The Ethics of Lying

This afternoon we met at the Kensington Library to hear Tony's talk on "The Ethics of Lying," followed by Constance's colloquy on the theme "Truth." As always, Tony regaled us with some funny one-liners and then some humorous and thought-provoking quotes on lying. Then he launched into the main body of his talk, in which he analyzed various types of lies. He spoke about bald-faced lies, where it's obvious to both parties that one of them is lying. My question would be, then why bother?

There are lies of commission and lies of omission, verbal and nonverbal lies. One example of a nonverbal lie (or deception, as one of our newcomers preferred) would be wearing the religious symbol of a religion not one's own, thus fooling people into thinking you are a member of that creed. Impersonating an officer is not only a nonverbal lie, it's a crime.

There are some lies that are "noble" and can be considered ethical since they harm no one and work to someone's benefit. An example of this might be the deception carried on by Miep Gies and the other helpers who hid Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis. As Tony pointed out, to decide whether a lie is ethical or unethical, you have to look at the context and the intent behind the lie.

We discussed campaign lies and lies in religious doctrine, social lies that avoid hurting feelings, and so on. Remi brought up myths and told us that sometimes children ask whether a myth is a true story. While technically it isn't because it never happened in real life, the myth can be true in another way, in that it has symbolic or emotional content that is very real. I mentioned that primates have been observed in the wild "lying" by their actions, fooling each other into believing, for instance, that there is no more food left when they don't want to share.

We took a short break and then switched gears for Constance's colloquy on "Truth." Using Dr. Arthur Dobrin's book, Spelling God With Two O's, we read a passage on Truth and a parable, and then had a Quaker-style meeting where everyone was welcome to speak up and say whatever the readings moved us to say.

Once again, our warmth, camaraderie, and thoughtful consideration of the topic made this a memorable afternoon. And that's no lie!

Time Out New York

The Brooklyn Humanist Community has made the big time! "Time Out New York" interviewed Tony about his upcoming talk on "The Ethics of Lying," and published a short article based on his explanation of most acceptable to least acceptable types of lies. You can find the article here: "The Ethics of Lying" and hear Tony's talk at the Kensington Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library on Sunday, September 21st at 1 PM.

September Reflection

On Saturday night, we gathered at Ruth S.'s apartment for our September reflection with Dr. Kurt Johnson. Constance was researching a Dorothy Thompson online and unexpectedly stumbled across several Humanist Poems by a Dr. Dorothy B. Thompson, a completely different person. We based our discussion around them.

Dr. Thompson's poems, written in the 1930's or so, were in perfect sync with the type of humanism that flourished in that era: a complete denial of religion, and a surety that science and nature are all that there is. As Kurt pointed out, that era was heavily invested in either/or thinking, and today we are moving past that. Science and spirituality can co-exist, just as the physicists have put their argument over the nature of light to rest: "Is light a wave, or is it a particle? It's both, dammit!"

While I agree with Dr. Thompson about religious dogma, I don't agree with her attitude. Her poems portray an arrogant scientist looking down on those foolish people who believe in God, calling their beliefs "ant faith."

I mentioned the book I read recently about evolution, Only a Theory. While the author showed a number of examples that provide very clear evidence of evolution as the answer to the riddle of species origin and gradual change, he also calls himself a Christian and does not say there can't be a grand design, but he does say, we can't simply explain away anything we don't understand by calling it "intelligent design," because to do so is unscientific and a denial of what has already been researched and subjected to experimentation.

His conclusion is that the "intelligent designers" are not only creationists in sheeps' clothing, but that their ultimate aim is not just to discredit evolution. Their own documents show that their intent is to bring down the scientific method and replace it with Christian dogma. That's a frightening thought, and if Dr. Thompson had read this book her poems might have been even more vehemently anti-God and anti-religion.

We talked about how moving away from that either/or dichotomy can be seen playing itself out in politics as well.

The food was delicious as always, and the company was delightful. We have two more events this week, a planning meeting on Thursday evening, and Tony's talk on "The Ethics of Lying" on Sunday afternoon. Our second season is off to a great start!

August Book Club

Last Sunday we met at Sheila's and discussed Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. I usually read the book at least twice to make sure I remember the details but I found this one so unsettling that I just couldn't re-read it. We discussed whether it could happen here. I don't think it could happen that same way but as some others said, we could lose our civil liberties and in fact have lost a lot of them under the present administration.

I found it interesting that he really used his own family as the basis of the story so it was autobiographical in a way but he fictionalized the political events. Still, I had the feeling that his relatives would have reacted exactly as they did in the book had a fascist government come to power in America.

Sheila always puts together great props. This time she posted a map of the United States on her door and wrote on it, "Save America from Lindbergh and the fascists!" I wonder what her neighbors made of that, it probably completely puzzled them!

There was a delicious spread as always, great company and an excellent and lively book discussion. We've mapped out the next book club discussions all the way to December. Kudos to Sheila for running a terrific group!

First Anniversary Luncheon

Last Sunday seventeen of us held our first Anniversary luncheon at Pietro's. It was a great afternoon. The food was terrific: salad, pasta, three choices of entree, and a cake that was almost too pretty to eat. (But, we managed).

Major kudos to Antoinette for doing the legwork and arranging this party, and thanks to Tony for suggesting the restaurant.

We've come through a full year of programs, reflections and fun. Now we've got a lineup for the fall that includes guest speakers and exciting topics. We're planning for volunteer work and planning to attract more members. In the coming year, we'll be moving closer to incorporation and formalizing ourselves as a nonprofit organization.

No matter how many new members we attract, we've built a solid core that is sure to endure and grow. We're on our way!

August Reflection

For our August Reflection, Dr. Kurt Johnson led a discussion of Algernon Black's musings on religion and the common thread of ethics that underlies them all. Why, Black asked, couldn't we all just accept that everyone has his or her own set of beliefs? Why not just live with that pluralism without trying to convert each other, whether by persuasion or by force?

Certainly, I've always felt this should be possible. The difficulty I have seen is that while some people are able to live with the lack of one definitive answer to "God, the Universe, and Everything," to quote a title by Douglas Adams, others are not, and can't accept that some of us do.

We struggled with that question, and with a related issue, of people feeling that they aren't accepted because of their non-deistic beliefs.

I do wonder why that even comes up in conversation with neighbors. Sure, it's an issue in families, especially in families where some relatives join up with a fundamentalist religion and then set about trying to "save" those who do not. But why is this an issue between neighbors?

Years ago, when I was trying to arrange playdates between Jason and the boy his own age who lived (and still lives) next door to us, the mother asked me in her Lebanese accent whether I "make Shabbos." She seemed disappointed when I said no, but she didn't pursue the issue, maybe because her English just wasn't good enough. Was that the reason the boys never became friends? Not really -- the kid next door was a wild one and I got tired of him beating Jason up. But anyhow, that's the only time religion has ever come to the fore with any of my neighbors.

Kurt told us that it's estimated that about 30% of the world is openminded about religious differences but the rest are not. It also came up that over 50% of Americans still believe the earth was created only around 5,000 years ago. Now that is scary. As someone said, "And these people vote!"

While 30% wouldn't seem to be enough to foster a huge change in consciousness, I think it could be. Margaret Mead said it only takes a small group of dedicated people to bring about change. Thirty percent is a lot more than just a small group. In my lifetime, I'd like to see us achieve that level of awareness, so that the next person's beliefs can be fully respected without being adopted as our own.

Thanks to Ruth P. for hosting this evening. The next Reflection will be in mid-September.

Book Club Movie Afternoon

Last Sunday we met at Sheila's for a movie afternoon. Sheila hosted a viewing of "The Five People You Meet in Heaven," which we discussed at the last book club meeting. If anything I felt the movie was even better than the book. The photography was beautiful and Jon Voight's acting has always been excellent. They did a great job making him look like a man in his eighties, when he's probably 20 years younger than that.

For some reason I found the story more touching when I was viewing it. That's the opposite of my experience when I read most books. Generally I enjoy the book and find myself disappointed by the movie. But this time they were very true to the book and only left out a few nonessential scenes. Everything of importance was there, unchanged.

When the film was over, I wasn't the only one wiping away tears. We briefly discussed the movie and then headed out to dinner at El Greco.

Next month we'll be discussing another fantasy of a sort, a speculative fiction by Philip Roth, The Plot Against America. I've already read it but may look at it again before we meet. Kudos again to Sheila, who runs such a great book club. I feel I've learned quite a lot since we started.