lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/30/84)
I have never stated that all pleasure is perversion [OK, BICKFORD, NO MORE CYCLING TRIPS INTO THE MOUNTAINS!]. I will state, however, that the HM declaration removes all restrictions on forms of pleasure - even those that would be disgusting by *others'* standards. Rich Rosen repeated the oft-stated "rights end where imposition on another person begins." That would, of course, depend on what the basis for "rights" is. (I've been a bit disappointed in the small response to my survey.) Also, is it an "imposition on another person" to keep a 3- year-old from his favorite pastime of watching the big trucks in action close-up? [Side note: God has been getting a lot of bad press as being a killjoy, someone who deprives us of the "right" to enjoy certain pleasures. Since Rich constantly harps about rationality, permit me to ask: how are you so sure you have all the facts for your "rational" decision? God knows a lot of things you aren't able to understand, even as you know things that 3-year-old doesn't.] >cornell!gtaylor: "The attack on the Humanist Manifesto is not unlike >another tactic I cannot help but notice: that of choosing either a >poorly articulated or extreme point of view ...." The original author stated his full agreement with both Humanist Manifestos, with such notable signers as John Dewey, Charles Francis Potter, Isaac Asimov (II, maybe not I), and others, so it can't be THAT poorly written. As for "the big lie again: against free enterprise, for communism, ...", thus saith HM I, Tenet 14: "The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world." I don't know if Marx (not Groucho) could have written it any better. I stand with my earlier statement. More opus!rcd: >Anyone who has retained a sixth-grade knowledge of even basic science >knows that science neither has, nor claims to have, all the answers. They sure seem pretty settled on evolution as a FACT. > "Any constructive nontrivial logical system requires some postulates"? > Is that it? Exactly. Humanism hides its. >>Either that, or you've got a *very* short-sighted definition of "harm." >...or, more likely, Larry Bickford has an *extremely* short-sighted, > pessimistic view or humans. Reality consumes 47 times its weight in religion, and it has taught me two things: Left to their own, people will do mischief. Witness Montreal when the city police went on strike. There is often a connection between actions and thoughts today and those several years down the road - but this is only brought up when man wants to escape his own guilt. I am not opposed to freedom or a workable democracy. (Did it ever occur to you that the U.S.of A is not, nor ever has been, a democracy, but rather a representative republic? Go study civics again.) But freedom without protection is anarchy; I would rather have a totalitarian system (even if I were in the minority) than that. Ken Almquist dealt with some other points: >...humanism does not believe ... that future happiness is incompatible >with present happiness. No, it just tries to evade reality's second lesson. >If "I conflict with you satisfaction," that does not mean that it is >all right for you to kill me. Killing me might lead to a satisfactory >life for you (although I suspect that many humanists would disagree), >but it would probably not lead to a satisfactory life for *me*, and I am >part of the "all" above. Tell that to all the aborted children. Tell that to Infant Doe. According to the New York Court of Appeals, the legislature has the power to define you as not 'part of the "all" above.' It is said I have shown my true colors. Rather, more like Romans 7:7-14 - I had to show someone else's colors. The "libelous venomous lies" that Rich talks about must be those he sees in the mirror (yes, Rich, I *have* looked in one recently). Humanism uses a lot of language that sounds fine - until someone comes along and sees it for what it is. And if I see danger, it is no less cruel to proclaim the danger than it is to tell you that your house is burning down. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/01/84)
Larry Bickford says: >I have never stated that all pleasure is perversion [OK, BICKFORD, NO >MORE CYCLING TRIPS INTO THE MOUNTAINS!]. I will state, however, that >the HM declaration removes all restrictions on forms of pleasure - even >those that would be disgusting by *others'* standards. Let me give you an example of a "perversion" that might be considered "disgusting" to others' standards. Some people may find a religious belief in a supernatural god and a perversion. They would consider such a belief a form of superstition, which is fundamentally not different from a belief in vampires, goblins, and other creatures of the imagination. These people would consider religious beliefs as unfit for the rational human mind, and therefore disgusting. I am trying to point out is that the things that are pleasant and fulfillment to you, may be perversion and disgusting to others, and vise versa. To summarize, I would like to state the following: We ought to realize that forcing our moral code on others in matters of personal and religious beliefs is counter productive. It will achieve nothing, causing more polarization and hate in our society. We should respect, or at least tolerate, other people personal moral and/or religious beliefs. The terms "perversions" and "disgusting" don't help. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/01/84)
> [Side note: God has been getting a lot of bad press as being a killjoy, > someone who deprives us of the "right" to enjoy certain pleasures. Since > Rich constantly harps about rationality, permit me to ask: how are you > so sure you have all the facts for your "rational" decision? God knows a > lot of things you aren't able to understand, even as you know things that > 3-year-old doesn't.] [BICKFORD] God hasn't gotten ANY bad press in this newsgroup. Proposals about god's existence and nature have gotten a lot of bad press, and with good reason: none of these proposals are backed up with any supporting evidence, yet they are claimed as the one true way. God hasn't been accused of denying anyone any rights. Certain views on what god has said (?) have decided a priori (again without reasonable reason) that god's word (as written by human beings in a book) would deny us those rights. Yes, many have said "if god is as described in xxx, he is hideous" (to which religionists reply "how can you make value judgments about something I have defined as pure good?"). But this all assumes the truth of what you proclaim, which even those who say "even if" (and those who say "NEE!!") will not do. Larry asks if I have all the facts? Does he? Does he have more facts than you or I have? Or does he say "I can never have all the facts, so I'll make my decisions based on no facts."? > More opus!rcd: > >Anyone who has retained a sixth-grade knowledge of even basic science > >knows that science neither has, nor claims to have, all the answers. > > They sure seem pretty settled on evolution as a FACT. Not quite as sure as Larry is about the "facts" in the Bible... > Reality consumes 47 times its weight in religion, and it has taught me > two things: > Left to their own, people will do mischief. Witness Montreal when > the city police went on strike. > There is often a connection between actions and thoughts today and > those several years down the road - but this is only brought up > when man wants to escape his own guilt. People do mischief precisely because human beings are not raised in a rational fashion. They are raised in fear of parents, god, authority, with little or no knowledge of how society functions, what an individual person's role in society is, or why anyone is "supposed" to do anything. (It's in the book. And in the foreword.) A person's "own guilt" is based only on a "judgment" by your internal court. > But freedom without protection is anarchy; I would rather have a totalitarian > system (even if I were in the minority) than that. It's spring. The religionists are all blossoming in their true colors. > Ken Almquist dealt with some other points: > >...humanism does not believe ... that future happiness is incompatible > >with present happiness. > No, it just tries to evade reality's second lesson. Which is? > It is said I have shown my true colors. Rather, more like Romans 7:7-14 > - I had to show someone else's colors. The "libelous venomous lies" that > Rich talks about must be those he sees in the mirror (yes, Rich, I > *have* looked in one recently). Humanism uses a lot of language that > sounds fine - until someone comes along and sees it for what it is. And > if I see danger, it is no less cruel to proclaim the danger than it is > to tell you that your house is burning down. When I look in the mirror, I see me, not you, Larry. (Maybe Larry assumes that we all see him in the mirror.) As far seeing humanism for "what it is", all you have provided to improve people's vision are the aforementioned lies---no facts, no truths, just biased flaming opinions about what a rational (some would say humanist) world would be like. Many of the problems of human behavior are precisely the result of counterproductive child-rearing (and adult-rearing) techniques that emphasize "do it or else" (the only thing that Larry and others who "worry" about a world of "unchecked" humans seem to understand) instead of rational thought. I won't put all the blame for that on religion, though; in fact, the way science is taught in some schools does not reflect the true nature of science but rather that same dogmatic style of non-thought I have described. (Maybe that's how Larry learned science. It would explain a lot of his preconceptions.) Finally, about your need to proclaim danger, remember that it is illegal to yell "theatre" in a crowded fire. (You get the idea...) -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (05/03/84)
<> Another round on Ann. Humanist. From Bickford: >...the HM declaration removes all restrictions on forms of pleasure - even >those that would be disgusting by *others'* standards. It doesn't remove all restrictions. It doesn't give a basis for determining relative disgust, as far as I can see, but you're right; it doesn't restrict based on other's disgust. [Consider: I think it's disgusting that some people use a perfectly beautiful Sunday morning to put on uncomfortable dress clothes and sit indoors, surrounded by man-made artifacts and isolated from the natural universe, to listen to someone tell them why God is wonderful...] >...permit me to ask: how are you >so sure you have all the facts for your "rational" decision? God knows a >lot of things you aren't able to understand... This was aimed at Rosen, but I'll take a shot at answering: I'm not sure I have all the facts for my rational decisions. In fact, I'm sure I don't. (It would be irrational to think I have all the facts:-) So I do the rational thing and decide based on what I know. If God knows more, he isn't telling me (oops, there go the flames!), so I'll just have to muddle along as best I can... >As for "the big lie again: against free enterprise, for communism, ...", Bickford's justification (longish for me to repeat; see parent article) is based on the idea in the humanist document that "acquisitive, profit-motivated society" hasn't made it and that a "socialized and cooperative economic order" is needed. Gee, I thought the Christians would have wanted something other than profit as the motive; I guess not. I'm also saddened that cooperation is not a good idea. Seriously, I think Larry has confused the objections to the current structure (it ain't very fair, and we made it unfair) and a characterization of the desired correction (something a little more fair) with the means for obtaining it. He has certainly taken a giant leap from the implication of socialism in the Humanist doc to an implication of communism. He also doesn't seem to see the significance of: > The goal of humanism is a free and > universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently > cooperate for the common good... >More opus!rcd: >>Anyone who has retained a sixth-grade knowledge of even basic science >>knows that science neither has, nor claims to have, all the answers. > >They sure seem pretty settled on evolution as a FACT. Straw-man tactics again. I know of NO responsible scientist who claims that evolution is fact. That's just absolute bullshit. It is a collection of theories; a model in some sense, of the origin of species. It is under constant analysis and revision - if it were fact, it wouldn't need revision. (Would it?) COME ON, Larry - you know better than this. >I am not opposed to freedom or a workable democracy...But freedom >without protection is anarchy; I would rather have a totalitarian system >(even if I were in the minority) than that. This would be an interesting topic for a cross-discussion between net. religion and politics. (I.e., how do people feel about anarchy vs. totalitarianism, and what does this have to do with their religious beliefs?) I'd buy anarchy over totalitarianism because I suspect that a chaotic situation is easier to deal with than an organized attempt to do me in. It's an interesting opinion to express via the anarchic net... >It is said I have shown my true colors. Rather, more like Romans 7:7-14 >- I had to show someone else's colors. The "libelous venomous lies" that >Rich talks about must be those he sees in the mirror (yes, Rich, I >*have* looked in one recently). Humanism uses a lot of language that >sounds fine - until someone comes along and sees it for what it is. And >if I see danger, it is no less cruel to proclaim the danger than it is >to tell you that your house is burning down. Larry, you haven't even begun to see it for what it is. You saw it for what you want it to be so you can hate it. You have proclaimed the danger in (among other things) freedom, justice, and peace. -- ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (05/04/84)
Of Straw Men,
Dick Dunn,
Does Carl (Billions and Billions) Sagan qualify as a responsible
man of Science ?
On the Cosmos series I heard and saw brother Carl state without
qualification that EVOLUTION IS FACT...and we believing types
had better get on board because we were the cosmological equivalents
of the Flat Earth Society.
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (05/07/84)
> I will state, however, that the HM declaration removes all restrictions > on forms of pleasure - even those that would be disgusting by *others'* > standards. Other responses have dealt with this, but I want to drive home the point that when I talk about something being disgusting, I am describing an emotional response. I am *not* passing moral judgement. For example, I am not overjoyed by the thought of eating raw oysters, but that does not mean that I want to outlaw raw oysters or that I consider somebody who eats raw oysters to be a bad person. Humanism does not remove all restrictions on forms of pleasure. Hidden in the original article was the statement, "I have faith in that part of humanism which sees the human being as ... an end not a means." This is Kant's categorical imperative (which is a more sophisticated formulation of the Golden Rule). Larry quotes a section "A Humanist Manifesto" which advocates socialism. Dick Dunn has already pointed out that this position owes as much to Christianity as it does to Marx. One additional point is that this manifesto is not the humanist equivalent of the Bible. I have never read it, and the article which started this discussion is the first time that I have never heard a humanist mention it. It was written in 1933, and thus reflects the humanism of 50 years ago, not the humanism of today. Since it was written in the middle of the Great Depression, it is hardly surprising that capitalism is not pictured in very glowing terms. I think that present day humanists would agree that capitalism has problems, but many might support the current approach of most western governments, which is to patch over the worst deficiencies of capitalism rather than to abandon it all together. > > "Any constructive nontrivial logical system requires some > > postulates"? Is that it? > Exactly. Humanism hides its. I don't think that this is a fair argument. The original article listed lots of things that its author believes. If you think he left some out, say what they are and we can discuss them. (I would caution you, however, that just because Jerry Falwell says that Humanists believe certain things doesn't mean they do.) Speaking of unfair arguments, I am at a loss as to how to respond to the claim that humanism says that one can ignore future consequences of ones actions. I have stated that this claim is false but Larry has repeated it anyway. If Larry insists on using his own definition of "humanism", then I hope he will realize that it is his version of humanism, and not anybody else's, that he has revealed the true colors of. > >>Either that, or you've got a *very* short-sighted definition of "harm." > >...or, more likely, Larry Bickford has an *extremely* short-sighted, > > pessimistic view or humans. > > Reality consumes 47 times its weight in religion, and it has taught me > two things: > Left to their own, people will do mischief. Witness Montreal when > the city police went on strike. ... One weakness of humanism is that humanists seem to be prone toward overly optimistic views of human nature. There are, however, certain things that can be said in defense of humanism. 1) While I am not familiar with the situation in Montreal, I would guess that you are talking about the actions of a small percentage of the population. To get a balanced picture, you should look at what the rest of the population as well. 2) Human beings are influenced by their environment; thus "human nature" is not an unalterable constant. 3) If everybody in Montreal had been a humanist, there wouldn't have been any problem. > >If "I conflict with you satisfaction," that does not mean that it is > >all right for you to kill me. Killing me might lead to a satisfactory > >life for you (although I suspect that many humanists would disagree), > >but it would probably not lead to a satisfactory life for *me*, and I > >am part of the "all" above. > Tell that to all the aborted children. Tell that to Infant Doe. According > to the New York Court of Appeals, the legislature has the power to > define you as not 'part of the "all" above.' I suspect that you are misstating the court's decision, but that really beside the point anyway since it was a legal rather than a moral decision. You have found a couple of cases in which humanism does not come solidly down on the pro-life side. It is a mistake to assume that this means that humanists do not respect life. "Many humanists believe that a fetus does not qualify as a human life (this issue has been discussed in net.abortion) and that euthanasia enhances rather than conflicts with respect for the individual." That was my previous response to this issue. I have never been in a position (and don't want to ever be in the position) of having to make decisions related to either abortion or euthanasia, so I am not in a very good position to argue either of these issues. Perhaps what was not emphasized in my previous posting was humanism's emphasis on the *quality* of life, and on the emphasis on the ability of humans to think. Humanists don't value life per se so much as the creative or effective use of that life. Thus a humanist might not consider a fetus to be human until it developed the ability to think, while it is possible for a humanist to consider the possibility that a person might lack the ability to have a meaningful life and thus it would really be a mockery of the value of life to assign value to the continued functioning of that person's bodily processes. For the humanist, these considerations at least raise doubts, which make them moral questions which are too complex for a humanist to have much confidence in the ability of the political process to resolve them correctly, thus humanists are likely to be "pro-choice" regardless of where they personally come down on the issues. This does not negate the basic humanist position that murder is wrong. > Humanism uses a lot of language that sounds fine - until someone comes > along and sees it for what it is. I have no objection to having the true colors of humanism exposed. I do have two quarrels with Larry's approach. The first is that he tends to use "straw man" arguments, responding to what he thinks humanism is instead of to what was written. The second is there seems to be implicit in his writings the idea that Christianity does not suffer from any of the problems that humanism does. The notion that there must be a God for absolute moral values to exist doesn't make any sense unless you claim that God could have equally well have chosen a different set of moral values but that since he chose a particular set that set is absolute. The implication that God gives Christains the answer to all moral questions is silly when you look at the number of disagreements which Christains have had over such issues. Since Christianity initially opposed capitalism, it is a little surprising to see Larry Bickford defending it with a straight face. As for the concern that humanism doesn't value human life enough, Larry might reflect on the Christain treatment of heretics or the notion of a "just war" (which justified killing soldiers in response to the actions to their masters). On the subject of abortion specificly, he might note that humanists are at least willing to support sex education and programs to make contraceptives readily available to teenagers. Apparently, the concern of many Christains over abortion does not extend this far. OK, this newsgroup has discussed the deficiencies of Christianity many times before and beaten the subject to death, so I won't go on for another two pages. The point is that religions are easy to attack. Humanism has carried a lot of baggage over from Christianity, but in dropping the notion of God it has at least gotten rid of one of the least defensible tenets of Christianity. Kenneth Almquist
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (05/07/84)
> On the Cosmos series I heard and saw brother Carl [Sagan] state without > qualification that EVOLUTION IS FACT...and we believing types > had better get on board because we were the cosmological equivalents > of the Flat Earth Society. > > Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb} OK, Sagan should have refered to evolution as a theory rather than as a fact. The comparison with the Flat Earth Society is certainly reasonable, though. After all, the "round earth" theory is just a theory. Kenneth Almquist
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (05/07/84)
<Does God ever ask himself: Where did I come from? Why am I here?>
While i'm no great fan of Carl Sagan, he is not being inconsistant.
You have to listen more carefully. You see, there is a difference between
evolution and the theory of evoultion.
When/if Sagan said: Evolution is a fact, he was simply stating that there
is overwhelming evidence that life has been and is evolving. I don't
know of any objective scientist who would argue with that.
But man still doesn't understand completely the mechanisms by which
this evolution takes place. The best models so far still leave unanswered
questions, and there is a lot more for man to learn about it. As he
learns more, this model undergoes changes to conform better and better
to the facts as we find them. This MODEL is the theory of evolution; and
it is, indeed, a theory. The idea that evolution takes place, somehow
or another, is considered by "the scientists" to be a fact.
------
It's somewhat analagous to the classical theory of gravity. The fact that
things fall is a fact; the model the classissists use to explain it is
a theory. In fact, we know that it is only an approximation, since we
now know(?) that the gravitational force also depends on mass density.
Falling objects are a fact; man's best explanation of it so far, is
a theory. Likewise, what Sagan was saying is that evolution is a fact;
man's best explanation of it so far, is a theory.
Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan)
(ucbvax!ucla-vax!sdcrdcf!alan) (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan)
(decvax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)rcd@opus.UUCP (05/08/84)
<> >Does Carl (Billions and Billions) Sagan qualify as a responsible >man of Science ? > >On the Cosmos series I heard and saw brother Carl state without >qualification that EVOLUTION IS FACT... First, yes, as far as I can tell Carl Sagan qualifies as a responsible man of science. (Really, you don't have to capitalize it - it's not a deity.) However, I absolutely refuse to believe that anyone as loquacious as Carl Sagan said as few as three words to define the situation. Anyone care to put this in sufficient context to allow scrutiny? (Or, as a counter, do I get to pick 3 words out of the Bible to quote and show it's an awful book?) There's a nasty problem here: Carl Sagan almost certainly knows the differences among fact, postulate, theory, proof, etc. - but as our talk-first/think-later President has so aptly demonstrated, the average American may have some trouble with the concepts. (You may recall Mr. Reagan having stated that evolution is "only a theory" - and in fact one way of looking at it is as a body of theory - but that's because there isn't much else that evolution, or ANY OTHER model of origins, CAN be. It CAN'T be a law, and it can't be proven, in the proper sense of the words "law" and "proven" in scientific discourse.) But I digress. (Oh, you noticed!) So how does one respond to the likes of Reagan's misconception? Well, if "theory" has come to mean "hunch" then maybe we can use "fact" to mean "well-founded theory". I don't know if that's what Sagan is up to, but it's possible. There is Sagan the scientist and Sagan the entertainer... -- ...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (05/09/84)
Alan,
Many of us on the net (including you) tend to be brief
in our postings because of time constraints and other
reasons. Let me expand on what Sagan said in the Cosmos
series (from memory) on ...Evolution is Fact.
Carl was NOT talking about the well known phenomenon
of micro evolution (bacteria et al.). He made it very
clear that MACRO EVOLUTION IS FACT.<EOF>
He also made it clear that those of who turned to "religion"
(Oh how I hate that word) for cosmological explanations or
just plain eternal comfort were basically deluding ourselves.
Carl indicated that "Real Men and Women" face the unknown of
the Cosmos and how we all came from "starstuff" with a stiff
upper lip. We who are "Real" ask the tough questions and go
it alone.
It was all truly inspirational for someone who believes in
the deity of man.
Anyway, if this discussion continues should we do it thru
the mail or in another group ? Are we straying too far from
net.rel..relig..religion (whew I got it out) ?
Any complaints from significant others:-) ?
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (05/09/84)
Evolution is a solid, indisputable fact. It has been observed to happen on small scales in our lifetime. Many species of animals have changed their characteristics, in minor ways, to suit their environment. The example that comes to mind is a species of moth in England that spent time resting on tree trunks, and had protective coloration to avoid predators. Coal burning in the area darkened the tree trunks, so the lighter colored moths stood out and were eater by birds. Thus, the gene pool changed, and almost no light colored moths were hatched. This is, by definition, evolution. This is not an argument for other kinds of evolution, such as man from ape. This is only a statement that evolution of some type does happen.
crm@duke.UUCP (Charles R. Martin) (05/10/84)
Does anyone remember what all this annotation was about originally? Does all this begin to remind anyone of all the *yeshiva* classes in Chaim Potok's books? Should we start a new group: net.annotations_of_annotations?
scc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (05/21/84)
This example was accepted as modern day proof of evolution. It has since be accepted of a case of (natural selection, or adaption?? Cannot remember the true accepted name now.) It is now said that there are no know examples of evolution, even though in some schools they still teach about the moths as being the classical example.
cozadde@trsvax.UUCP (05/22/84)
#R:pyuxn:-61600:trsvax:45700013:000:232 trsvax!cozadde May 22 11:56:00 1984 In response to Kenneth Almquist's parting shot: Without God, Christianity would be just another humanist religion. lt. of marines ...microsoft!trsvax!cozadde ...laidbak!trsvax!cozadde ...ctvax!trsvax!cozadde