david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (05/09/84)
[wokka-wokka!] Kenneth Almquist posted an article responding to Larry Bickford about the Humanist Manifesto. I was going to leave it alone, but a few things caught my eye... >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. >... >3) If everybody in Montreal had been a humanist, there wouldn't > have been any problem. Logical fallacy here (this sentence was the one that really prompted this reply). You are arguing from a totally unfounded assumption. "It wouldn't have happened if" is not good logic. We just don't know what would have happened if everybody in Montreal would have been a humanist. Would you let Larry or I get away with a statement like, "If everybody in Montreal had been a Christian..."? You may truly believe there wouldn't have been a problem, but this is not a good defense for humanism. >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). That was below the belt, Ken. Christianity as an organized (read "man's") religion has done a lot of things that we don't like. That's not to say that Christianity itself has changed. Would you be as surprised to find Larry or myself defending a Copernican solar system? How would you respond to us if we cited some humanist, who committed some crime frowned upon under humanism, as an example of how bad humanism was? The New Testament explains what Christianity is, and the Humanist Manifesto explains what Humanism is. We may judge Christianity, not by Christians, but by Christ. I don't know that there is an equivalent statement for Humanism. >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. Another low blow. Something has been left out here, hasn't it? Sex education is a good thing. I intend to teach my son everything he needs or wants to know about sex, including my personal views on sexual morality. He will have to make his own moral decision; God has given him that gift. So what's been left out? "Many Christians are not concerned about abortion because they are not willing to support sex education and programs to make contraceptives available..." is the implication of the paragraph. Could it be possible to be concerned about abortion and not willing to support those programs? The answer, I believe, is yes. >... 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. The unspoken foundation on which this sentence is laid is that both humanism and Christianity are a collection of man's morals and values. It seems we are led to believe that Christianity has a lot of good stuff in it, but that the "God part" can be dropped, leaving the "good stuff". My objection is the poor choice of words and the implication behind this sentence. God is the central theme and figure of Christianity; he is not a "notion", or some small "tenet" that can be discarded at our whim. Indeed, a basic theme of Christianity is Christ's crucifixion. You may as well say that "in dropping the notion of an internal combustion engine..." for automobiles. Of course I see your point; the key word is "defensible". But the choice of "baggage", "notion" and "tenets" in the argument does not do justice to what Christianity is all about, and does not reflect the true meaning of its message. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/21/84)
> The New Testament explains what Christianity is, and the Humanist Manifesto > explains what Humanism is. We may judge Christianity, not by Christians, but > by Christ. I don't know that there is an equivalent statement for Humanism. Sorry, but a number of us have yet to see this Christ you speak of. All we have to judge both philosophies is the documents they produce (humanism's wasn't very good, at least not to me), and the actions of their followers. No more, no less. > >... 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. > > The unspoken foundation on which this sentence is laid is that both humanism > and Christianity are a collection of man's morals and values. It seems we > are led to believe that Christianity has a lot of good stuff in it, but that > the "God part" can be dropped, leaving the "good stuff". My objection is > the poor choice of words and the implication behind this sentence. God is the > central theme and figure of Christianity; he is not a "notion", or some small > "tenet" that can be discarded at our whim. Indeed, a basic theme of > Christianity is Christ's crucifixion. You may as well say that "in dropping > the notion of an internal combustion engine..." for automobiles. If someone could come up with a better way for building automobiles without the internal combustion engine (less pollution, more efficient, less noisy), then I assume you would agree that this is a good thing. The same thing holds true for belief systems. Removing the "baggage" associated with "God's way" and replacing it with reason and rationality ("we do this because...") is an improvement whether or not there is a god. It just makes for better people. Of course I see your point; the key word is "defensible". But the choice of "baggage", "notion" and "tenets" in the argument does not do justice to what Christianity is all about, and does not reflect the true meaning of its message. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr