Meeting Reports
by Eric Krieg
On Saturday, October 17th, PhACT members found themselves on the
slippery slope of the issues which arise when the welfare of a child
is
endangered by parents committed to extreme religious prohibitions.
Founding PhACT member and former philosophy professor Bill Wisdom
described to us his recent appearance as an expert witness for the
defense
in the trial of Daniel and Anne-Marie Foster. The Fosters had
been
accused of endangering the welfare of Patrick, their two-year-old son,
by
not seeking medical treatment for a large and quite visible tumor.
Bill mentioned PhACT's reluctance to investigate purely religious
claims. (We, like CSICOP, do consider "scientific" creationism
and
physical manifestations, such as bleeding statues and faith healing,
to be
fair game.) Although Bill does not agree with this limitation,
he abides
by it. Bill, who was a Christian fundamentalist in his younger
years, has
been asked, "Why would you, an atheist and skeptic for 40 years, defend
people accused of hurting someone based on their religious beliefs?"
As it turns out, Bill was drawn into the case by a twist of fate.
The
Fosters' lawyer had seen Bill's "Inquirer" letter on the subject and
had
recognized Bill as his logic teacher of many years back. Thus
Bill was
brought in to explain the nature of the Fosters' belief -- which Bill
wanted to clarify to the public.
The Fosters' belong to the Faith Tabernacle Congregation on North
5th
Street in Philadelphia. This is a closely-knit religious group
linked to
previous cases of children dying as a result of the withholding of
proper
medical care. A social worker, acting on an anonymous tip, had
tried to
get the Fosters to take young Patrick to a doctor. That failing,
the
social worker had got a court order and had removed Patrick with the
aid
of two other social workers. Patrick was gaunt, lethargic and
in great
pain, with a large bump protruding from his abdomen. The tumor,
which had
been noticed by his parents two months earlier, had grown from his
kidney
to his heart. The doctors considered him to be a day away from
death.
Patrick was treated and put in the care of an aunt.
From the legal point of view this could have been a case of abuse and
neglect, a misdemeanor. However, the parents were charged with
a felony,
endangering the welfare of a child, and also of conspiring to do so.
At
the trial, after no small amount of arguing, the jury was instructed
to
consider Bill a qualified expert witness. Bill testified that
the Fosters
were simply following their religious beliefs as interpreted from the
bible.
The Fosters were not prosecuted for what they believed but for what
they had failed to do. The constitution says that the law
may not
prohibit free exercise of religious belief, but there are limitations
on
how one may act out one's beliefs. For example, one is free to
believe in
Satan, but one cannot commit murder and then claim First Amendment
protection under the guise that the killing was merely the practice
of
Satanism.
Bill feels that a court order to force proper care would have been
justified but that felony charges were not. [Despite Bill's efforts,
the
Fosters were found guilty of child endangerment and were sentenced
to 14
years probation.] Bill advocates the use of family court, not
criminal
court in such cases. He asserts that the Fosters had correctly
interpreted the biblical claim, "You will get everything you pray for,"
but he alleges that this claim is testable and false. Bill closed
with,
"I send you out as missionaries for critical thinking."
The ensuing discussion was spirited. Many members were aghast
at the
harm caused by misdirected blind faith. Steve Dybalski pointed
out that
the Faith Congregation Church has its own school. Its members
don't read
newspapers, use TV or radio, and are closed to outside opinions.
They
apparently not only abstain from medical doctors but try to do without
eye-glasses as well. They make limited exceptions for dental
care but
will only have it without pain killers, even for root canals.
Ouch!
Also discussed were the difficulty of getting through to such
intransigent people, and the rights of parents versus the rights of
children. Laughter followed the suggestion that cult member deaths
were
merely an overdue Darwinian force on our species.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why people believe weird things
Then, on Saturday November 14th, we were treated to the thoughts of
yet
another philosophy professor, this time Ted Schick, from Muhlenberg
College in Allentown. Ted is a coauthor of, Why people believe
weird
things, now a course text in over 300 colleges and universities.
Ted explained that if paranormal claims were true, philosophers would
have a great interest in them. Many philosophers would find employment
in
picking up the epistemological pieces if our present seminal axioms
were
tossed; axioms such as, "No effect may precede its cause," and,
"Information is only available to our consciousness via the established
five senses."
Ted related colorful stories about his pro-paranormal predecessor at
Brown University. After the latter's death the department considered
discontinuing subscriptions to a number of paranormal periodicals.
During
the discussion a large bookshelf fell over in the unoccupied office
of the
deceased professor. Since he had stated his intention of making
contact
from the "other side" the subscriptions were continued.
Aside, from that, Ted provided examples to underscore the need for more
critical thinking. Surveys show that 48% of people believe in
ESP, 72% in
angels, 30% in ghosts, 45% in ETs. 17% have consulted psychics.
He
quoted "Quackery kills more people than all violent crimes."
He had even
found a case where a dead candidate had run for office, his decisions
to
be made known by channeling. (For a campaign pledge that's not
too
outrageous.)
On a more somber political note, Ted reminded us "The more credulous
a
society becomes, the more open they are to crackpot politics."
The
occult-inspired Nazi scourge provided a chilling case in point.
Ted
quoted Asimov, "Inspect every pseudoscience and you will find a thumb
to
suck or a skirt to hold."
In his own field, Ted lamented the rise of Relativism, the self-
contradictory notion that there is no objective truth or reality and
that
thus any position is equally valid.
He told us of the growing numbers of people
who are just anti-
science. They consider science to be a religion or an ideology.
(This
reviewer meets these people regularly in cyberspace.) Even Hitler
had
said, "There is no truth in the sciences." Related to that is
the
fundamental question, "Are scientific laws invented or discovered?"
Such questions ultimately lead to the "mother of all metaphysical
questions," "When are we justified in believing something?"
No one wants
to be stupid and hence this question should be considered by those
in all
walks of life. Ted then went on to explain many sources of wrong
conclusions. For example, there is the "available explanation"
syndrome -
- a sort of "cognitive miserliness" where one tries to explain something
using the models readily at hand.
Ted pointed out that, given a set of points on graph paper, there is
an
infinite number of solutions which match them. Reasoning must
be employed
to home in on the best, and simplest, explanation. One test of
"Simplicity" is to ask whether wielding Occam's razor would cut away
unnecessary complexity. Ted gave creationism as an example.
It resorts
to ad hoc reasoning whenever one shows that it raises more questions
than
it answers.
Explanations should also be "Fruitful." That is, they should lead
to
correct predictions and to further ideas. Once more creationism
was used
as an example of an explanation which is not "fruitful." No geologic
data
have been predicted by creationists.
Ideas, Ted said, should also have "Scope." This is the quality
of
explaining a wide range of phenomenon.
During the question and answer part of his presentation, Ted said
that all study must ask, "Is something to be believed?" Ted,
admitted
that 2000 years ago, there were adequate reasons to believe in a flat
earth. There is always a possibility that our ideas could be
wrong. He
considers this the acceptable cost of adhering to the "realist" camp
of
philosophy. Ted also explained some limitations of the favorite
skeptics'
axiom concerning extraordinary claims and evidence.