scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/11/85)
>>>The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private >>>organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning >>>public education. >>I have no qualms about this, although I would say the church is a private >>organization because it teaches whatever it wants, not the other way around. >>That's what the separation of church and state is all about. >Could you explain this a little more? I'll try. I'm not sure how successful I'll be. The churches are private because they teach things the government will not (and should not) accept as "neutral". They teach beliefs, not science. Schools teach facts that are the result of evidence currently held to be reproducible and empirical. If the evidence or interpretation of said evidence is in error, the teaching changes. (c.f. E-M waves and "ether") >>WRONG! The public school system is NOT the place for religion of any kind. >>I can't believe schools were set up to teach THE SUM TOTAL OF MAN's >>ENDEAVORS. Schools (public) are there to teach the minimum necessary >>for a person to survive in our society. That's why it's compulsory. >>Sometimes they fail even at that. >I think you'll find that the systematic exclusion of religious values >(and even religious practices) from the public schools to be fairly recent. >One thing that has always been considered part of the "minimum necessary" >for the survival in society and society itself are certain standards of >moral conduct. Are these unrelated to religious values? Yes. Religions do not have a monopoly on morality. I've known plenty which have what I would consider as questionable morality. Religions are not necessary to learn morals, although they can help (and have helped) some people. >As I see it, the problem with the public school's exclusion of religion >stems not from the fact that religious practice (e.g. public prayer >and religious services) and doctrine are excluded or not taught. I'll >agree that the public schools are no place for this. On the other hand, >the schools are *public*, tax supported, and compulsory. When something >that is being taught in the public schools contradicts certain values >held by those who must send their children to these schools and support >them, those people ought to be allowed to have a say in what's going on. No problem here. Send your child to church! That's why we have freedom of religion--so that any person can supplement his public education with ideas not presented in school. I can't think of any *VALUES* taught in school which would contradict church teachings, just *IDEAS* which may be contradictory. >Who decides what is the minimum necessary content of an education? Is >the teaching of evolutionary theory absolutely necessary? I think not. >One can teach biology, chemistry, and physics (the understanding of >how things work) quite apart from any speculations about their ultimate >origins. These can be reserved for future studies in the school of >the students own choosing. Evolutionary theory may not be absolutely necessary, but if you're going to treat origins, teach evolution in school and creationism (whichever variety you espouse) in church. See above. Very few (I've since been corrected) churches teach evolution, leaving schools as the ONLY place to learn the theory. >There are areas of conflict in what the public schools teach and what >many people believe. As I see it these conflicts are most pronounced >in the areas of personal morality (e.g. the moral content of some sex >education programs and "values clarification") and origins (have we >evolved or were we created). In these areas, I would think that there >should be a minimum of exposure to the various points of view. Some >have said that this will only confuse students. Maybe it will. This is perhaps a less clear-cut issue (I see evolution, for instance, as having null moral content). I don't think, however, that sex-ed programs are saying "Go out and have sex". They seem to be saying "IF you are considering sex, here are some of the issues". What constitutes the biology of human reproduction, and what constitutes sex-ed? Where do YOU draw the line? I don't think a minimum of exposure would be confusing at all. That's the problem. I would rather have my child confused because of TOO MUCH information. Out of confusion comes enlightenment. (That sounds like something out of the Bible, come to think of it. If so, I apologize :-) ) > Many >things in life are confusing. With such things I think it is better to >be a little confused than to be decieved or infused with bias. Confusion, >if it really is part of the subject, should not be avoided by giving neat >answers consonant with only one view. By the time students are old enough >to grapple with the subjects themselves, they ought to also be exposed to >some of the diversity of opinion that exists in society on those issues. Fine. Then you must agree to teach the minimum in church as well. Since most teach only one view, kids might develop a bias. My experience with religions is that THEY "give neat answers consonant with only one view." >To argue that some points of view ought to be excluded to avoid confusion >seems silly in principle. I think this is clearer when we apply that >same principle to other areas. Could we justify not teaching that some >countries don't value democracy or an open economy to avoid confusion? >What about differing views on war and peace? Should students be exposed >to only one view of the Vietnam War to avoid confusion? There is probably >a place for avoiding too much confusion, but we ought not to use it as >a pretext for giving one point of view a monopoly in public education. >To do so helps insure that students will close their minds to further >inquiry or persue such inquiry along a predetermined path. I agree completely. My history classes were full of religion. I learned much of what I know about Judaism, Christianity, etc. in school. As well as Greek and East Asian beliefs, with a smattering of Norse, Egyptian, and Sumerian mythology included. I'm not against teaching ABOUT religion in schools. As you said, our history is rife with it, and no study of man would be complete without looking at the impact of religion, especially on motivations. >>Religion is NOT necessary to survive >>in our society. I've survived quite nicely without, thank you. >You have survived in a society that is full of religion and which is >infused with many religious values. It's part of the air you breathe. > >Why do we routinely go to great expense and inconvenience to save >individual human lives? Why must hundreds of people pull their cars >to the side of the road to let emergency vehicles through? I think >it's greatly due to the fact that traditional religious values have >placed great value on the worth of the individual. There are a lot >of things we take for granted that have religious roots. Many hospitals >and major universities (consider Harvard and Yale; read their original >charters) were founded by the church. Our present emphasis on education, >and advances in medicine has definite religious roots. As I said before, morals can be pretty well divorced from religion. I probably have morals consistent with many Christians (the Golden Rule, which I live by, is a good example). But I didn't go to church to learn them. Nor did I need to. >If you personally get along fine without religion, good for you. But >your own perception can't be extended to say that society itself (in >which you've survived quite nicely) gets along fine without it. That >would be a fatuous claim indeed. One which many seem to take for granted, >however, in justifying the exclusion of certain values from public domain >(e.g. the public schools and government). Again, send your children to church. Freedom of worship is there so that those in society who desire or need religion can have it. And again, I see no *values* which are "excluded from the public domain". >>What people ARE taught is the ability to *gather and analyze* all knowledge, >>so as to make informed CHOICES about which religion, if any, to follow. >>That's why we are taught to read and to use a library, and why we, as a >>nation, value free speech. Free speech doesn't mean compulsory speech. >>Neither does freedom of religion mean compulsory religion. >If certain information is barred from the education process, the extent of >which it can be said that any subsequent choice is informed is questionable. >Teaching the ability to gather and analyze *all knowledge* is hindered when >knowledge from certain sources and points of view are systematically >excluded. For the most part I agree with this paragraph, however. But >I'm wondering how your sentiments apply to the cumpulsory exclusion of >religious values from public space. Once again, send your kids to church. This will ensure the knowledge you say is excluded is made available. Let ME worry about MY kids. Scott J. Berry
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/12/85)
In article <623@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) writes: >>>I have no qualms about this, although I would say the church is a private >>>organization because it teaches whatever it wants, not the other way around. >>>That's what the separation of church and state is all about. > >>Could you explain this a little more? > >I'll try. I'm not sure how successful I'll be. > >The churches are private because they teach things the government will not >(and should not) accept as "neutral". They teach beliefs, not science. > >Schools teach facts that are the result of evidence currently held to be >reproducible and empirical. If the evidence or interpretation of said >evidence is in error, the teaching changes. (c.f. E-M waves and "ether") If there is some question as to whether or not the school is teaching facts or is inculcating a moral philosophy, who decides what to do? Who decides what changes? Schools teach many things that are not considered reproducible and empirical (Art, literature, history and the theory of evolution). They also give advice in moral areas (Sex, drugs, attitudes and mannerisms). It is very questionable whether any teaching can be neutral in the manner that you suppose. They do impact belief and morality. The distinction between belief and science is actually much fuzzier that you suppose. >>I think you'll find that the systematic exclusion of religious values >>(and even religious practices) from the public schools to be fairly recent. >>One thing that has always been considered part of the "minimum necessary" >>for the survival in society and society itself are certain standards of >>moral conduct. Are these unrelated to religious values? > >Yes. Religions do not have a monopoly on morality. I've known plenty >which have what I would consider as questionable morality. Religions >are not necessary to learn morals, although they can help (and have helped) >some people. I have never seen any moral code that could be supported appart from some transcendant framework (religion). Shure, religion may not be necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to do what others expect of them without question) but I doubt very much that morality can be said to mean anything (supported rather than just learned) apart from religion. Anyway, even if this assumption were true it still is not a good reason of excluding a moral perspective simply because it is religious. Why is one that is "non-religious" inherently better? >>As I see it, the problem with the public school's exclusion of religion >>stems not from the fact that religious practice (e.g. public prayer >>and religious services) and doctrine are excluded or not taught. I'll >>agree that the public schools are no place for this. On the other hand, >>the schools are *public*, tax supported, and compulsory. When something >>that is being taught in the public schools contradicts certain values >>held by those who must send their children to these schools and support >>them, those people ought to be allowed to have a say in what's going on. > >No problem here. Send your child to church! That's why we have freedom >of religion--so that any person can supplement his public education with >ideas not presented in school. I can't think of any *VALUES* taught in >school which would contradict church teachings, just *IDEAS* which may >be contradictory. The problem is not with just my child. I care about society also. I would like to have as much input into the public institutions that effect the future of our society as those who have their views represented in compulsory education. Saying, "send your child to church if you don't like the schools" is just a way of ghettoizing those with a differing perspective. I think the distinction you make between "values" and "ideas" is trivial. Certainly they are very closely related, if not interchangeable, when dealing with kids. >>Who decides what is the minimum necessary content of an education? Is >>the teaching of evolutionary theory absolutely necessary? I think not. >>One can teach biology, chemistry, and physics (the understanding of >>how things work) quite apart from any speculations about their ultimate >>origins. These can be reserved for future studies in the school of >>the students own choosing. > >Evolutionary theory may not be absolutely necessary, but if you're going >to treat origins, teach evolution in school and creationism (whichever >variety you espouse) in church. See above. Very few (I've since been >corrected) churches teach evolution, leaving schools as the ONLY place >to learn the theory. But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting on not? Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins. Students who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will only learn one side of the issue. Also, public schools are NOT the only place to leard evolution. There are universities and private schools as well. >>There are areas of conflict in what the public schools teach and what >>many people believe. As I see it these conflicts are most pronounced >>in the areas of personal morality (e.g. the moral content of some sex >>education programs and "values clarification") and origins (have we >>evolved or were we created). In these areas, I would think that there >>should be a minimum of exposure to the various points of view. Some >>have said that this will only confuse students. Maybe it will. > >This is perhaps a less clear-cut issue (I see evolution, for instance, as >having null moral content). I don't think, however, that sex-ed programs are >saying "Go out and have sex". They seem to be saying "IF you are considering >sex, here are some of the issues". What constitutes the biology of human >reproduction, and what constitutes sex-ed? Where do YOU draw the line? You mean where to WE draw the line. That's the way I would like it with regard to the public schools. Some people aren't even allowed into the debate because of religious bias. What public does the public school serve anyway? Your right in that this isn't a clear cut issue. That's exactly why certain perspective should not be excluded by religious bias when deciding these issues. There are those who agree with you who see nothing wrong with the status quo. There are others of a differing opinion. My objection is to that attitude that says those others haven't a voice because their ideas are "religiously" based. When you exclude these others from the forum you don't even give *compromise* a chance. >>things in life are confusing. With such things I think it is better to >>be a little confused than to be decieved or infused with bias. Confusion, >>if it really is part of the subject, should not be avoided by giving neat >>answers consonant with only one view. By the time students are old enough >>to grapple with the subjects themselves, they ought to also be exposed to >>some of the diversity of opinion that exists in society on those issues. > >Fine. Then you must agree to teach the minimum in church as well. Since >most teach only one view, kids might develop a bias. My experience with >religions is that THEY "give neat answers consonant with only one view." What the church teaches is not compulsory or supported by tax money. >... >As I said before, morals can be pretty well divorced from religion. I >probably have morals consistent with many Christians (the Golden >Rule, which I live by, is a good example). But I didn't go to church >to learn them. Nor did I need to. OK, you have learned them. But how do you support them. How do you compel another to treat others as he would be treated? On what basis must she accept that maxim? >>If certain information is barred from the education process, the extent of >>which it can be said that any subsequent choice is informed is questionable. >>Teaching the ability to gather and analyze *all knowledge* is hindered when >>knowledge from certain sources and points of view are systematically >>excluded. For the most part I agree with this paragraph, however. But >>I'm wondering how your sentiments apply to the cumpulsory exclusion of >>religious values from public space. > >Once again, send your kids to church. This will ensure the knowledge >you say is excluded is made available. Let ME worry about MY kids. The problem lies in that some see fit for the public schools to teach what they believe in to the exclusion of conflicting points of view. Others pay just as much to support the public schools but aren't allowed that kind of representation. They are forced to go to extra expense to get it privately (where it can safely be ignored). -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (09/13/85)
> >>One thing that has always been considered part of the "minimum necessary" > >>for the survival in society and society itself are certain standards of > >>moral conduct. Are these unrelated to religious values? > > > >Yes. Religions do not have a monopoly on morality. I've known plenty > >which have what I would consider as questionable morality. Religions > >are not necessary to learn morals, although they can help (and have helped) > >some people. > > I have never seen any moral code that could be supported appart from > some transcendant framework (religion). But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for following it? (like: God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!) Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral code? Is your opinion of human beings that low? > Shure, religion may not be > necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to > do what others expect of them without question) Here you've implied that no a-religious moral codes can supply valid reasons for *why* they should be followed. Care to demonstrate that, and how religious moral codes *do* supply valid reasons? > >Evolutionary theory may not be absolutely necessary, but if you're going > >to treat origins, teach evolution in school and creationism (whichever > >variety you espouse) in church. See above. Very few (I've since been > >corrected) churches teach evolution, leaving schools as the ONLY place > >to learn the theory. > > But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting > on not? Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins. Students > who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will > only learn one side of the issue. Most students will also not hear flat-earth theories seriously taught, nor will they hear about Veliskovsky's theories. Since serious scientiest have overwhelmingly rejected these views, nobody minds that they're not taught. (except perhaps the flat-earthers or the Veliskovskiites) Why should creationism be treated any differently? > > OK, you have learned them. But how do you support them. How do you > compel another to treat others as he would be treated? On what basis > must she accept that maxim? > First of all, I don't go around 'enforcing' the Golden Rule, compelling people to act according to my moral standards. That is a peculiarly Christian pasttime. If you were to rephrase the question: "What reasons would you give a child for treating others as she would be treated?", I would try reasoning with her, explaining how, in the long run, treating others nasty would make *her* unhappy, due to alienation, etc. How would you do it, Paul? Say with one of the commandments, since christians don't believe in the golden rule. Would you warn her about hell? Promise her heaven? Do you see this method as so much superior to reason that you call 'reason' no support at all for moral codes? > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Roads? Where we're going, we won't need any roads!"
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/15/85)
> >Evolutionary theory may not be absolutely necessary, but if you're going > >to treat origins, teach evolution in school and creationism (whichever > >variety you espouse) in church. See above. Very few (I've since been > >corrected) churches teach evolution, leaving schools as the ONLY place > >to learn the theory. > > But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting > on not? Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins. Students > who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will > only learn one side of the issue. Also, public schools are NOT the > only place to leard evolution. There are universities and private schools > as well. > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Paul, name a single school that teaches geology without evolution. Is there any university like that? Creationism is provably inferior theory to evolution, if you treat both as theories: a better theory allows you to predict things that you have not seen yet. Have you ever heard that hydrocarbons may be found in sedimentiary rocks only? But what does it mean sedimentiary, if you do not assume that the Earth's crust was formed in hundreds of milllions years? One of the things which should be learned in school is what does it mean to be a theory. A theory has assumptions and conclusions. Conclusion may describe the facts which we know so far + the facts which we do not know. The quality of predictions is one of the measures of the quality of the theory. I intend to send my son to a public school and I want to have a value for my tax money. In particular, want him to learn some decent biology and some elements of Earth science. Of course, I can teach him those things myself, but what about parents without university degrees? Piotr Berman
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/16/85)
A response to Jeff Sonntag: >> I have never seen any moral code that could be supported apart from >> some transcendent framework (religion). > > But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for >following it? (like: God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!) >Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are >the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral >code? Is your opinion of human beings that low? No, I'm talking about reasons why we invoke a certain moral code and not another. Why is it considered a crime to murder and steal, for example? I'm not talking about people's motives for obeying, those have nothing to do with whether or not the morals themselves are good. I'm talking about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and enforce that belief through our laws. >> Sure, religion may not be >> necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to >> do what others expect of them without question) > > Here you've implied that no a-religious moral codes can supply >valid reasons for *why* they should be followed. Care to demonstrate that, >and how religious moral codes *do* supply valid reasons? [That's what bothers me about you skeptics; you always expect that others should have to disprove the things you contend as well as prove the things they contend. :-)] Yes, that's my implication. But you've shifted the burden of proof on that. I think the burden of proof lies with those who contend that there are sufficient, compeling reasons for morality apart from appeal to a transcendent authority. Religious codes do provide the transcendent authority. That is my only point here. I would contend that you can't provide sufficient reason to compel others to obey any moral code without doing the same thing. >> But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting >> on not? Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins. Students >> who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will >> only learn one side of the issue. > > Most students will also not hear flat-earth theories seriously >taught, nor will they hear about Veliskovsky's theories. Since serious >scientiest have overwhelmingly rejected these views, nobody minds that >they're not taught. (except perhaps the flat-earthers or the Veliskovskiites) >Why should creationism be treated any differently? There was a fair amount ideological witch hunting going on in "the Veliskofsky Affair" (see the book by that title). I would suggest that kind of face saving and "mine is better" thinking has much more to do with what scientific ideas are popular then we tend to think. (Nicholas Wade and William Broad have documented this in their recent book _Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science".) How much it has played a part in these particular cases is a matter of debate (for which this is not the place). My only point here is that just because a particular idea or ideas are accepted by the majority of scientists doesn't mean that contrary ideas don't have merit or aren't true. (I think we tend to give ideas that bear the stamp of scientific approval too much uncritical acceptance.) Also, it does not follow that all idea's rejected by this majority are equally lacking in merit. You seem to imply that they are by placing creationism in the same category with the flat earth theory. >> OK, you have learned them. But how do you support them. How do you >> compel another to treat others as he would be treated? On what basis >> must she accept that maxim? >> > First of all, I don't go around 'enforcing' the Golden Rule, compelling >people to act according to my moral standards. That is a peculiarly Christian >pasttime. If you were to rephrase the question: "What reasons would you give >a child for treating others as she would be treated?", I would try reasoning >with her, explaining how, in the long run, treating others nasty would make >*her* unhappy, due to alienation, etc. How would you do it, Paul? Say with >one of the commandments, since christians don't believe in the golden rule. >Would you warn her about hell? Promise her heaven? Do you see this method >as so much superior to reason that you call 'reason' no support at all for >moral codes? I wasn't the one to invoke the golden rule in the first place, Jeff. The ones who contend that there is sufficient basis for a moral code apart from religion did. Read the previous articles. It was my contention that the golden rule was not sufficient in itself. They seem to think that it was a good basis for laws against murder and laws that say everyone must pull over when an ambulance comes down the road. They seemed to think that the conjecture that they could also be victims is reason enough for them to be compelled to obey these laws. I have said that they aren't. I assume you are in favor of laws that compel people to obey some of your moral standards, Jeff. I assume you are against things like rape, murder and theft and think it is good that others are compelled to obey this standard by our laws. I also assume that you believe that laws like this are not a matter of individual preference and that, on the other hand, the rightness of a law does not depend only on whether the majority of people think it's right. So, then, what is the justification for these laws apart from religion? The thing I am contending against is the idea that a moral code of behaviour can have it's implications for society disregarded solely on the contention that that moral code is based on religious belief. As I see it, the argument behind that contention is that morality may be completely divorced from any religious grounding. I consider that religious grounding to be any appeal to transcendent standards (i.e. those which are validated on an authority above Mankind or, as Kant believed, reason alone.) If laws must ultimately be based on a transcendend standard to have validity, then I suggest that arguments against "imposing morality" based on religion are ill founded. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
george@sysvis (09/17/85)
I guess that I've heard enough of this ranting about what OTHERS should be
taught, especially "MY children" (as if they were property of some sort).
In the first place, schools were originally supported by the local populaces.
They were free to teach anything they wanted to teach, so long as the LOCAL
POPULACE agreed with it (religious or atheistic values are the same in having
the need for a consistent tautology, and are both based on `beliefs').
In the interest of the "general good", schools were made "public" so that the
ideal of giving ALL children an even break in what they were brainwashed with
was served (besides it was much cheaper to combine some of the functions).
The fact that when the children became adults they might learn to detest those
who had "lied" to them through limited teaching never occurs to these self-
righteous people (both the atheists and the religious sects) who wish to
control the minds of others. No child, of sound mind, is going to go through
life without exposure to all varities of hogwash. Is it better that they hear
about it at home, in churches, and in schools first so that they have time to
develop their own senses of discernment and judgment about different ideas?
This is not a new discussion here, there are always people with us who want
to control the thoughts of others (less threatening if others can't find out
the inadequacies of their own concepts.) I am speaking to both the religious
groups and the atheists here. If you want to raise `your' children so that
they are strong, and able to THINK FOR THEMSELVES, then teach them about
everything, belief and fact, no matter your own definition. To do less is a
crime against society and either closed value set (religious or atheistic).
The churches, by definition, are always trying to indoctrinate their subjects
in the `true way', as defined by (the leaders of) the church itself. If these
churches were not so afraid that people might find that their own brand of
bread and butter was not truly manna and honey, and thereby lose members --
and money, they would teach about ALL aspects of Gods/Anti-gods/Demi-gods etc.
for all religions that are extant. If the church's religion is not based on
falsehoods, or the subjugation of a congregation, then the children can easily
discern the `true way' for themselves. Letting the children form their own
opinions from the facts and beliefs that are clearly labeled as such is the
way to make them very strong individuals in task of life survival. i.e. teach
them to THINK.
In sum, let's hear a call for religious/anti-religious/intellectual freedom of
choice, based on the personal decisions of those who have the knowledge to do
so. Teaching everything to all children is not dangerous, it is the basis of
a free society. Each member of the free society can make decisions for them-
selves and don't/won't need James Jones, Jerry Falwell, Madeline Murray O'Hare,
Rev. Jesse Jackson, or Tip O'Neill to make their decisions for them. What
everyone is really afraid of here is that someone else's brainwashing tech-
niques might be better than their own.
...!ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!george robertson
"There is only one absolute law in the universe. That is what is called
the "Golden Rule". It is constant, no matter whether you believe in it
or not, and no matter what you call it." Unknown.mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/18/85)
> >I assume you are in favor of laws that compel people to obey some of your >moral standards, Jeff. I assume you are against things like rape, murder >and theft and think it is good that others are compelled to obey this standard >by our laws. I also assume that you believe that laws like this are not >a matter of individual preference and that, on the other hand, the rightness >of a law does not depend only on whether the majority of people think it's >right. So, then, what is the justification for these laws apart from religion? > >The thing I am contending against is the idea that a moral code of behaviour >can have it's implications for society disregarded solely on the contention >that that moral code is based on religious belief. As I see it, the argument >behind that contention is that morality may be completely divorced from >any religious grounding. I consider that religious grounding to be any >appeal to transcendent standards (i.e. those which are validated on >an authority above Mankind or, as Kant believed, reason alone.) If laws >must ultimately be based on a transcendend standard to have validity, then >I suggest that arguments against "imposing morality" based on religion >are ill founded. > >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd I wonder what religion is followed by baboons and other primates, or by wolves or lions (social animals generally)? They *behave* as if they have moral codes not unlike ours, though perhaps less complex. They can't really argue on Usenet, so we don't know why they follow these codes. Isn't it much simpler to believe that the basis for our moral codes has evolved from successful strategies for behaving as social beings, than to bring in appeals to a religion that started only 2000 years ago, long after people were behaving morally (oh, I suppose the Periclean Greeks were immoral -- after all, they didn't abhore homosexual love :-)). It seems totally ridiculous to me, to suggest that moral codes derive from religions. Perhaps the religions were invented to provide a framework for the moral codes? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/18/85)
Frankly, I'm rather glad I'm going to Hell. I'd rather suffer the discomforts and have the company of those who believe in the free inquiry of science, than enjoy the air-conditioned comfort of Heaven and be surrounded by Fundamentalists who regard thinking for oneself as a sin and to whom the highest virtue is obedience to Authority. Paul Dubuc writes: >>But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting >>one not? Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins. Students >>who don't go to churches that teach creationism or no church at all will >>only learn one side of the issue. So what? If they have attended a good school, they will have a good idea of what science is and will be able to distinguish religious beliefs from science. Why is it important that children learn the creationist "side" and not the Hindu, Velikovskian, geocentric, and flat-earth sides as well, not to mention numerous others? >There was a fair amount ideological witch hunting going on in "the >Velikovsky Affair" (see the book by that title). I would suggest >that kind of face saving and "mine is better" thinking has much more >to do with what scientific ideas are popular then we tend to think. >... My only >point here is that just because a particular idea or ideas are >accepted by the majority of scientists doesn't mean that contrary >ideas don't have merit or aren't true. So what? Point #1: Creation-science ideas are NOT A MINORITY SCIENTIFIC VIEW. They are not even bad science. They are not science at all. This has been explained at great length in net.origins. Point #2: Even if 100% of the "merit" and most of the truth were on the side of creationism, THAT STILL WOULD NOT MAKE IT SCIENCE. It would still be a religious belief, for the reasons that have been expounded at great length in net.origins. Under the First Amendment as usually interpreted, religious instruction is barred from the public schools. >... Also, it does not follow that all idea's rejected by >this majority are equally lacking in merit. You seem to imply that >they are by placing creationism in the same category with the flat >earth theory. No, he implied that they were equally lacking in scientific character. Creation-"science" may have oodles more "merit" than flat-earth "science," but one is no more scientific than the other. >I'm talking >about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and >enforce that belief through our laws.... >I assume you are in favor of laws that compel people to obey some of >your moral standards, Jeff. I assume you are against things like >rape, murder and theft and think it is good that others are compelled >to obey this standard by our laws. I also assume that you believe >that laws like this are not a matter of individual preference and >that, on the other hand, the rightness of a law does not depend only >on whether the majority of people think it's right. So, then, what >is the justification for these laws apart from religion? Why does a law need a "justification"? People advocate laws and enforcement thereof for a variety of reasons, but in large part it's because of the practical effect they think the law will have. I support certain social welfare laws because I don't want people to be poor or hungry. It has zilch to do with religion, and I feel no need to "justify" my desire to have fewer people going hungry or poor. If someone else opposes the laws because he doesn't care about poor and hungry people, fine with me, I have nothing to say to him. As to why anyone should behave morally, one should do so ONLY IF ONE WANTS TO. There is no other good reason for doing anything. And one wants to, in the case of the people who do, because AS A CHILD ONE'S NEEDS WERE FULFILLED BY LOVING PARENTS. No one has the capacity for loving and caring unless he or she has first received loving and caring. Again it has zilch to do with a religious education or indoctrination. Richard Carnes Damned and proud of it
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/19/85)
In article <5906@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) writes: >A response to Jeff Sonntag: > >>> I have never seen any moral code that could be supported apart from >>> some transcendent framework (religion). >> >> But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for >>following it? (like: God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!) >>Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are >>the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral >>code? Is your opinion of human beings that low? > >No, I'm talking about reasons why we invoke a certain moral code and not >another. Why is it considered a crime to murder and steal, for example? >I'm not talking about people's motives for obeying, those have nothing >to do with whether or not the morals themselves are good. I'm talking >about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and >enforce that belief through our laws. Paul continues to make the same point below. Other Christians have asked this question, at one time or another. The conclusion that most draw is that religion gives us the basis for our law. I disagree. The primary purpose of government (I would argue the sole purpose, but this debate has been going on in net.politics.theory for some time) is the protection of the lives and property of its citizens from those who would take same by force. If government does not enact and enforce laws in the protection of its citizens, then it is sterile and useless, and should be banished. Hence the laws are not derived from any moral or religious basis -- they are the very soul of the state, and failure to enact and enforce such laws should and will be the end of the state. -- Rick.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/19/85)
In article <1683@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >> >>I assume you are in favor of laws that compel people to obey some of your >>moral standards, Jeff. I assume you are against things like rape, murder >>and theft and think it is good that others are compelled to obey this standard >>by our laws. I also assume that you believe that laws like this are not >>a matter of individual preference and that, on the other hand, the rightness >>of a law does not depend only on whether the majority of people think it's >>right. So, then, what is the justification for these laws apart from religion? >> >>The thing I am contending against is the idea that a moral code of behaviour >>can have it's implications for society disregarded solely on the contention >>that that moral code is based on religious belief. As I see it, the argument >>behind that contention is that morality may be completely divorced from >>any religious grounding. I consider that religious grounding to be any >>appeal to transcendent standards (i.e. those which are validated on >>an authority above Mankind or, as Kant believed, reason alone.) If laws >>must ultimately be based on a transcendend standard to have validity, then >>I suggest that arguments against "imposing morality" based on religion >>are ill founded. >> >>-- >> >>Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > >I wonder what religion is followed by baboons and other primates, or >by wolves or lions (social animals generally)? They *behave* as if they >have moral codes not unlike ours, though perhaps less complex. They >can't really argue on Usenet, so we don't know why they follow these >codes. Can baboons *decide* to disobey these "moral codes"? Can they analize them and calculate the risk of not doing so? Why should I have to obey our human moral codes because baboons obey theirs? We *can* argue on USENET and in politics, and that makes all the difference. >Isn't it much simpler to believe that the basis for our moral codes >has evolved from successful strategies for behaving as social beings, >than to bring in appeals to a religion that started only 2000 years >ago, long after people were behaving morally (oh, I suppose the Periclean >Greeks were immoral -- after all, they didn't abhore homosexual love :-)). >It seems totally ridiculous to me, to suggest that moral codes derive >from religions. Perhaps the religions were invented to provide a >framework for the moral codes? I did not suggest that moral codes derive from religions (that may be true or false, but it was not my point). My point is that only religiously grounded moral codes can claim any real authority over other human beings. This is a transcendent standard, one that subjects that king to the law as well as the peasant. If the law is not based on a transcendent authority, then it is whatever the king (or government in today's terms) says it is; those in power define right and wrong. If moral codes are a product of evolution as you say, then so is my ability to reason and question those moral codes. Should I just obey them because they were supposedly right for "primitive humans"? Do it because that's the way it's always been done? The technology we have may help me avoid the consequences they had. How does this basis for morality help answer the question of whether it is right for me to cheat on my income tax? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/19/85)
In article <10425@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >In article <5906@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) writes: >>A response to Jeff Sonntag: >> >>>> I have never seen any moral code that could be supported apart from >>>> some transcendent framework (religion). >>> >>> But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for >>>following it? (like: God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!) >>>Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are >>>the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral >>>code? Is your opinion of human beings that low? >> >>No, I'm talking about reasons why we invoke a certain moral code and not >>another. Why is it considered a crime to murder and steal, for example? >>I'm not talking about people's motives for obeying, those have nothing >>to do with whether or not the morals themselves are good. I'm talking >>about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and >>enforce that belief through our laws. > > Paul continues to make the same point below. Other Christians have >asked this question, at one time or another. The conclusion that most draw >is that religion gives us the basis for our law. > > I disagree. The primary purpose of government (I would argue the >sole purpose, but this debate has been going on in net.politics.theory for >some time) is the protection of the lives and property of its citizens from >those who would take same by force. If government does not enact and enforce >laws in the protection of its citizens, then it is sterile and useless, and >should be banished. Hence the laws are not derived from any moral or religious >basis -- they are the very soul of the state, and failure to enact and enforce >such laws should and will be the end of the state. > > -- Rick. But you already have in mind a certian set of moral codes for government to enforce. If government acts purely in its own interests an tramples over all the rights (lives and property) the people supposedly have, who is going to call in the police. What do you point to in order to say to that government that people really do have these rights and that they ought to be respected. What do you appeal to when the government says, "Well that's just your belief"? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (09/20/85)
> If government acts purely in its own interests an tramples over > all the rights (lives and property) the people supposedly have, who is going > to call in the police. What do you point to in order to say to that > government that people really do have these rights and that they ought to > be respected. What do you appeal to when the government says, "Well that's > just your belief"? > -- > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Well it *is* my belief (that government sponsored repression is wrong), and a damned strongly held one too. And it's also the belief of almost everyone else. And that's what I'd tell that nasty government, Paul. And if they say 'But that's an areligious moral code, which is completely unsupported. Why should we follow it?' I'll say: 'Just wait till my friend Paul gets here. He's got a lot of the same morals as mine written up in this big book he's always carrying around. And since they're written up in a book, and since the book says it was divinely inspired, you can't argue with anything written there. Which makes *his* moral code completely supported. So you'd better stop all of that repressing right now.' :-) I guess that the bottom line is: Paul's belief that his moral code is supported while areligious moral codes are not is simply a matter of his faith. To an observer without Paul's faith, it is apparent that both types of moral codes are founded on what is qualitatively the same stuff: - human custom, experience, expediency, etc. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Roads? Where we're going, we won't need any roads!"
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/20/85)
Paul Dubuc: > This is a transcendent standard, one that subjects >that king to the law as well as the peasant. If the law is not based >on a transcendent authority, then it is whatever the king (or government >in today's terms) says it is; those in power define right and wrong. This sounds like the Christian God. The one "in power" determines right and wrong. Why is this less arbitrary? The Christian "king" doesn't follow the morals he preaches, why should I? Scott J. Berry
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/20/85)
> ... name a single school that teaches geology without evolution.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Liberty University (Jerry Fallwell's
school) doesn't teach evolution as a viable theory in any subject. Creationists
interpret geological evidence in favor of evolution as those sort of
topsy turvy things that can happen when the whole earth gets flooded by
a terrible (40 day 40 night) rainstorm.mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/21/85)
> Paul Dubuc >I did not suggest that moral codes derive from religions (that may >be true or false, but it was not my point). My point is that only >religiously grounded moral codes can claim any real authority over >other human beings. This is a transcendent standard, one that subjects >that king to the law as well as the peasant. If the law is not based >on a transcendent authority, then it is whatever the king (or government >in today's terms) says it is; those in power define right and wrong. > >If moral codes are a product of evolution as you say, then so is my >ability to reason and question those moral codes. Should I just obey >them because they were supposedly right for "primitive humans"? Do it >because that's the way it's always been done? The technology we have may >help me avoid the consequences they had. How does this basis for >morality help answer the question of whether it is right for me to cheat >on my income tax? Two points here: Law = Morality, and evolution both develops moral codes and allows us to question them. (1) Law = Morality: I totally reject any idea that the law should support any religiously based morality. It can, however, support moral behaviour whose value has been shown by long experience (e.g. don't kill, steal, etc.), as well as behaviour that we reason will be beneficial. Reliance on religious bases for morality leads to conflicts between religions as to what is moral and what is not, except in these core areas that have evolved over periods longer than humanity has existed. Much of what Christianity calls "moral" is aimed at maintaining authority rather than improving life. One can argue that the makers of law have a similar self-serving motivation, and therefore one would expect law to parallel Christian morality, but that is not a good reason to derive laws from Christian morality. (2) >If moral codes are a product of evolution, then so is my ability to reason >and to question those moral codes. I totally agree, but I think it contradicts your statements about moral codes having a religious basis. I believe it is absolutely necessary that we try to break out of the straitjacket of moral codes that evolved to suit small bands of social animals, and develop through reason new codes that suit our Global Village. We cannot afford a code that permits people to mentally deny personhood to those that live in different places or under different circumstances (e.g. Vietnamese "gooks"). We cannot afford to allow wars, little or big, against groups whose aspirations conflict with those of our group. Morality that allowed, and even approved, such conflicts, worked when communication and travel was slow, and only small groups contended. The elimination of a foreign group was OK (Carthage must be destroyed -- and it was), because they were not real people (not Romans). But now, the elimination of the foreign group might mean the elimination of us all, and that morality (which was supported by the Christian Church) won't work any more. Unfortunately, our deeply evolved morality seems to be gaining the upper hand. We see more and more genocidal tendencies, murders of dehumanized people (Sunni by Shiite, city-dweller by Pol Pot, Jew by Hitler, victim by mugger, black S. African by police, and so on and so on). Such acts are not un-human, but inhumane. They are a consequence of our morality, which must be re-thought if we are to survive. And we can't rely on the morality of an Avenging Lord to guide our rethinking. Jesus had the right idea in a lot of what he said, but somehow that often gets transmuted in "Christian" morality. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/22/85)
In article <5935@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) writes: >In article <10425@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >> I disagree. The primary purpose of government (I would argue the >>sole purpose, but this debate has been going on in net.politics.theory for >>some time) is the protection of the lives and property of its citizens from >>those who would take same by force. If government does not enact and enforce >>laws in the protection of its citizens, then it is sterile and useless, and >>should be banished. Hence the laws are not derived from any moral or religious >>basis -- they are the very soul of the state, and failure to enact and enforce >>such laws should and will be the end of the state. >> >> -- Rick. > >But you already have in mind a certian set of moral codes for government to >enforce. If government acts purely in its own interests an tramples over >all the rights (lives and property) the people supposedly have, who is going >to call in the police. What do you point to in order to say to that >government that people really do have these rights and that they ought to >be respected. What do you appeal to when the government says, "Well that's >just your belief"? > > >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd You appeal to the Constitution, if you have one. If you haven't, you threaten rebellion. If that doesn't work, you rebel. I have yet to see a government yield on a major issue to moral suasion: I have seen many fall to revolution. I suspect, cynically, that it is the constant threat of rebellion rather than any sense of public morality that keeps governments in check. Rick.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/22/85)
In article <1164@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> If government acts purely in its own interests an tramples over >> all the rights (lives and property) the people supposedly have, who is going >> to call in the police. What do you point to in order to say to that >> government that people really do have these rights and that they ought to >> be respected. What do you appeal to when the government says, "Well that's >> just your belief"? >> -- >> Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > > Well it *is* my belief (that government sponsored repression is wrong), >and a damned strongly held one too. And it's also the belief of almost >everyone else. And that's what I'd tell that nasty government, Paul. > And if they say 'But that's an areligious moral code, which is completely >unsupported. Why should we follow it?' > I'll say: 'Just wait till my friend Paul gets here. He's got a lot of >the same morals as mine written up in this big book he's always carrying >around. And since they're written up in a book, and since the book says it >was divinely inspired, you can't argue with anything written there. Which >makes *his* moral code completely supported. So you'd better stop all >of that repressing right now.' > >:-) Very funny. But suppose it isn't the belief of almost everyone else? Suppose almost everyone else goes along with the government line? Seriously, Jeff, is something wrong or right depending on how strongly held your belief is or the fact that it is a majority belief? Did you think slavery was morally right for the Antibellum South? > I guess that the bottom line is: Paul's belief that his moral code >is supported while areligious moral codes are not is simply a matter of >his faith. To an observer without Paul's faith, it is apparent that both >types of moral codes are founded on what is qualitatively the same stuff: - >human custom, experience, expediency, etc. ... and faith. Not the same faith as mine, maybe, but faith none the less. What makes custom, experience, expediency, etc. authoritive? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/22/85)
In article <639@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) writes: > >Paul Dubuc: > >> This is a transcendent standard, one that subjects >>that king to the law as well as the peasant. If the law is not based >>on a transcendent authority, then it is whatever the king (or government >>in today's terms) says it is; those in power define right and wrong. > >This sounds like the Christian God. The one "in power" determines >right and wrong. Why is this less arbitrary? The Christian "king" >doesn't follow the morals he preaches, why should I? > > > Scott J. Berry Less arbitrary? The point was about transcendence. I don't think you can hold all humans under the law without it. I think the Christian God does follow the morals he sets and is also judge over the consequences. It's just that some people don't like is morals. The only point I'm making here is that God is not a man. Moral codes grounded in religious belief transcend man. People may justify good or bad actions according to what they think God says, put apart from such a transcending ground for morality, there is no justifying anything. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/23/85)
In article <10443@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >In article <5935@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) writes: >> ... >>But you already have in mind a certian set of moral codes for government to >>enforce. If government acts purely in its own interests an tramples over >>all the rights (lives and property) the people supposedly have, who is going >>to call in the police. What do you point to in order to say to that >>government that people really do have these rights and that they ought to >>be respected. What do you appeal to when the government says, "Well that's >>just your belief"? > >You appeal to the Constitution, if you have one. If you haven't, you threaten >rebellion. If that doesn't work, you rebel. I have yet to see a government >yield on a major issue to moral suasion: I have seen many fall to revolution. >I suspect, cynically, that it is the constant threat of rebellion rather than >any sense of public morality that keeps governments in check. > > Rick. In any case, you are conviced that your side (vs the government) is right and that you would be right to make the government bend to your convictions. What is the basis for that? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/23/85)
In article <1687@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >> Paul Dubuc >>I did not suggest that moral codes derive from religions (that may >>be true or false, but it was not my point). My point is that only >>religiously grounded moral codes can claim any real authority over >>other human beings. This is a transcendent standard, one that subjects >>that king to the law as well as the peasant. If the law is not based >>on a transcendent authority, then it is whatever the king (or government >>in today's terms) says it is; those in power define right and wrong. >> >>If moral codes are a product of evolution as you say, then so is my >>ability to reason and question those moral codes. Should I just obey >>them because they were supposedly right for "primitive humans"? Do it >>because that's the way it's always been done? The technology we have may >>help me avoid the consequences they had. How does this basis for >>morality help answer the question of whether it is right for me to cheat >>on my income tax? > >Two points here: Law = Morality, and evolution both develops moral codes >and allows us to question them. You forgot the one about the basis for the authority of law. I thought that was my main point. >(1) Law = Morality: > I totally reject any idea that the law should support any religiously >based morality. It can, however, support moral behaviour whose value has >been shown by long experience (e.g. don't kill, steal, etc.), as well as >behaviour that we reason will be beneficial. Reliance on religious bases >for morality leads to conflicts between religions as to what is moral and >what is not, except in these core areas that have evolved over periods >longer than humanity has existed. Much of what Christianity calls "moral" >is aimed at maintaining authority rather than improving life. One can >argue that the makers of law have a similar self-serving motivation, and >therefore one would expect law to parallel Christian morality, but that >is not a good reason to derive laws from Christian morality. But you seem to think that it is a good reason to reject a moral code based in religious belief. Again, I am not talking about the derivation of moral codes, I'm talking about the authority we may claim for enforcing them. By whose experience and whose reason are these values shown to be beneficial (to whom)? >(2) >>If moral codes are a product of evolution, then so is my ability to reason >>and to question those moral codes. > >I totally agree, but I think it contradicts your statements about moral >codes having a religious basis. I believe it is absolutely necessary that >we try to break out of the straitjacket of moral codes that evolved to >suit small bands of social animals, and develop through reason new codes >that suit our Global Village. We cannot afford a code that permits people >to mentally deny personhood to those that live in different places or >under different circumstances (e.g. Vietnamese "gooks"). We cannot afford >to allow wars, little or big, against groups whose aspirations conflict >with those of our group. Morality that allowed, and even approved, such >conflicts, worked when communication and travel was slow, and only small >groups contended. The elimination of a foreign group was OK (Carthage >must be destroyed -- and it was), because they were not real people >(not Romans). But now, the elimination of the foreign group might mean >the elimination of us all, and that morality (which was supported by >the Christian Church) won't work any more. >Unfortunately, our deeply evolved morality seems to be gaining the upper >hand. We see more and more genocidal tendencies, murders of dehumanized >people (Sunni by Shiite, city-dweller by Pol Pot, Jew by Hitler, >victim by mugger, black S. African by police, and so on and so on). >Such acts are not un-human, but inhumane. They are a consequence >of our morality, which must be re-thought if we are to survive. And we >can't rely on the morality of an Avenging Lord to guide our rethinking. >Jesus had the right idea in a lot of what he said, but somehow that often >gets transmuted in "Christian" morality. I'm a little confused as to the point of these paragraphs. You talk about what "we" can't allow or afford. But what if "they" decide they can? Why are we right and they wrong? What if they don't value individual rights or human lives (except their own)? You might have the strength to force them to, but in what would you base you authority to do so? How can we claim that "they" are under that same authory and are bound to respect what we believe are human rights? What gives the moral beliefs we hold any transcendence over what people think? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/24/85)
Actually, flat earth models have a great deal more "scientific merit" than creationist ones, since they are falsifiable. The creationists can always retreat into "Well, God deliberately made it look that way." -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/26/85)
> ... > In any case, you are conviced that your side (vs the government) is right > and that you would be right to make the government bend to your convictions. > What is the basis for that? > > > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd It's the same problem as found when dealing with pornography. In the public arena the rights of the pornographers are curtailed although not removed so that all can go about with minimum interference. If one wants to do something in private, that's ok, however if one wants to do something that disturbs others in the public domain that's not ok. Pornographers have as valid a claim to public school access as any other special interest group, and just like the others will offend some section of the community. The middle path seems to be to restrict access to all special interest groups - KKK, pornographers, religions, secular humanists etc. Screaming "discrimination" here rings hollow, for just as the individual has limitations on his freedom - one cannot kill arbitrarily - then so have the above groups. The discrimination charge would be valid if the separate groups were denied the right to meet together. There does of course remain the problem that many groups percieve restrictions on them as being *active* support for their "opposition". Such groups include many religious organizations where they see public schools as "pushing" secular humanism. However, because some call themselves "secular humanists" and associate themselves with specific ideas which are within the domain of education, one should not interpret the educational system as being pro-secular-humanist. Padraig Houlahan.
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/28/85)
In article <1164@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> If government acts purely in its own interests an tramples over >> all the rights (lives and property) the people supposedly have, who is going >> to call in the police. What do you point to in order to say to that >> government that people really do have these rights and that they ought to >> be respected. What do you appeal to when the government says, "Well that's >> just your belief"? >> -- >> Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > > Well it *is* my belief (that government sponsored repression is wrong), >and a damned strongly held one too. And it's also the belief of almost >everyone else. And that's what I'd tell that nasty government, Paul. You are wrong when you think that "almost everyone" believes that government sponsered repression is wrong. There are a lot of people in the Reagan administration that think that South Africa's repression is fine and dandy. There are 1 billion Chinese that think seem to like their repressive government. We have people in the US that seek to censor news programs, classroom materials, and even modes of thought if they are too far to the left, or right. One mans repression is another mans duty (to God, country, family, religion, etc.) But, just so you don't misunderstand, I do believe that the denial of a person's inalienable rights is wrong - regardless of who is doing to repression.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/01/85)
In article <10425@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > > I disagree. The primary purpose of government (I would argue the >sole purpose, but this debate has been going on in net.politics.theory for >some time) is the protection of the lives and property of its citizens from >those who would take same by force. If government does not enact and enforce >laws in the protection of its citizens, then it is sterile and useless, and >should be banished. Hence the laws are not derived from any moral or religious >basis -- they are the very soul of the state, and failure to enact and enforce >such laws should and will be the end of the state. > Well, I think a little more is needed here. The reason for the state in the first place, the reason humans invented this thing, is to provide for a stable social structure within which human interactions can procede with reasonable amicability. Thus what the laws do best, what they are really designed to do, is to restrict the occurance of antisocial behavior which would tend to destabilize society. Thus murder is illegal not because it is immoral(tho I believe that it is), but rather because allowing people to kill one another with impunity would tend to produce an environment of fear in which productive interactions are difficult. Thus laws are best justified on the basis of *utility* not morality. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/02/85)
In article <191@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Frankly, I'm rather glad I'm going to Hell. I'd rather suffer the >discomforts and have the company of those who believe in the free >inquiry of science, than enjoy the air-conditioned comfort of Heaven >and be surrounded by Fundamentalists who regard thinking for oneself >as a sin and to whom the highest virtue is obedience to Authority. > Unfortunately you are going to be missing a number of interesting scientists, some of us are going to be in Heaven! I believe even Galileo was actually a Christian! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/02/85)
A point which should be made: > ..... The middle path > seems to be to restrict access to all special interest groups - KKK, > pornographers, religions, secular humanists etc. Screaming "discrimination" > here rings hollow, for just as the individual has limitations on his freedom > - one cannot kill arbitrarily - then so have the above groups. The > discrimination charge would be valid if the separate groups were denied > the right to meet together. > > There does of course remain the problem that many groups percieve restrictions > on them as being *active* support for their "opposition". Such groups include > many religious organizations where they see public schools as "pushing" > secular humanism. However, because some call themselves "secular humanists" > and associate themselves with specific ideas which are within the > domain of education, one should not interpret the educational system > as being pro-secular-humanist. > > Padraig Houlahan. One of the most immoral social institutions in my view is the institution of War. While there are in fact no "Secular Humanist" clubs (if anything I think there is a bias expressed by most individual teachers in favor of religion) there are just as concretely Junior ROTC clubs in many High Schools. These clubs, actively promoted by the public schools, teach that War is perfectly OK and simply an extension of the games played in childhood. What do Christians say about this? tim sevener whuxl!orb
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/05/85)
In article <768@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <191@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >>Frankly, I'm rather glad I'm going to Hell. I'd rather suffer the >>discomforts and have the company of those who believe in the free >>inquiry of science, than enjoy the air-conditioned comfort of Heaven >>and be surrounded by Fundamentalists who regard thinking for oneself >>as a sin and to whom the highest virtue is obedience to Authority. >> > Unfortunately you are going to be missing a number of >interesting scientists, some of us are going to be in Heaven! I >believe even Galileo was actually a Christian! >-- > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) But Galileo did have his problems with the religous establishment. Besides, back then everyone was Catholic whether they wanted to be or not. When you are in heaven, in the glorious splendor of God's magnificence, you will be too busy adoring the thing to bother yourself with free inquiry. Thus, you probably will not be interesting company anyway.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/09/85)
>>Two points here: Law = Morality, and evolution both develops moral codes >>and allows us to question them. > >You forgot the one about the basis for the authority of law. I thought >that was my main point. >>(1) Law = Morality: >> I totally reject any idea that the law should support any religiously >>based morality. It can, however, support moral behaviour whose value has >>been shown by long experience (e.g. don't kill, steal, etc.), as well as >>behaviour that we reason will be beneficial. Reliance on religious bases >>for morality leads to conflicts between religions as to what is moral and >>what is not, except in these core areas that have evolved over periods >>longer than humanity has existed. Much of what Christianity calls "moral" >>is aimed at maintaining authority rather than improving life. One can >>argue that the makers of law have a similar self-serving motivation, and >>therefore one would expect law to parallel Christian morality, but that >>is not a good reason to derive laws from Christian morality. > >But you seem to think that it is a good reason to reject a moral code >based in religious belief. Again, I am not talking about the derivation >of moral codes, I'm talking about the authority we may claim for enforcing >them. By whose experience and whose reason are these values shown to >be beneficial (to whom)? > >>(2) >>>If moral codes are a product of evolution, then so is my ability to reason >>>and to question those moral codes. >> >>I totally agree, but I think it contradicts your statements about moral >>codes having a religious basis. I believe it is absolutely necessary that >>we try to break out of the straitjacket of moral codes that evolved to >>suit small bands of social animals, and develop through reason new codes >>that suit our Global Village. We cannot afford a code that permits people > >I'm a little confused as to the point of these paragraphs. You talk about >what "we" can't allow or afford. But what if "they" decide they can? >Why are we right and they wrong? What if they don't value individual >rights or human lives (except their own)? You might have the strength >to force them to, but in what would you base you authority to do so? >How can we claim that "they" are under that same authory and are bound >to respect what we believe are human rights? What gives the moral beliefs >we hold any transcendence over what people think? >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd I have elided my original, to which you were commenting, but not your comments. There is an important political issue here, that divides us utterly, even though we might wind up supporting the same kinds of behaviour and laws. That issue is the appeal to a *necessary* authority. I do not believe in the necessity of an extra-personal authority to validate either laws or moral codes. You think that humans cannot agree to either unless they have some kind of Big Daddy in the Sky to tell them that they have chosen correctly. Since I wrote the original rather off-hand suggestion about the possibility that religions arose as a response to a need for a "rational" explanation of pre-existing morality, I have thought about it a bit more. It now seems to me more than just a possibility; rather it is a highly likely historical event. After all, humans evolved as group animals with certain behaviour traits that kept the group intact (moral behaviour). At some point, evolution reached as far a allowing communications that questioned, and that pondered mysteries. "Why should we behave well to one another" "Why does the Sun come and keep us warm, and where does the snow come from?" and so on and so forth. There is one big, neat, rational solution to these questions, from a primitive standpoint. Each of these natural events has someone looking after it to see that it happens properly. Well, if those guys are so powerful, they are stronger than us, and we'd better be careful not to offend them. We do pretty well, behaving the way we do, so that must be the way they want us to behave. Yeah, our morals derive from the Gods ... A very natural and logical progression. And it is as rational today as it was then, which is to say completely rational unless you take advantage of Ockham's razor. Since we now know a few more facts of nature, and have invented simple stories that fit most of them together in a consistent way, we find there is no need to depend on the authority of these Gods (or of the One God into whom they all coalesced, according to some people). Not only that, we can see quite naturally why it was rational to believe in the Gods and to depend on their authority. Once a few people understood the powerful logic behind making Gods responsible for our good behaviour, other people could stand up as interpreters of the Gods, and their continuance in power depended on people requiring the authority of the Gods to prevent them from terrible deeds. But all along, it was the basic nature of small groups to behave well among themselves. Early Christians knew well the benefits of grafting their dogma onto pre-existing beliefs and behaviour patterns, and it was probably no different elsewhere in the world. I would consider this suitable for net.religion, were it not for the fact that the issue lies near the foundation of political discussion. I go back to your last paragraph quoted above. I believe no-one has "authority" to make anyone believe anything, or to behave in a particular way. "We" meaning humanity as a whole, must behave in a way that allows our continued survival. I believe that means rationally changing the basis of our morality, in respect at least to out-group behaviour. The authority for this is reason and the strength is that of argument. If someone believes that it would be better for humanity to perish, they may be right from some viewpoint or other, but I hope my viewpoint has the "strength" (moral, physical, or legal) to prevent them from putting their views into practice. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt