA
are subjective or culturally biased against religious phenomena.
The refutation of Joyeux ultimately rests on the fact that he does not
fulfil the requirements of the two adjectives in the title of his own
book: Scientific and Medical Studies on the Apparitions at Medjugorje.
By his own words science has not reached any "objective proofs," and all
the evidence he offers is unverifiable theology (e.g., "the angelic act
of knowing"). Since the main principle of scientific inquiry is
verifiability, his constant use of unverifiable theological hypotheses to
support the visionaries nullifies any claim to scientific or medical
validity for his studies and conclusions. It is no miracle that a
supernatural explanation for the Medjugorje apparition reports has been
rejected by both a Catholic bishop and secular humanists.
===================================================================
|| END OF ARTICLE ||
===================================================================
___________________________________________________________________
|Supplied by the American Humanist Association, publishers of The
|Humanist, six times a year. Subscriptions are US$24.95 for one |year,
$46.95 for two, and $67.95 for three years. Outside of the |United
States add $3, all to be payable in US funds on a US bank. |For
subscription inquiries, address yourself to: The Humanist, 7 |Harwood
Drive, P.O. Box 1188, Amherst, NY 14226-7188. Phone (800) |743-6646, or
(716) 839-5080 or FAX (716) 839-5079. The Humanist |BBS is at (614) 267-
1176; 8,No,1. Tell them you saw it here.
|__________________________________________________________________
WHY I AM NOT A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
by Larry Reyka, Humanist Chaplain
Humanist Society of Friends
===================================================================
INTRODUCTION:
This was my last sermon preached from a Unitarian Universalist
pulpit, it was delivered in 1985 or so at The First Unitarian
Universalist Church of Columbus (OH), and in it I share my, shall
we say, misgivings about the Unitarian Universalist movement.
Around that time is when I resigned from membership in that
church.
==================================================================
The reasons for NOT being Unitarian Universalist may be as diverse
as the reasons for coming here in the first place.
I've been told by a Unitarian Universalist minister acquaintance
of mine that the average "stay" within the Unitarian Universalist
church is about five years.
In that sense, it seems to me the church is like a train station,
a place to be between where you're leaving from and where you're
going to. This led me to a working title for my talk today,
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM, THE TRAIN STATION RELIGION, OR PARDON ME
BOY, IS THAT THE CHATTANOOGA U-U?
My personal stay as a MEMBER of the church was approximately two
years. My doubts began, in reality, about the time the ink was
drying on my name in the book, but it took me a number of
experiences, some of which I detailed in my sermon on my religious
odyssey, to realize that I am, in fact NOT a Unitarian
Universalist.
The historical roots of the Unitarian Universalist Church have
produced a religion with a unique flavor. The combination of
residual Christianity and disguised Humanism found in this
denomination is to be found nowhere else. The hospitality to
atheists as well as to believers in mysticism, flying saucers,
pyramid power and all manner of foolishness is amazing. You do
provide a church home for a lot of people who simply would be
without one otherwise. I am attracted to many things, and most of
the people here. Hence, my reason for still being about as a
FRIEND.
However, as a Humanist, I find certain aspects of Unitarian
Universalism to be frustrating. The principle of affirming no
creed is, I believe, less than forthright. Agreeing to disagree
is an appropriate principle for our pluralistic society as a
whole, but it is not appropriate for a religious community
dedicated to celebration and action as a community. Groups that
stand for everything stand for nothing or else they deceive.
The alliance of convenience between residual Christians and Closet
Humanists is inhibiting - to both groups. Neither theists nor
atheists may act boldly or creatively on their convictions out of
fear of offending the other. For Humanists, the result is a timid
humanism that spends more time keeping peace with the god
believers in the church than meeting their own needs as Humanists
and reaching out to other Humanists in the larger community.
The Unitarian Universalist Hymnal - a hymnal for both Protestants
and Atheists - is not a miracle; it's a disaster. This hymnal to
me is a symbol of the watered down religion so often offered in
the U-U church.
The willingness on the part of the Unitarian Universalist Church
to TOLERATE my Humanism is far from enough for me. My need is for
an organization that AFFIRMS my Humanism.
So, while I will remain a friend of the Unitarian Universalist
Church and of all of you, as long as you'll have me, I cannot for
reasons above consider myself a member of your congregation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================================================
|| END OF ARTICLE ||
===================================================================
Equality
Equality, or egalitarianism, is one of the fundamental principles of
humanist eupraxophy. In constructing a rational ethical structure, we
must tentatively suggest its foundations, and then examine the logical
consequences. Ultimately, it is the agreement or conflict with other
humanist values that will determine whether the ideal being tested is a
useful one.
Human equality does not imply that we are identical, or uniform. It does
not assert that we believe that everyone is equally intelligent (whatever
that may mean) or strong, or fast or any other quality. These are common
objections that an egalitarian meets with when stating this principle.
The concept of equality is coherent, and it serves as the basis for much
of our insistence on human rights, civil rights, tolerance and freedom
from religion.
At base, egalitarianism is the recognition that, whatever other qualities
a person may have, we all share an essence of humanness simply by being
human. Because of this humanness, human society shall, in its dealings
with an individual, treat that individual as a human being. This simple
statement is extremely useful, not only for the many beneficial
consequences that flow from its implementation, but also because anyone
can be made to see its practicality and simplicity in many different
situations.
What does it mean? It means that there are some things that every human
being is entitled to, and others that they are protected from, simply by
being human. It also must mean that every individual born is a human
being. Some of these ideal ways of dealing with human beings are
expressed in the United States' Declaration of Independence and the
United Nation's Declaration on Human Rights. A few basic instances might
be: no one should be tortured, no matter what their crime; all groups
have the right to express their ancestral culture; no one should be
denied work, housing or protection because of their ancestry or beliefs.
Your race, language or culture should not be held against you.
It is the nature of a rational eupraxophy that nothing is considered
absolute or final, yet we believe that we have adequate knowledge to
proceed and make judgments, to make responsible decisions, and then to
correct these decisions, if necessary. We are entitled to enact laws,
and to agitate to have laws amended. We recognize the truism that
choosing to do nothing is making a choice, and the contradiction inherent
in denying the possibility of knowing anything for certain and, somehow,
being certain of that.
All too often, the claim is made that, as we do not have absolute
knowledge, we are not entitled to make these choices. This is simply one
more weapon in the arsenal of those who would preserve the status quo,
and who recognize that their real reasons for doing so will not stand up
to rational inquiry. Like the idea of faith, it is a weapon of the
religion 'virus.' From Socrates onward, those with anti-egalitarian
sympathies have used this ploy to keep power in the hands of the
powerful, and to keep the powerless from attempting to participate.
It does not matter that we don't have a perfect definition of a human
being, we have an adequate definition: someone born. It does not matter
that we don't have a perfect definition of equality, we have an adequate
definition: treat all persons the same.
There are still many people who are anti- egalitarian. Although they may
pay lipservice to democratic or egalitarian ideals, figuratively they
have their fingers crossed behind their backs. George Orwell explained
this kind of hypocrisy and how it operated when the countries of Europe
got together and to create the ideals of self-determination and
democratic government for all nations after World War I. The essay he
wrote was entitled: _Not Counting Niggers_. The European countries, of
course, did not want to give up their colonies, and had no intention of
giving the people who lived in them any of the "universal" rights that
they so touchingly proclaimed in the League of Nations. For others, it
is women, or gays, infidels, or outcastes, who "do not count." They have
defined themselves in terms of their difference from some "other". It
goes without saying that by this definition, they are better. When
egalitarians offer everyone equality, they appear to be calling for the
end of the world as these people know it, for the total destruction of
their self-identity. They react with an existential panic which is
puzzling to those who do not realize how essential to their self-image,
this feeling of superiority is.
Religionists are certainly among those that feel this way, but are hardly
the only ones to do so. Aside from the Christians who panic at the
thought of simply studying other religions, (rather than simply
dismissing them all as deceptions thrown up by Satan), you can see this
existential panic in the following situations.
In South Africa, those whites who have defined themselves as "better than
blacks." If Africans are to be treated as equals, recognized as human
beings, these whites will have no self-definition left.
Many conservative Christian men feel this way about women. If they are
not "better than women," they will be nothing. The reason for the
hysterically strong reaction to feminism (which after all, is simply
gender egalitarianism) is this panic. This is described by Sonja Johnson
in her first book among the Mormon elders who excommunicated her for
working for the ERA. As well, it shows in Pat Robertson's hysterics about
"lesbians and witches."
In other religions, upper caste Hindus have recently felt strongly enough
about their superiority to lower castes to have performed a number of
lynchings of lower caste Hindus who have dared to associate with women
(or men) "above their station." If they are not "better than
untouchables," they are nothing. Many Muslims react this way to any
outsider who poses a rational objection to any Muslim tenet. If they are
not "better than infidels" they are nothing.
All of the above discriminatory behaviour is supported by Holy Writ of
one kind or another. Though simple nationalism also allows one to hate
and discriminate against outsiders, fear of another nation's possible
retaliation often keeps one nationalist from harming another nationalist.
However, when nationalist xenophobia is allied to religion, which allows
the hater to see the "other" as an ally of all that is evil, against
which anything is permitted, and himself as an ally of all that is good,
for whom no action is unjustified (and for whom no reward is too great) a
truly explosive mixture is created. The religious fanatic is not bound
by any ethical consideration, nor even by simple pragmatism or common
sense. Murderous thugs will gladly risk death, believing that this
'martyrdom' gives them a ticket to heaven. They can rape, torture,
murder and destroy, all the while feeling that they are righteously
carrying out god's commands.
All bigots have good reasons for their bigotry and discrimination.
Christians feel that their homophobia is sanctioned by the Biblical
commands against homosexuality. Protestants feel that their
anti-Catholic hatred is sanctioned by Catholic betrayal of true
Christianity and turning aside to idol worship and corruption. Muslims
feel that Jews and Christians had a chance to hear the one true and final
revelation and deliberately rejected the Prophet of Allah. Muslims feel
that Baha'is and Ammadiyyas have deliberately blasphemed by daring to
attempt to add to the final revelation. Christians feel that Jews
accepted guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus. Muslims feel that Hindus
are idol worshippers. Hindus feel that non vegetarians deliberately
insult Mother Cow, the symbol of all that is good about life.
The humanist and egalitarian must give up these dangerous feelings of
superiority. A humanistic feeling of self-esteem comes from the
knowledge that one is making ethical choices in accordance with a
rational ethical code, and that one is according the same dignity to
everyone, granting (as a working assumption) the same self-esteem to all.
We tentatively assume good will from new encounters, until proven
otherwise. We recognize that this may occasionally result in a temporary
inconvenience, but that, in the long run, and on a large scale, this will
create a better world for all. This is not a recommendation to go
against your plain common sense in dangerous situations, or to take
unwarranted risks. But, the best solution in an increasingly small
world, with increasingly multicultural nations, is an egalitarian
tolerance of all.
This feeling of equality and the consequent decision to treat everyone
one meets with dignity and respect is the opposite of the Christian (and
most other religious) methods. There are some religious people who
express their spiritual feelings by such phrases as "seeing God in
everyone," taking to heart and acting upon the words in the New Testament
that 'what you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.'
However, such a religion does not go on crusades, engage in
evangelization, or burn heretics at the stake, all of which have been
notable features of every state sponsored, majority religion. As well,
if this is the sole basis for your good treatment of others, then all it
takes is the decision that 'god,' (undefined, and undetectable) has gone
out of a person, or a class of people, for them to become allies of the
devil and thus, fair game. As an example, Martin Luther first extended a
certain toleration to Jews. He reasoned that, now that the false
Christianity of the corrupt Catholic church had been swept away and the
"true" religion revealed, there would be no further bar to Jewish
conversion. When they stubbornly refused to convert, his anti-Semitism
was indistinguishable from the Catholic variety that had gone before.
You will always see the characteristics of the bully in religious
zealots, when they are the majority. They do not have self-esteem, in
fact, they seem to hate the very idea, and have attacked it virulently,
for instance, when it is brought up in school curricula. Self-esteem
conflicts with the Christian conception of man as a miserable sinner,
god's unworthy, abject, grovelling slave, deserving of nothing, and saved
only by grace. [Read _Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_ for a clear
expression of this charming idea.] The ideal Christian's relationship
to God is that of lackey to emperor, or slave to master. In _Notes on
Nationalism_, Orwell noted the bullying inherent in nationalistic
displays. For instance, in the Nazi goose-step, (which still looks silly
when Russian soldiers do it) there is an echo of the schoolyard bully
making ugly faces, waiting for someone to laugh and give him an excuse
for a fight. In the Christian contempt for reason, and insistence on the
irrational, and admiration for mystery, for instance, on the non-rational
and incoherent doctrines of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and many
others, is this same bully's face: Don't you dare laugh, or you'll be
tortured to death, and God will enjoy it. Or rather, it is concept of
God which is the bully, and the Christian who takes the role of the
bully's sycophantic helper.
The best thing that can happen to a religion, to encourage the
development of its ethical nature, is to be forced into a minority
status. Those religions that are now, or have been recently dealing with
minority status are noteworthy for their insistence on tolerance, equal
treatment, freedom of religion, and fair play. Over long periods of
time, and over wide areas of geography, we are all minorities somewhere.
Egalitarianism is the best solution for everyone.
A consequence of egalitarianism is that no matter how much we disagree
with a person's beliefs, we must insist that they are entitled to express
them, to meet with like-minded people, to attempt to persuade others
towards their point of view. Their actions are free so long as they do
not harm others, or do things which will eventually cause harm, such as
environmental damage. The religious right is entitled to argue for a
theocratic state, and is entitled to attempt to save your soul for Jesus.
You should be just as entitled to persuade Christians that Jesus is a
myth, to meet in atheistic groups and to put up signs expressing your
beliefs. Christians are not entitled to have their irrational beliefs
respected, (by individuals) and they are not entitled to have their
churches supported by the state.
It has been argued that certain beliefs are so pernicious that their
expression should be proscribed. This argument is an analog of the most
common argument for capital punishment: that a certain individual is so
evil, has committed such horrific crimes, and is so obviously beyond
redemption, and undeserving of redemption, even if it were possible, that
capital punishment should exist for him. However, laws may not be made
for individuals, laws are made to apply to all. When proposing or
promoting a law, we must consider who is going to enforce it, and how
they are likely to do so. This is a basic, pragmatic reason for
insisting on equality, and refusing special privilege of any kind.
I ask you to consider what has occurred in two different areas where
special consideration, for good reasons, was proposed for two different
groups, that is, they were to be treated unequally from everybody else.
In the United States, in order to redress centuries of discrimination, it
was proposed that 'affirmative action' programs would allow those from
the disadvantaged groups to be considered for school placement and jobs
ahead of the majority. Despite the fact that discrimination against
blacks, women and other minorities continues almost unabated, this tiny
step brought howls of outrage from whites, men, and anyone not a
minority. White males used the existing anti-discrimination legislation
to penalize institutions attempting affirmative action, and the
mainstream media heaped the idea with ridicule.
I think the net effect has been negative, allowing the middle of the road
majority to feel that they are victims of discrimination, and allowing
them to equate these trivial inconveniences with the dismal housing,
violent death and generations of unemployment and educational deprivation
that have been and continue to be the common lot of blacks in the United
States, or the marginalization, domestic violence and desperate poverty
that are often women's lot. It would be better to insist on actual
equality, to keep measuring the inequalities that exist, and to clamour
for change.
The second case was in Canada, where, in response to feminist and
conservative pressure, laws have been passed against pornography. It is
not clear that there is a direct causal link between consuming
pornography and violent behaviour towards women, but pornography
certainly does give some men the idea that violence toward women is
permissible and desirable and that women really like it. It does create
an atmosphere of permission for violence.
However, the actual enforcement of this law has been to use it as a
weapon against lesbians and gays. 'Straight' pornography continues to be
available, and violence of all kinds, including extreme violence against
women, is almost mainstream. Only 'deviant' sex has been censored and
attacked. It would be better to educate people against violence and
degradation, and to protect those who could be victimised during film
production (these acts are already illegal under the Criminal Code).
Egalitarianism demands that everyone be treated the same. This should
mean that any stable grouping of adults should receive the benefits
accorded to a 'family.' Competent workers should not be forced to stop
working solely because of their age. Children are not the property of
their parents or guardians. If we were an egalitarian society, there
would be roughly the same number of women and men as government
representatives. Black, whites, hispanics, Asians and natives would be
making about the same average incomes and be represented in university,
the trades, the police forces and the professions in proportions roughly
equal to their proportion of the population. Likewise, in the prison
population and the welfare rolls.
We have a long way to go.
==================================================================
|| END OF ISSUE ||
==================================================================
Once again: ISSN: 1198-4619 Lucifer's Echo.
Volume I, Number 1: May 1994.
--
nullifidian, n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or belief. [f.
med. L nullifidius f. L nullus "none" + fides "faith";] / If this is a
humanist topic then I am President of the Humanist Association of Ottawa.
Greg Erwin. ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink