rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/04/84)
I know I said I would avoid taking on Mr. Bickford's ranting again, but ... Larry mentions a case (apparently) where parents chose to let a severely retarded child with a number of physical problems die rather than have operations performed to extend his life. His presentation is notoriously one-sided (and leaves a number of points unclear), concluding with "condemning him to an early and painful death" (which could just as easily have been called "condemning him to a long and painful life" had the operations been performed). Since Larry left so much unclear in this and the following example (it's not clear whether the girl wanted to have an abortion or not from the text Larry wrote) that it is impossible to make any judgments. Yet Larry seems to point out that his answers are obviously arrived at, though I'm not quite sure how. (What about those religions that forbid any medical intervention?) The point is: what's the point? Why is this a 'religionist'/'humanist' question (except in Larry's eyes)? > More Bob Lied: > > We do not need the heavy baggage of absolute good and evil ... > No, you want the ability to change the rules whenever you feel like it. > Everyone has absolutes; you just don't want to let yours be known. Larry still seems to be (and probably will continue to be) under the impression that non-religion means "making up your own rules as you go along". Which is contrary to the notion of people formulating rules for a society on a rational level (as opposed to simply doing things because it says so in a book that *some* people believe is an ultimate authority). The difference between the non-religion ideal and the religion ideal is that the former uses rational thinking to formulate agreed-upon rules for a society, while the latter employs rote obedience to the words in a book. About this whole business of situational ethics: would anyone like to show me some non-situational ethics? Man: Excuse me, God, I have a question? You say that it is wrong to kill? God: Yes, thou shalt not kill. Man: But this guy is coming at me with a knife. Can I kill him to prevent him from killing me? God: Uhhh, [FLIP, FLIP, FLIP] ... yes, that's OK. Man: Well, he *is* coming after me for having killed his entire family. God: Oh! Well, then he has a right to kill you, an eye for an eye and all that... Man: But it was an accident! Their car went out of control and I couldn't stop my car in time to avoid crushing them. God: Oh, well, then he shouldn't be killing you for that. Well... Yes, *he* should definitely be killed for trying to kill you. Man: But it's not his fault. He went insane years ago from accidentally ingesting this chemical, and he'd been in treatment for it but he couldn't afford it any more because he lost his job, and now he's relapsing and... God: Hmm, where'd that page on absolute good and evil go? [FLIP, FLIP] Oh, OK, well he should get some more of that treatment again, but if he does kill you he'll have to be killed, too, because killing is wrong. Man: Thank you, God. It must be really hard work straightening out all this sort of nonsense. God: It wasn't *my* idea! Larry Bickford told me I had to do it, and who was I to argue with him? > Dick Dunn (for the next four): > > How does one reconcile "Exterminate the worship of other gods" with > > the US doctrine of freedom of religion? > I didn't know that US doctrine had the authority of God:-). "Freedom > *of* religion" is quite the appropriate term - freedom *to* worship. > This is not the same as freedom *from* worship, which tries to have us > believe that it is possible to be without religion. But neutrality is a > myth, and a very devastating one. There's no need to *try* to have many of us believe that it is possible to be without religion; we have already discovered this possibility. This must be what Larry meant in his definition of freedom, where freedom meant being free to do what was right. Obviously once Larry's candidates get elected, *then* the US government would have the authority of god. Then we will all have "freedom to worship", but not "freedom NOT to worship". What is this "neutrality" you refer to that is impossible to achieve? > > I have seen misinterpretations of situation ethics used as an excuse > > for people to do whatever they want - I think that may be what bothers > > Bob [Brown], and it bothers me too; I don't buy it a bit. > What bothers me more is that, in the humanist system, there is no way > to define or control the abuses. As I've already mentioned, humanism has rules just like any other societal construct. The difference is, again, that the rules are logically determined and thought out rather than derived from a book for which no one can offer evidence of its divine origins and authority. > > [Theist]: "Where's the deity?" There isn't one. > The myth of neutrality again. Huh? Again this neutrality. What does it mean? One cannot hope to believe in the wrong god or no god, or to believe that it doesn't matter? One *must* believe in the "right way" and there are no other options? Could someone clarify? Does Larry mean that no one can hope to offer a neutral, rational position/judgment in a situation, that only god can offer final judgment? It's not the myth of neutrality, it's the myth of belief without substance, without evidence, without reason. > For Daryel Akerlind, the key historic evidences you need are two: > fulfilled prophecy and the Resurrection. Neither Mohammed nor Moon > qualifies on either point. (See Romans 1:4 and Luke 24:27,44,46) Again, anyone can take a prophecy from eons ago and interpret that current events are a fulfillment of that prophecy. The Resurrection? Oh, yeah, Larry was there, he saw it all, and he performed scientific tests to make sure it wasn't all legerdemain. > Lest I leave Rich Rosen out, his latest articles (at qubix, anyway) added > nothing new to the above save one, regarding making George Labelle into > a Messiah: I should expect to see George publicly executed, then find > 500 people willing to be thrown to the lions rather than renounce belief > that they saw George alive after he was dead. I should also expect to > see some miracles being performed to authenticate the message (my cobra > would like to taste your arm). I should also expect to find over 300 > specific predictions about George's life and death that had been made at > least 500 years earlier (and compiled in a specific book at *that* time) > should be exactly fulfilled. What a cure for insomnia. The Book of Ubizmo clearly says: "And a man named George will be born. And he will live. And eventually he will die. And, lo, many people will see this as a sign that this very prophecy I am writing right now has been fulfilled. And there will be much rejoicing, and sales of George Labelle t-shirts and paperback books and video games will be humungous in my sight. And seven people who knew George will see him again after he has died, but they will not mention that it was a photograph or a videotape, or that they had partaken of chemicals, or that they were just playing a joke on everyone. And many who choose to believe this all to be a sign of great things, will believe in George. And they will be laughed at, scorned, and have tomatoes thrown at them, and many will die. But one tomato will not reach its target, and will become a splotch on the ground. And this will be called the Miracle of the Red Fruit for all to see. And many will speak to others of George's horrible death at the hands of the unbelievers, failing to mention that he slipped on a bar of soap in the shower. And a great horned beast named Edgar who ..." Didn't I already mention about interpreting "prophecies" the way YOU want to? The Book of Ubizmo is much clearer, and specifically names names (George) and events (slipping in the shower). No room for error, here.... > Now the good news: I'll be too busy with work next week to post > anything major, and on vacation the following week. So if you think I'm > ignoring you - you're probably right. :-) Oh, come on, Larry's been ignoring everything we've said from the very beginning! Why should we expect anything different? :-() -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (06/06/84)
We're back with Larry Bickford again: >Bob Lied: >> The fundamental rule of humanism is the Golden Rule. >But it only applies to humanists. Consider: in 1980, the California >Supreme Court (Bird-brain, et al.)... And of course, Larry's love of his brethren applies only to the few who share his view of the world... Larry goes on to cite one court case with some difficult questions - of course, he states only one side of it in order to make the hard questions look easy. And of course he makes the "humanists" (might as well have said "disciples of Satan") his whipping- boys, but without making any connection between the court case and humanism. >More Bob Lied: >> We do not need the heavy baggage of absolute good and evil ... >No, you want the ability to change the rules whenever you feel like it. >Everyone has absolutes; you just don't want to let yours be known. And of course ol' holier-than-thou Larry is free to twist anything you say. Larry has his OWN sense of situational ethics - he is not bound by reason, fairness/justice, tolerance, or anything else, when criticizing a view he doesn't like. >Dick Dunn (for the next four): >> How does one reconcile "Exterminate the worship of other gods" with >> the US doctrine of freedom of religion? >I didn't know that US doctrine had the authority of God:-). "Freedom >*of* religion" is quite the appropriate term - freedom *to* worship. >This is not the same as freedom *from* worship, which tries to have us >believe that it is possible to be without religion... Larry seems to be asserting that he can distinguish between a religious belief system and a belief system from which religion is absent. This is a logical fallacy at heart; you just can't draw the line. (For any set of criteria you may establish to distinguish religion from not-religion, I can probably devise a doctrine which sits squarely on the fence.) But more basically, Larry sidestepped the real question - a stated part of his doctrine is to "Exterminate the worship of other gods." He didn't bother to address that point, because he can't without telling most of you - not only atheist but Jew, Muslim, and even most Christians - that he has a holy mission to ram his beliefs down your (our) throats. >> I have seen misinterpretations of situation ethics used as an excuse >> for people to do whatever they want - I think that may be what bothers >> Bob [Brown], and it bothers me too; I don't buy it a bit. >What bothers me more is that, in the humanist system, there is no way >to define or control the abuses. Rich Rosen said it pretty well; Larry consistently ignores any knowledge of humanism. He substitutes his own unfounded ideas; then, having set up the straw man, he burns it down. For the response to the rest of Larry's diatribe, see Rich Rosen's response. I'm glad Rich summoned the energy to comment on it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/11/84)
> Are you assuming that fear and blind faith are the only reasons to follow any > religious dogma? (Never ASSUME....) I'm not assuming. I've already asked for factual evidence for your system of beliefs. The only reasons left for believing in such a system are fear and blind faith without reason, in the absence of such evidence. > It might be mentioned that a major > effect of Christ in lives is indeed to free people to do what's right -- but > to make them the opposite of zombies. It is when people are still "slaves to > sin" that they are, to some extent, zombies -- i.e. committing actions not by > choice, but by compulsion. (We will not discuss whether this compulsion is > from within the person or from external demonic forces; I believe both.) I agree completely with Jeff that being what he calls a "slave to sin" (what I would call a slave to physical biochemical compulsions) is roughly equivalent to being a zombie. One of those physical biochemical compulsions is the emotional need to believe in a parent figure watching over one's life. The good emotional feeling resulting from this can be beneficial to one's (apparent) well being. I think we've already been through the arguments about "freedom to do what's right", and the fallacy behind that line of thought. > A good reason to get precepts out of books of wisdom is that these books were > written by people with a fair amount of experience of life, who had probably > lived longer than you now have, and who had made a lot of the same mistakes > you might make; so you can learn from them and have some basis on which to > make your choices. Anyway, I would say that it makes more sense to formulate > rules for a society of imperfect people by using wisdom, rather than > rationality -- the particular aspect of wisdom in this case being > understanding whole people, not just concentrating on the mind. A bad reason to get precepts out of books of wisdom is precisely because these people may have thought up some rational things (occasionally), but they failed to explain the reasoning behind their thinking, and as I've already mentioned, if there's no clear cut reason why a law exists, it's worthless. Unless you want to formulate a society that looks like those silly caveman post-nuclear societies in futuristic post-holocaust SF. ("Hark! This sign on the road left by the ancients says "NO LEFT TURN". Thus none of us may turn left at any time. Praise the Holy Highway Department, the ancient lords who gave us our laws!") (Hey, I'm sure some of you out there would LOVE such a society; we'd all be free to do what's right...) It makes more sense to formulate rules for a society of imperfect people by using rationality rather than wisdom. Rationality means that you design laws and give reasons for their existence. ("No murder, because a precept of our society is that interfering with the rights of another human, especially the right to live, is wrong. Now, what about rules about who can have sex with whom? Do we need any? No? Fine. Next topic...") Wisdom is just a bunch of words in a book that YOU happen to agree with (like the empty words of Lewis or McDowell). One person's wisdom is another person's jokebook. > ... but since then I > have been (gradually) coming to see that many things the Bible says do indeed > make good rational sense. Just because there are some things in the book that make sense doesn't mean that the whole book should be used a pattern for living, nor does it mean that the book is divinely authored. They had to build a society back then, too, and at least SOME of the precepts in just about every society are bound to have some degree of rationality behind them. ("If we say that murder is OK, then we won't have much of a society in a few years, and we'll be wiped out by the Boozillians from the mountain region. If we want our community to survive, let's agree that among us we live in peace, and set up some sort of arbiter to determine things..." So much for C.S. Lewis' need to see such things as external to humanity.) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (06/22/84)
>> = Sargent > = Rosen >> Are you assuming that fear and blind faith are the only reasons to follow >> any religious dogma? (Never ASSUME....) > I'm not assuming. I've already asked for factual evidence for your system > of beliefs. The only reasons left for believing in such a system are fear > and blind faith without reason, in the absence of such evidence. You are assuming that only physical evidence is admissible. "Rationalists do not deny miracles, God, and the supernatural because there is no evidence for them. They deny them because they have limited themselves to an approach which shuts out the possibility of such evidence." -- from "What Else?", by Doug Dickey. I find it difficult not to resent being accused of believing because of fear and blind faith. My faith is not blind; I trust God because it has been my experience that "God works all things together for good for those who love Him"; while certainly I often don't see where a particular situation will end up when I entrust it to Him, I have seen other situations work out for the best (better than I could have imagined) when I entrusted them to Him; since He worked before, I believe He'll work again. Let us not get into another fruitless, hypothetical discussion as to whether other religious-type beliefs would have had the same effect; i.e. "What about some imaginary Hindu or Moslem?" questions are just that -- imaginary. Let's stick to real case histories. >> It might be mentioned that a major effect of Christ in lives is indeed to >> free people to do what's right -- but to make them the opposite of >> zombies. It is when people are still "slaves to sin" that they are, to >> some extent, zombies -- i.e. committing actions not by choice, but by >> compulsion. > I agree completely with Jeff that being what he calls a "slave to sin" (what > I would call a slave to physical biochemical compulsions) is roughly > equivalent to being a zombie. Rich...aren't you calling yourself a zombie? You have expressed your belief that there isn't anything but the physical. By your own argument, you are a slave to physical biochemical compulsions. Even your control over some of these compulsions is yet another such compulsion, according to you; and so is your disbelief in God. If everything you say arises purely from biochemistry, only your own biochemistry makes you think it's valid. > I think we've already been through the arguments about > "freedom to do what's right", and the fallacy behind that line of thought. I'm not talking about political freedom here! I'm talking about personal freedom -- being freed from that which inhibits us from doing that which is best for us and/or those around us. > A bad reason to get precepts out of books of wisdom is precisely because > these people may have thought up some rational things (occasionally), but > they failed to explain the reasoning behind their thinking, and as I've > already mentioned, if there's no clear cut reason why a law exists, it's > worthless. I don't know the answer to the following question, but did ALL ancient writers of books of wisdom fail to give reasons for what they suggested? When I said "books of wisdom" rather than just "the Bible", I was intending to include those of other philosophers, e.g. the ancient Greeks. Check yourself. Do you make a point of opposing only the Bible (under the guise of "rationalism"), or do you deny all past wisdom? It appears to me that you're a lot like me in one way: You want to be perfectly safe. You don't want to bet your life on anything unless you KNOW it's a safe bet. Unfortunately, life, if it is truly lived, consists of repeatedly betting one's life (in large ways and small). Judging by some of the lines which have appeared in your .signature files (particularly "Pardon me for breathing"), I wonder whether you really like or want to be alive at all. > It makes more sense to formulate rules for a society of imperfect people by > using rationality rather than wisdom. Rationality means that you design > laws and give reasons for their existence.... Wisdom is just a bunch of > words in a book that YOU happen to agree with (like the empty words of Lewis > or McDowell). One person's wisdom is another person's jokebook. We have different definitions of wisdom. My working definition is something like "a knowledge of how people are inside and how they function, and what happens/how they feel when they do certain things, and how to act so as to optimize life." Wisdom is a quality of character possessed by living people as well as ancient writers, particularly by older people who have had time to observe a lot of life. I think the reason that the reasons for, e.g., the BIblical morality were omitted because the effects (or possible effects) of doing otherwise would be obvious. (Consider the state of the Roman Empire during the first century A.D., when the New Testament was being written; Seneca, I think, wrote "Innocence was not rare in the Roman Empire; it was nonexistent." Much like today.) BTW, I would hesitate to consider the words of a man of Lewis's intelligence "empty". > Just because there are some things in the book [the Bible] that make sense > doesn't mean that the whole book should be used a pattern for living, nor > does it mean that the book is divinely authored. This reminds me of something Rich wrote to me in a private letter (approximate quote from memory): "A morality based de facto on a book is a bankrupt concept." The key words here are "de facto". I agree with this statement! If you're doing nothing but following the book, you're missing out on the real life and freedom (again, not political, but personal) of Christ, as Paul wrote to the Galatians. The Bible is a good set of guidelines, but it does little good without the living presence of Christ. > So much for C.S. Lewis' need to see such things as external to humanity. Twice in his article, Rich, in his hypothetical rational societies, used the example that murder is irrational. But Lewis's argument did not deal on such a high level. His point was that there is an idea of fair play, a push to do the good thing even if you have to risk yourself to do it, a standard for daily behavior which we recognize, but to which none of us fully conforms. Two of his examples were: 1) When people quarrel, often one sees that one party has done something not nice and the second party is taking the first to task because of the first's unfairness or whatever -- appealing to a standard of fairness or good behavior; and the first party accepts the standard and tries to excuse his behavior as not really being a violation of that standard. 2) If you hear a call for help from a drowning person, you will have two impulses: an impulse to help the person, and an impulse to preserve your own safety. But there will be a third thing within you, an idea that you ought to follow the impulse to help the victim, quite separate from that impulse itself. Now Rich, in example #2, would probably let the person drown unless the person meant a lot to him, because it would seem "rational" to preserve his own safety. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Sorry, but Rich seems to be an excellent fulfillment of the prophecy "Having eyes they do not see, and having ears they do not hear." -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|decvax|harpo|ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "...got to find my corner of the sky."
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/29/84)
[ODD NUMBERS OF '>'s = SARGENT; EVEN NUMBERS OF '>'s = ROSEN] > You are assuming that only physical evidence is admissible. "Rationalists do > not deny miracles, God, and the supernatural because there is no evidence for > them. They deny them because they have limited themselves to an approach > which shuts out the possibility of such evidence." -- from "What Else?", by > Doug Dickey. I find it difficult not to resent being accused of believing > because of fear and blind faith. My faith is not blind; I trust God because > it has been my experience that "God works all things together for good for > those who love Him"; while certainly I often don't see where a particular > situation will end up when I entrust it to Him, I have seen other situations > work out for the best (better than I could have imagined) when I entrusted > them to Him; since He worked before, I believe He'll work again. You know, there's an interesting speculation there. Maybe this should be co-posted to net.ai or net.sci, but as we have noted innumerable times in this newsgroup, there are many many examples, Christian and otherwise, of people's beliefs carrying them through hardships and leading them towards goals. Perhaps the almost child-like "I believe you will take care of me" belief, when strongly persisting in a believer, may tap unused resources in the brain to help provide knowledge to get one through a situation. I'm not talking about a "force" or deity, or about precognitive supernatural capabilities, or about communal souls and past life experiences. I'm just talking about the power of belief putting the brain in a state where it is somehow used more efficiently, differently, etc. Just a speculation... About that comment: "I find it difficult not to resent being accused of believing because of fear and blind faith." You say you trust god. You believe in god because you have faith that it exists. Thus you are trusting that your faith that god exists is not unfounded and that having that faith causes good things to happen. Do good things happen? (Yes.) Did I have faith? (Yes.) Did these good things happen before I had faith? (No.) Therefore, by post hoc ergo propter hoc, god exists and is working to make my life better because of my faith. Resent it if you like, Jeff (just as others have resented statements you have made), but realize the foundations from which the statements were made. > Let us not get into another fruitless, hypothetical discussion as to > whether other religious-type beliefs would have had the same effect; i.e. > "What about some imaginary Hindu or Moslem?" questions are just that -- > imaginary. Let's stick to real case histories. Apparently the only "physical" evidence shows that such things *only* happen to Christians. And the "imaginary" ramblings of those who ask about followers of other religions is just propaganda and lies, right? This couldn't be another example of christocentrism, could it? (Perhaps we won't hear "case histories" from followers of other religions, because *they* don't feel the need to relate their experiences as "proof" of their one and only correct way.) -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr