Program Archive - Capital District Humanist Society

Ben Wang gave a presentation on emergency preparedness — noting that September is National Preparedness Month. This does not mean you needn’t be prepared in other months.

He called this a sobering topic, noting that most people are not prepared for emergencies or disasters until it’s too late.

Wang invoked his background as a member of New York City’s Community Emergency Response Team. Its function was to prepare and educate the public, and support First Responders in disaster events.

An example he discussed was the massive Northeast blackout in August 2003; he himself experienced lack of electric power for several days. Meantime, our local area can be subject to severe storms, flooding, snow, power outages, heat waves, fires, and toxic contamination from train derailments.

Wang said preparedness involves three questions: What should I do? What should I have? How will I communicate with others? A further question might be how can I profit? Leaving that aside, you are generally pretty safe in your own home, if Hannibal Lecter is not in residence. Among the needs Wang identified are water (a gallon per person per day), non-perishable food (requiring no refrigeration or cooking; cans are good but be sure to have a manual can-opener); a first-aid kit; a flashlight and batteries; and a full tank of gas in case you need to skedaddle. Also, something to keep you entertained, bearing in mind that online entertainments may be temporarily unavailable.

But in some cases you might have to evacuate, like in a flood or fire or alien invasion. Wang recommended having a “Go-bag,” a light sturdy portable case for stuff you’ll need to take along. Items suggested: First aid kit, PPE, medications, keys, flashlight, portable radio and/or walkie-talkie, a water collection device, water decontamination pills, non-perishable food, rain gear, extra clothes, a lightweight blanket, child care needs, pet items, copies of important documents, some cash (small bills preferred), and something like playing cards to keep you occupied while you are in unfamiliar surroundings.

Wang concluded with the dictum, “Failing to plan is planning to fail.”

Scott Forschler has a PhD in philosophy. His talk was titled “Morality Demystified: the Naturalistic Origin and Justification for Ethics.”

He began by speaking of using a hammer to drive a nail. We don’t have to think about where that idea comes from. But where does morality come from?

Some people see a supernatural answer. But that’s actually something to which (despite contrary claims) we have no access. Thus producing arbitrary moral claims.

The other alternative is to ground morality in natural facts. But Forschler cautioned that this can result in oversimplification, subjectivity, and harm. Yet he proposed we can explain morality in natural terms without sacrificing objectivity.

He differentiated values from beliefs, the latter pertaining to factual matters. But moral values are higher order things — meaning something that is about some other thing. Like a book about books. Indeed, he said higher order thinking is what distinguishes human animals from others.

One can ascend a hierarchy of higher order concepts — a feedback loop with increasing moral universalization. And it’s that universalization that imbues a moral value with authority. That is, moral precepts are not validated by their source but, rather, as potential objects of higher order valuations. This is what we call our conscience. Providing us with a self-approval we can’t otherwise get.

In this regard he referenced Kant’s “categorical imperative” — telling us to do something only if other people doing likewise would work okay. And Forschler cautioned that it’s not “if everybody did it,” but rather “if anybody else” did it, a more exacting standard. In this context he brought in the Golden Rule, though here too he cautioned that it has some ambiguities. However, he deemed it “self-correcting” if we frame it in terms of how we’d want others to apply it.

This being his take on where morality comes from, he offered logic showing why it can’t come from elsewhere. Getting it from a text (e.g., the Bible) begs the question of why one chooses that text, while others might choose different ones, at odds with yours. But if you counter that there’s a reason for choosing your text, now the basis for morality is no longer that text itself, but rather your reason for choosing it. And now we’re into a recursion — why did you pick that reason?

Forschler said the recursion must terminate on highest order principle. Which he identified as egalitarian altruism — valuing everyone’s consistent values equally.

A key problem raised by his presentation was the dichotomy between thought and action. Certain actions might be clearly immoral, but is it wrong to think about them? To wish someone dead without trying to cause it? The words “thought police” came up here. There was also much discussion of killing a dictator. Forschler cautioned that the consequences may be even worse; such questions can be complex; context is everything.

He finally suggested that perfection is unattainable, and it may be bad to seek it, as opposed to living with imperfection. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Susan Sackett long worked as executive assistant to Gene Roddenberry, the mastermind of Star Trek; her talk being titled “Humanism in Star Trek,” posing the question, “Did it boldly go?” (A reference to the series epigram, “To boldly go,” exploring the cosmos.) Sackett was also on the American Humanist Association Board of Directors from 2006 to 2018 and a Board Member of Humanists International from 2011 to 2017.

Sackett explained that Roddenberry was a committed humanist, and used the shows to push that philosophy. She said it was encapsulated as “IDIC” — “infinite diversity in infinite combinations.”

This was illustrated in two Star Trek episodes, videos of which Sackett presented in abridged form.

One was “Return of the Archons,” depicting a world inhabited by placidly contented people — zombie-like, actually. Their minds being controlled by an authoritarian regime via a computer system, which Sackett cast as a metaphor for religion and belief in God. She also said this episode was intended to vent Roddenberry’s repugnance toward the then-nascent phenomenon of computer games taking over people’s minds. A key message here was that creativity is essential for human life.

The second episode was “Who Watches the Watchers?” Here, people on another planet are somehow persuaded to resurrect ancient beliefs they’d long since grown out of — now worshipping as a god the star ship’s own Captain Picard. Something of an accident from his standpoint, and he’s appalled. Yet the mission’s “prime directive” bars interfering with the current state of a planet, inhibiting his taking any action. But somehow he manages to smooge this dilemma, and disabuses the planet’s populace.

Sackett said this episode shows what happens when people get tainted by religion. It included the verbiage, “Dark ages of superstition, ignorance and fear.” Later, in the Q&A, there was discussion of what amounted to censorship, with the network squelching any problematic content. But apparently, Roddenberry & company got away with stuff like that “Dark ages” lingo by situating it on another planet. Nothing to do with us Earthlings.

Ron Millar is policy coordinator with the Center for Freethought Equality, associated with the American Humanist Association. His talk was titled “Invisible No Longer — Politically Empowering the Humanist and Atheist Community.”

Millar started by noting that it was long “practically invisible” in electoral politics. The first member of Congress to identify as nonbelieving was California’s Pete Stark in 2007. A second in 2017 was Jared Huffman, identifying as humanist and agnostic. Today the Congressional “Freethought Caucus” numbers 22 (all Democrats — what a shocker). Millar noted that over 70 state legislators nationwide identify similarly (out of over 7,000).

What we’re up against he defined as White Christian nationalism — the “America was founded as a Christian nation” nonsense (historically speaking). Xenophobic, homophobic, bigoted, anti-science, anti-(small “d”)democratic, misogynistic, racist, paternalistic [have we touched enough bases there? — FSR].

Millar characterized people in that camp as lacking in human empathy, noting all their demonization of, for example, gay and trans people. And while abortion has long been a ferocious issue on that side, their stance has been rejected wherever people get to actually vote on it — even in a Kansas referendum.

Yet when it comes to political choices, more visceral proclivities tend to motivate voting. Racism Millar singled out as a particularly powerful factor under the surface. Provoked by a Black presidency; the “Tea Party” reflecting sublimated racial resentment. And the battle, he said, is a long-term process that won’t be resolved soon. Christian nationalists will keep fighting. Millar also said that what was once called “Protestant America” has been broadened to embrace Catholics and, even, Jews, with “Judaeo-Christian” becoming the label. And indeed they’re even trying to fold in America’s Muslims [go figure!], with another relabeling — “Abrahamic.” Further, what’s happening is that mainstream religion collectively is declining, leaving what remains with a higher proportion of extremism.

The battle, Millar said, is a long-term process that won’t be resolved soon. Christian nationalists will keep fighting — and it’s a frightening future if they prevail. Thus he urged political engagement, voting being just the “baseline.” Humanists should invest time and money, and build visibility. To help make good voting choices, he referenced the League of Women Voters’ “VoteSmart” and “Vote 411” websites.

Dr. George Veni is an internationally recognized hydrogeologist whose presentation “The World Below: An Introduction to Caves and Karst” shed light on the distribution of Karst throughout the world and its significance in various aspects of human life and the economy.

George provided an overview of Karst geology, focusing on its unique features, its formation by slow chemical process of dissolving bedrock, and the evolving hydrological process of water movement within karst systems. He provided several examples of Karst geology and noted that in some cases their presence is not readily indicated at the surface. He highlighted the importance of responsible management and land use practices to protect karst formations that are a primary water source for many communities.

George discussed the diverse types of creatures that live in caves, their unique adaptations, and their importance in ecosystems. He also covered use of caves throughout history and their potential as time capsules to highlight mankind’s past, such as Mayan or other cultures. He also noted the potential of caves as a source of information about past climates and environments.

Dr. Veni discussed the economic significance of karst landscapes, focusing on the role of water and the discovery of Paleo Karst’s potential for oil deposits in various locations worldwide. In addition, he noted that caves can also hold deposits of other minerals that are useful to mankind.

George discussed the exploration and appreciation of caves, highlighting the importance of safe cave exploration and preservation of the cave environments. He recommended the National Speleological Society’s website as a resource for finding local cave exploration groups.

He also clarified questions regarding the perception and reality of cave exploration. George emphasized the importance of safety in cave exploration, the challenges of septic systems in Karst areas, and the need for expertise in understanding these systems. George noted the challenges and benefits of using advanced computer modeling to better understand groundwater movement in Karst aquifers. He also clarified the complexities of land ownership and regulation in regards to caves in the United States, emphasizing the varying restrictions and impacts of federal agencies like the EPA and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Eleanor Aronstein has been an academic serving at various institutions of higher learning, who spoke on “End of Life Issues.” She began from this standpoint: “I cherish my life. I also want a say in how it ends.”

Her concern with this issue was prompted by the trauma of her mother’s death from ovarian cancer, saying “nothing alleviated her misery.” Aronstein said she’s still carrying, fifty years later, the guilt of having been unable to do anything in that regard.

Another introductory vignette concerned her dog peacefully “put to sleep,” making her wonder why such a death is not made available for human beings, often instead forced to suffer.

Avoidance of that should be a basic human right. Aronstein traced how other human rights have been expanded — women voting, civil rights, disability, gay rights — and said that should now encompass death with dignity. It’s bad enough to lose someone you love; worse if you’re forced to watch them die torturously. Aronstein told the story of a brain tumor patient who went into hospice (generally providing palliative care), but the morphine supply ran out during a weekend, resulting in an agonizing death. She noted that (contrary to most people’s wishes) only about one in five Americans dies at home.

Switzerland seems to be the most advanced in this respect, enabling anyone to go there to get a painless death. Other European nations, notably the Netherlands, have also permitted euthanasia. [Though it’s generally not available for youth in Asia.] In the U.S., Oregon led the way in 1997 with a medical-aid-dying law that’s become a model, basically replicated since in ten further jurisdictions. New York State still argues over adoption of such a law. It’s opposed mainly by the Catholic Church.

Aronstein noted that in Oregon’s 27 years of experience under such legislation, there have been no instances of abuse. Such schemas generally entail a panoply of protections, requiring two physicians certifying that the person has a terminal medical condition with six months expected lifespan; a written request for the procedure, attested by two witnesses; and prescribed medication to be self-administered (as opposed to physician assisted). Patients must also be able to stand on one foot while juggling three machetes.

Aronstein also stressed the importance of getting one’s pre-death paperwork in order. This includes a “health care proxy” designating someone for medical decisions in case you’re unable to make them yourself; a “living will” specifying what procedures you want or don’t want; and a “Do Not Resuscitate” order ruling out extreme measures. “You can never be too paranoid,” she declared.

Further mentioned were several organizations active in this sphere: End of Life Choices New York; Compassion & Choices; and Final Exit Network, the latter filling the gap for people who want to check out but don’t qualify under Oregon-type laws.

More about Final Exit Network:
• https://finalexitnetwork.org/mission-and-vision/

To stay up to date on right to die news in the US and worldwide:
• https://finalexitnetwork.org/news-events/fen-magazine/
• https://finalexitnetwork.org/news-events/right-to-die-news-service/
• https://finalexitnetwork.org/news-events/the-good-death-society-blog/

Paul Golin is Executive Director of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. His talk was titled “What is Humanistic Judaism?” Divided into five basic points:

Firstly, Jews are “remarkably secular.” Golin noted there are about 7 million American Jews, about 2% of the population (less than most people think). He cited a Pew survey asking them, “Do you believe in the God of the Bible?” Only 26% said yes (compared to 56% of all Americans). Of the remaining Jews, half nevertheless believe in some sort of “higher power.” Leaving 22% apparently atheists. [I didn’t follow that math — FSR.]

But the high secularism level among Jews doesn’t surprise Golin, who said he can’t see how, after the Holocaust, Jews can believe in a God who interferes in human affairs.

His second point was that Judaism is not just a religion. It’s also a culture, and an ethnicity — actually, multiple ethnicities — Sephardic., Ashkenazi, and others. Golin noted another survey wherein, asked their religion, 30% of U.S. Jews did not answer “Jewish.” Again signifying rising secularism.

Thirdly, he defined “humanistic Judaism” as a “meaningful Jewish community without God.” He distinguished this from other versions of Judaism: orthodox, strictly following all the Biblical rules; reform, mostly ignoring them; and conservative, somewhere in-between. Humanistic Judaism is even less rule-and-ritual bound than the “reform” version. However —

Point four was that there’s a benefit to ritual, even for secular people. All of us do things that equate to ritual, that impart meaning for us. Like birthday parties. Golin said a menorah connects him to his ancestors. He also recites “blessings” having nothing to do with God, sometimes just acknowledging gratefulness for things.

His fifth point was that meaning can come from any source, and can provide value. Secularism need not mean giving up what has meaning for us — not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Melanie Trecek-King is an Associate Professor of Biology at Massasoit College, who spoke about “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.”

She began with a 1954 cult story, the “Seekers,” led by one Dorothy Martin, involving Jesus, aliens in flying saucers, and predictions of Earth’s imminent destruction on December 21. Believers prepared to be saved, jettisoning all metal, including tooth fillings, which would have interfered with saucer navigation.

Trecek-King focused on what people believe, and why. The meaning of “belief” is actually a tricky question. She defined it simply as “things you think are true;” and act upon (whether true or not). Positing two basic sources for beliefs: 1) personal experiences, with the example of feeling better after homeopathic treatment (i.e., no actual treatment, but there’s still a placebo effect), and 2) received wisdom, accepting the beliefs of people around us.

Trecek-King noted we are social primates, programmed by evolution to trust in the group. We do tend to trust our tribe-mates, but they’re are not necessarily dependable. Placing trust wisely, she said, is incredibly important.

She cited philosopher W.V. Quine who characterized beliefs as forming a web, with “core beliefs” at the center, most closely linked to one’s personal identity, influencing the rest, and being hardest to change. We’ll hold to a core belief, even if incorrect, if it serves to make everything else make sense.

So again, beliefs are most tenacious if tied to one’s sense of identity; Trecek King said that “social death is worse than physical death.” If that sounds like hyperbole, she cited the example of people clinging to Covid denialism — even while themselves dying of Covid.

There’s also a dichotomy between falsifiable beliefs, capable of being refuted by evidence, and others that cannot be. The latter are subjective beliefs — for example, “abortion is murder” — that actually tend to be the ones held most strongly. And for those we make excuses, to fend off any seeming contrary evidence.

Confirmation bias is, more generally, the embrace of information supporting pre-existing beliefs, while dismissing discordant information. Smarter people are actually more prone to this, being better at coming up with rationales for rejecting the latter.

Trecek-King invoked psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s metaphor of the elephant and rider. The elephant is one’s unconscious, and is much bigger and more powerful, yet the rider — one’s conscious self — thinks they’re directing it. Mostly the rider is just coming up with justifications for the elephant’s choices.

But overconfidence is the real enemy. There was discussion of the Dunning-Kruger effect: limited competence tends to make people over-estimate their abilities. Or: their dumbness makes them think they’re smart.

Her “take home” message was: train your elephant. Be caring, skeptical, humble. She also suggested an exercise, applied to some belief you hold. How sure are you it’s true? Why? How would you feel if you’re wrong? What evidence would change your mind?

But in today’s America we have a problem of people inhabiting different realities, with indeed different understandings of how reality works.

Returning to the story of the “Seekers,” when December 21 arrived, nothing happened. At first this threw them for a loop. But then Dorothy said she’d received a message: in fact, it was their steadfastness that saved the world from its otherwise certain doom. So they sallied forth with redoubled faith in their crazy belief system.

Kyle Polich is a podcaster whose talk was titled “Skepticism in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.”

He began with a re-titling: “A Staircase to the Moon? The Path to AGI.” AGI stands for “Artificial General Intelligence,” which would resemble the kind of intelligence we humans have, and which AI currently does not. Polich’s metaphor was that to go to the Moon, you could build a staircase, which would get you part-way, but would soon prove the wrong approach — as opposed to building rockets. He posed the question whether current AI efforts are staircase-equivalents for getting to AGI.

A main theme was elucidating why AI has progressed as much as it has in just the last few years. Polich said it was really a matter of solving math problems. What current AI iterations basically do is turn language problems into math problems it’s capable of solving. An AI will be trained for that by exposing it to a vast amount of diverse human-generated texts, from books that have been put online, Wikipedia, and general internet crawls, etc. Its basic task is then predicting what word comes next in a sequence. It does this by converting words into numbers, and figuring out language patterns — what words most typically go with each other. By testing itself to guess the missing word in a sequence, then checking if it was right, done a zillion times, it gets pretty good at predicting the next word. That’s all ChatGPT is really doing when asked to compose, say, a sonnet about peanut butter in the style of Allen Ginsburg.

But this, again, is not General Artificial Intelligence. In this context Polich discussed the “Turing Test,” in which a human converses with an AI to judge whether they’re talking to another human or not. Polich deemed this an “unbiased double-blind test,” and posited that today’s AIs have not passed it.

He also introduced the term ASI — “Artificial Super Intelligence,” which would be able to do, well, everything. Unlike any human. There’s some concern that such an entity could wreak havoc with our economies, our cultures, etc. But Polich deemed that threat far distant, expressing more concern about mis-use of AI in human hands, for example to wage bioterrorism, or create fake news, even personalized for the recipient. Yet he cited nuclear weapons, which we’ve had for decades without using.

He meanwhile put forth a list of ways in which AI differs importantly from humans. Like, no embodiment — many researchers posit that our human consciousness is not just a matter of what goes on in our brains, but their connection with our bodies is highly important. Similarly, AI has no pain, no emotions, no motivations. However, those could be emergent properties that arise from neuron-like information processing. Indeed, many theorize that that’s how our own consciousness originates.

Polich concluded by voicing his view that, with AI, we’re not engaged in building a staircase to the Moon — we’re building a rocket.

Kate Cohen is a Washington Post columnist and author of We of Little Faith – Why I stopped Pretending to Believe (And Maybe You Should Too). Her talk was titled, “America Needs Atheists Now More Than Ever.”

Because someone, she said, is trying to take away our liberties — and it’s not Joe Biden. Whereas our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, now “Christian Nation” zealots are reinterpreting that — with Supreme Court backing — to mean freedom of religion from other laws and requirements.

Cohen began by talking about her Jewish childhood — how she never really believed, but went along with the religion, feeling that that was what one was supposed to do, to be a good person. She characterized Judaism as mostly praising God — a fictional character with a desperate desire to be worshipped. But she was reluctant to admit that reality — like many people, not wanting to be part of a feared and reviled minority. She noted that women, generally, tend to identify as atheists less often than do men, because they’re more attuned toward “getting along.”

And she thought atheism was more complicated than it really is. One doesn’t have to be a strict materialist — can feel blessed, hope, and faith — in other people. And cosmic wonderment. In other words, big feelings about big things, but without giving that a big word (“God”).

One can reject that concept without having to come up with some alternative but equivalent cosmic hypothesis. Like a theory for how the Big Bang occurred. It’s okay to just say, “I don’t know.”

And how do we know there’s no God? We don’t have to. Nor can we prove the nonexistence of other kinds of mythical beasts. God is just one more like them. [The impossibility of proving there’s no God is a philosophical non-sequitur; one cannot prove a negative; the burden of proof is on the advocate for a proposition; and extraordinary claims (which certainly include religious ones) require extraordinary proof. — FSR]

Cohen read a section of the book relating how she handled their questions when her small boys were reading about Greek myths. Which people may have believed at one time. Contemporary religions are myths that some people believe today, which are no different — likewise made up. That’s what she told her kids, pulling no punches. She wanted them to exist in the real world.

She also said that being an atheist, one needn’t give up Christmas — the word being a shorthand for the “culturally religious soup” we all live in. It’s okay to indulge in these cultural practices. One doesn’t have to take a vow of purity to be an atheist.

Her book, in the end, is mainly a plea to be honest with oneself, and one’s children.

Recap prepared by Frank S Robinson