lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (05/12/84)
[Hey, Steven! Will ya let me outa this straitjacket?!] Apparently somebody ate some news somewhere - qubix got virtually no news feed for about 3 days. So I will proceed in the semi-dark. A brief aside before entering the main fray: another interesting book on Science & Religion is "Evolution and Christian Faith" by Bolton Davidheiser (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins). Davidheiser looks at how evolutionary thought has been shaped by various religious and philosophical beliefs. About 300 pages; not heavy, but not fast-paced. [A final check on the refrigeration units. OK, we're ready...] Yosi Hoshen: "We should respect, or at least tolerate, other people's personal moral and/or religious beliefs." Full religious tolerance is impossible. And you expect me to stand idly by while people are being offered up as burnt offerings? Our laws state a certain moral/religious code, necessarily at the expense of others. Rich Rosen: "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?')." I *thought* Rich was around last summer.... Anyway, Rich's "reasonable reason" is pretty much *his* a priori decision on things, including the Bible, or whether or not a certain act is "hideous." The last sentence is Rich's misinterpretation based on using only *part* of xxx. RR: "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 decision based on no facts.'?" Maybe we should branch into a discussion of epistemology - "How do we know that we know?" Rationalism's circularity would prove interesting. RR (commenting on me): > > 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. Dick Dunn: "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." Chaotic situations are easy to deal with: Gun Control and the Golden Rule. :-) I can only fathom that RR prefers anarchy. I hope he's got his house and family well-supplied and -protected; when anything goes, just about anything can happen. RR: > > Ken Almquist: > > >...humanism does not believe ... that future happiness is > > >incompatible with present happiness. > > No, it just tries to evade reality's second lesson. > Which is? Quoth me, same article (in fact, requoted by Rich in *his*): "Reality ... has taught me two things: ... 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." RR: "People do mischief precisely because human beings are not raised in a rational fashion." Poppycock. I tried to explain before (maybe the reader isn't *capable* of understanding it? :-), you can't give a rational explanation to those incapable of understanding the reason. [OK, KID, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU DROWN SO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO SWIM.] RR: "A person's 'own guilt' is based only on a 'judgment' by your internal court." Ooh, first class humanism. No absolute standards. Just convince yourself that killing the guy is OK, and there's nooooo problem. RR: "(Maybe Larry assumes that we all see him in the mirror.)" Strip off the outward appearance and man is pretty much the same. RR: "...the way science is taught in some schools does not reflect the true nature of science ... Maybe that's how Larry learned science." Blame the California public school system, USC and UCLA. Bausch&Lomb, Bank of America, and some others seemed to like the way I was learning. RR: Finally, about your need to proclaim danger, remember that it is illegal to yell 'theatre' in a crowded fire." Misapplication - that's a restriction on free speech, not genuine warning. Besides, where's the crowd? Dick Dunn (quoting Dave Norris): > >Larry was not attacking any individual; he was attacking a document... > No sale. If it were an empty document, with no one here subscribing to > any of the things it says, you would be right - but then Larry > wouldn't have attacked with such vigor. Half right. The document wasn't empty, but it was not any individual I was going after. Dick wonders what "positive motive" I could have, thinking "Bickford went overboard," wondering "what's going on inside Larry that manifests itself at the surface in this way." (all quotes from rcd) The main problem with both the posted article and HMs I and II is that they are only half. It is only when one pauses to study them and see what their fulness is that one realizes what is really going on. But because of the high-sounding language and the lofty position they place man in, few push on. But those that do, find things others want hidden. I am not opposed to "freedom, justice, and peace." But the humanist version of each of them isn't. Freedom is the desire and ability to do what you should; the humanist version is pure license. Humanist justice keeps the criminals on the streets and people behind barred windows. Humanistic peace is accomplished through total domination (their "universal society"; let's hear it for local control). -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/14/84)
This is probably the very last reply I will ever make regarding Larry Bickford. It is very clear from his latest article that his beliefs are fundamentally different from those of rational thinking people (or at least from those of THIS rational thinking person). > Yosi Hoshen: "We should respect, or at least tolerate, other people's > personal moral and/or religious beliefs." > Full religious tolerance is impossible. And you expect me to stand idly > by while people are being offered up as burnt offerings? Our laws state > a certain moral/religious code, necessarily at the expense of others. Beliefs are being sent up as burnt offerings here, not people. I won't repeat why, but it has to do with something called evidence. And your beliefs, especially those that tolerance is impossible and that moral code exist necessarily at the expense of others, are JUST beliefs, nothing more, despite your insistence that they are not human beliefs but words from god. Whether or not this is even true (as Tim would probably say, if god said such things why even care about him?), rational people have been trying to work out something a little more rational, a little more benign, and a little better overall for every individual as a member of a world society. Your expectations for humankind are not shared by the rest of us, thank you. > Rich Rosen: "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?')." > I *thought* Rich was around last summer.... Anyway, Rich's "reasonable > reason" is pretty much *his* a priori decision on things, including the > Bible, or whether or not a certain act is "hideous." The last sentence > is Rich's misinterpretation based on using only *part* of xxx. I'll say it again. It is the belief system's that are under scrutiny, not god. Your belief system, though you claim without doubt that it is absolutely true, is nothing BUT a belief system with minimal evidence. Some of us have no idea why you would even want to hold such beliefs, but nonetheless you do. That's your business. It seems you want to make it ours as well. > RR: "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 decision based on no facts.'?" > Maybe we should branch into a discussion of epistemology - "How do we > know that we know?" Rationalism's circularity would prove interesting. Rationalism's "circularity" begins with certain postulates that Larry would probably agree to, then extends from there using scientific inquiry to obtain knowledge. How does that compare to: God told me this. No, I don't know that it's not just me thinking {DOES HE DO THAT, IN ANY CASE? -ED.}, but I'm sure it's God talking because it works for me. Besides it says so in the Bible... No, people didn't write it, it's the word of God... Because it says so right here... And because God told me this... I honestly don't think Larry has ever spoken to or heard from god. First, if god existed, I doubt he'd want to talk to someone with Larry's attitude. Second, what he's hearing and repeating to us sounds like his own internal biased view of what the world should be like, and not the word of god. [OPINION] > 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." What are we guilty of? Things *you* (oh, I'm sorry: Things *god*) has described as crimes? With sentence imposed by you? (I mean god)... no I don't mean god!! It seems that YOU would like to impose the sentence yourself, as part of your vision of a better society. Just let god decide itself what it wants to do, OK? > RR: "People do mischief precisely because human beings are not raised in > a rational fashion." > Poppycock. I tried to explain before (maybe the reader isn't *capable* > of understanding it? :-), you can't give a rational explanation to those > incapable of understanding the reason. [OK, KID, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU > DROWN SO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO SWIM.] Apparently this method is Larry's idea of how rationality should be taught. (No wonder he thinks the way he does.) Allow me to offer an alternate example. My friend has a son who is now 5 years old. When he was 2 or so, she took him up to a large parked truck, showed him the tires and said "See, if you walk out on the street by yourself and a truck like this comes along, the weight of this truck and these big tires will crush you completely." He has never walked out into the street by himself. He KNOWS not to, and he KNOWS the reason why. Perhaps if more people (including Larry) had been brought up this way, they wouldn't be muttering phrases like "Poppycock" in response to rationality. > RR: "A person's 'own guilt' is based only on a 'judgment' by your > internal court." > Ooh, first class humanism. No absolute standards. Just convince yourself > that killing the guy is OK, and there's nooooo problem. Ooh, fourth rate irrationality!! There ARE no absolute standards. All these things, like good and evil, are evolved precepts from human minds. Why did they evolve? As a means of better organizing society. Thus, as humanity's rationality increases over time (irrationality has also increased, but I won't point out any examples...), we evolve better and more humane ways of organizing society for everyone's benefit without the need to say "these are absolute standards. God created them!" [I think Larry misunderstood my statement. I was not saying that the above statement attributed to me is true, I was trying to point out that Larry's notion of a person's "own guilt" is based solely on his idea of how they should be judged.] > RR: "(Maybe Larry assumes that we all see him in the mirror.)" > Strip off the outward appearance and man is pretty much the same. Sorry, Larry, you'll never understand what I'm about to say, but all human beings in this world are as different as they are the same. > RR: Finally, about your need to proclaim danger, remember that it is > illegal to yell 'theatre' in a crowded fire." > Misapplication - that's a restriction on free speech, not genuine warning. > Besides, where's the crowd? Right her in this newsgroup, and all over the country where your Moral Majority (whom you have publicly supported here) and others of their ilk are spreading the word of irrationality. > The main problem with both the posted article and HMs I and II is that > they are only half. It is only when one pauses to study them and see > what their fulness is that one realizes what is really going on. But > because of the high-sounding language and the lofty position they place > man in, few push on. But those that do, find things others want hidden. ...and what of the lofty position you place a (possibly non-existent) god in? Larry will continue to speak in platitudes about what is wrong with humanism, and he will misquote people to ensure that it is made to look bad, but I feel sure that he will fail to produce anything of substance. > I am not opposed to "freedom, justice, and peace." But the humanist > version of each of them isn't. Freedom is the desire and ability to do > what you should; the humanist version is pure license. It sounds like Larry is trying to say "freedom is the desire and ability and ability to do what you should", where his belief system defines the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". Doesn't sound very much like freedom to me... It is "license" to act contrary to Larry's Laws, whether or not there is a rational reason behind Larry's Laws (like "Don't do that because it hurts another human being") > Humanist justice > keeps the criminals on the streets and people behind barred windows. ...a perfect example of the twisting, misquoting, and vacuous verbiage I just described. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? > Humanistic peace is accomplished through total domination (their > "universal society"; let's hear it for local control). To Larry, a world without petty local groups deciding for their local people what their lives should be like (as opposed to letting everyone decide for themselves---I can hear Larry saying "Poppycock" right now!) would be a hideous place to live. So far I've heard Larry come out for obliterating communism & humanism, regionalistic and nationalistic groupings of human beings (THE root cause of 90% of the violence in the world) and totalitarianism. Is there a Christian out there who'd like to speak out? As tempting as it might be to promote my cause, I refuse to believe that Larry's belief system has anything to do with real Christianity. -- "I'm not dead yet!" "Oh, don't be such a baby!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
esk@wucs.UUCP (05/15/84)
[Once more into the fray!] Rich Rosen: Is there a Christian out there who'd like to speak out? O.K., I'll take a crack at it. What follows is an attempt to give another Christian perspective on humanism, with maybe a little less recourse to religion, and hopefully a little less combustibility. I hope this will provide a more palatable and more rational-sounding (!!) look at the issue for Rich and his fellow humanists. Basically, our objections (or at least my objections) to humanism can be broken down into a few major humanistic beliefs which we disagree with. 1) Humanists believe there is ONLY an objective reality. Although both Christians and humanists seem to agree on the existence of an objective reality (i.e. we exist, and the universe exists independent of our own perceptions), to a Christian, and the followers of most other religions, the story doesn't end there. We believe in some "force" which is external to the universe and which may project things (such as morality, definitions of good and evil, etc.) into our world. Of course, I believe that I have perceived such projections, by the force which I call God, and you don't. Whether this is due to a flaw in my perception or in yours is pretty much unarguable, we could never prove things one way or the other. The same applies to the existence of God, putting aside his projections into our world. Because He is, by definition, existing outside of our perceptions (if He exists at all), there is no way to argue for or against His existence, except for His projections into our world, or lack thereof. Thus, in a sense, you make exactly the same "leap of faith" we do when you assume the non-existence of any force external to the universe. 2) Humanists believe that man is rational. This is an underlying principle of humanism that seems to fly in the face of reality, not only to religious people, but also to many non-religious people I know. I know that I certainly act irrationaly at times, and that I am surrounded by people who appear to act irrationaly much of the time, also. Even the idea that this is from environmental factors (If they were only raised right....) doesn't hold much water when compared with historical examples going back to the Spartans all the way up to the Nazis. (This is NOT an attempt to associate humanists with either group!) But in all cases, no matter how society tried, some of the kids would always seem not to turn out quite right, showing alarming proclivity toward emotionalism and other no-nos. In general, I think this point is the major stumbling block for humanism with both religious and non-religious people. 3) Humanists desire a structureless society. This is actually a result of 1) and 2), but has problems of its own. Now, I may be misinterpreting some of Rich's articles, but it sure sounds to me like humanism basically advocates anarchy as the best form of organization for society. We object to this not only because we believe there is an objective good which society should attempt to preserve (see 1) and a need to regulate man to preserve the general welfare (because of 2), but also because anarchy is not a very efficient form of society. Basically, without the structures our society gives us, we would be unable to feed our current population, much less maintain their standard of living. As a possible victim of this starvation, I object to such an idea. Thus, from a purely economic/political/sociological standpoint, humanism seems to fail to provide a realistic answer. I hope this has been helpful in clearing up some misunderstanding, and that I have not misrepresented anyone (either the humanists or my fellow Christians) too badly. (I'm sure I'll hear about it if I have!) Eric Kaylor ...ihnp4!afinitc!wucs!esk
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (05/16/84)
Bickford is off and flaming at the humanists again: >I am not opposed to "freedom, justice, and peace." But the humanist >version of each of them isn't. Freedom is the desire and ability to do >what you should; the humanist version is pure license. Humanist justice >keeps the criminals on the streets and people behind barred windows. >Humanistic peace is accomplished through total domination (their >"universal society"; let's hear it for local control). Well, this part of Bickford's writing belongs in net.flame. He's so full of blind hatred for "humanism" (even though he doesn't even seem to under- stand the very basics) that he has to blame every social ill, be it real or imagined, on the humanists. <<thinking off, flame on>> Give him half a chance and he'll be out witch-hunting humanists, loading them into paddywagons or cattlecars to cart them off to jails or some other place where they can be kept out of the way. <<flame off, maybe thinking on:->> Since when is "freedom" the desire and ability to do what you should? Or are we making up our own rules and definitions again? Freedom implies a lack of constraint, necessity, etc. I don't see humanists advocating unabridged freedom - try freedom tempered with justice, responsibility, and all. -- ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/16/84)
> Basically, our objections (or at least my objections) to > humanism can be broken down into a few major humanistic beliefs which we > disagree with. > 1) Humanists believe there is ONLY an objective reality. > Although both Christians and humanists seem to agree on the > existence of an objective reality (i.e. we exist, and the universe > exists independent of our own perceptions), to a Christian, and the > followers of most other religions, the story doesn't end there. We > believe in some "force" which is external to the universe and which may > project things (such as morality, definitions of good and evil, etc.) > into our world. Of course, I believe that I have perceived such > projections, by the force which I call God, and you don't. Whether this > is due to a flaw in my perception or in yours is pretty much unarguable, > we could never prove things one way or the other. The same applies to > the existence of God, putting aside his projections into our world. > Because He is, by definition, existing outside of our perceptions (if He > exists at all), there is no way to argue for or against His existence, > except for His projections into our world, or lack thereof. Thus, in a > sense, you make exactly the same "leap of faith" we do when you assume > the non-existence of any force external to the universe. I think the failure to believe in anything beyond an objective reality owing to the lack of evidence is not a humanist tenet. It is a rationalist tenet in general. The issue is not unarguable in the sense that you describe. If god exists, then he created the world and the objective reality as we know it, and his actions affect the objective reality. Thus the god you describe is in effect the objective reality we both describe. Your claim for something external to the universe is unfounded and unnecessary. Rationalists believe that one can differentiate between the objective and the subjective by eliminating the subjective facet. If an incident can be reproduced, if it is perceived universally, then it cannot be explained away as inner feelings and opinions ("God spoke to me. I *know* this.") > 2) Humanists believe that man is rational. > This is an underlying principle of humanism that seems to fly in > the face of reality, not only to religious people, but also to many > non-religious people I know. I know that I certainly act irrationaly at > times, and that I am surrounded by people who appear to act irrationaly > much of the time, also. Even the idea that this is from environmental > factors (If they were only raised right....) doesn't hold much water > when compared with historical examples going back to the Spartans all > the way up to the Nazis. (This is NOT an attempt to associate humanists > with either group!) But in all cases, no matter how society tried, some > of the kids would always seem not to turn out quite right, showing > alarming proclivity toward emotionalism and other no-nos. In general, I > think this point is the major stumbling block for humanism with both > religious and non-religious people. Of course, humans can act irrationally. Look at the number of people who... [NO, HE WON'T SAY IT. -ED.] As long as we are residing in animal bodies with animal chemicals resulting in animal needs and urges, we can never completely shirk what you call the "irrational". But how irrational is this? From a biochemical point of view these actions make perfect sense. Look even at someone like Hitler. Due to chemical imbalances/psychological disorders (really one in the same depending on your perspective), he felt the need to direct hatred against a whole class of people. The Jews conveniently (for him) fit the mold he needed to fill. What do you think caused him to do these things? His "soul"? External agent "demons"? Or the chemicals in his body? Given his chemical make-up, Hitler's responses were "natural". But we are different from most other animals in our ability to conceptualize, to think in a rational and logical fashion. Witness mathematics, a science full of concepts that exist independent of "physical" reality. If we are to achieve our full potential, we need to think just as logically in the way we deal with the physical world. This means formulating rational precepts for organizing society to replace the irrational ones that exist today. Amongst these irrational precepts to be replaced are many that are associated with religions, given credence solely on the basis of the subjective opinions of a few. People should have the freedom to believe what they like (no matter how irrational). But the "freedom" to impose such a belief system on others is not a freedom at all, and as with any societal construct that puts the society at large in a higher position than that of each individual, it has no place in a rational society. Larry will be quick to "point out" (???) that in his opinion, this means an individual can go and kill someone if he/she feels like it. What Larry fails to realize is that the person he would have killed in this scenario is an individual, too, who has rights and freedoms accorded to him/her as well. > 3) Humanists desire a structureless society. > This is actually a result of 1) and 2), but has problems of its > own. Now, I may be misinterpreting some of Rich's articles, but it sure > sounds to me like humanism basically advocates anarchy as the best form > of organization for society. We object to this not only because we > believe there is an objective good which society should attempt to > preserve (see 1) and a need to regulate man to preserve the general > welfare (because of 2), but also because anarchy is not a very efficient > form of society. Basically, without the structures our society gives > us, we would be unable to feed our current population, much less > maintain their standard of living. As a possible victim of this > starvation, I object to such an idea. Thus, from a purely > economic/political/sociological standpoint, humanism seems to fail to > provide a realistic answer. The "need to regulate" that you describe will always exist, since we will still have those "animal chemicals" running through our veins. The concept of divine regulation is unnecessary. What's more, what reason do you have for obeying "divine authority"? Fear of an afterlife spent in agony? What proof do you have for anyone that that divine authority and the agonizing afterlife are anything more than figments of your imagination? With no proof, what reason would a thinking human being have to obey any rules if "divine authority" is their only basis? Would you propose enforcing these rules by punishing infractions of these rules as a means of "conditioning" "correct" behavior? Or would you rather have set up the rules clearly and deliberately on a rational basis, with every human being understanding the reasons that the rules exist? This is clearly nothing like the "anarchy" that you claim I am proposing. You also point out worries about the eradication of the structure of society. I will point out again, that a society that makes the claim that the individual exists to serve the continued proliferation of the society, instead of the society existing as a means for individuals to have as full a life as possible without treading on the rights of other individuals, is not a viable society at all, but one that is destined to crumble. Hopefully, it would be replaced by a more rational one; more hopefully, it will not have to "crumble" at all if rational thinking and rational education are incorporated in the current societal structure on a large scale. (And not interfered with by calls of "Bring back the old days when everyone knew their place in society and liked it whether they liked it or not.") -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/17/84)
Excuse me for entering this debate a mite obliquely, but I am a bit uneasy with the use of the term "Rationalism" that Rich is making here. I think that he means something like 'A way of dealing with things that asserts the primacy of Reason applied to Empirical sense data." (whew!) I don't think that's exactly the right use of the word. Rich's discussion of removing all but the simplest reasons for any state of affairs is the ever true, ever sharp Occam's razor. I do not believe that Rich is wielding the razor as a Rationalist, however...more like an Enlightenment thinker (I'd use Kant here as an example, but I think that Rich might take some offense, as Kant was a man of pretty strong religious commitment). In fact, it would seem to me that the Rationalist belief in synthetic a priori knowledge would be generally unacceptable to Rich. As the term is used, I can see some side disagreements springing up by the row on trying to argue Rationalism vs. Rationality and so on. In fact, it's curious to note that the Humanist debate is really coming to resemble nothing so much as the old tried and true School of Athens debates between Plato and Aristotle. I would also like to applaud the courage of the brave gentleman who has stepped forward to try for a less flamely CHristian formulation of the whole Humanist controversy. It appears that the restatement is not quite as acceptable as Rich might like, but it is a bit quieter. Just when I was beginning to fear that this was a net case of "The wrath that turneth away soft answers........" gtaylor
lab@qubix.UUCP (05/19/84)
[Is this line subjective or objective?] No, Rich, my beliefs are not "fundamentally different from those of rational thinking people" - just one of them. To wit: RR makes the implicit assumption of evolution in virtually all his arguments, especially noting his trying to explain a lot of human irrational behavior on our "animal stuff," and that "our potential to use our brains in a rational fashion ... has evolved over the eons." Rich apparently misinterpreted my reply to Yosi Hoshen. I was not referring to burnt offerings on the net; rather, to religions which still exist which physically burn people as sacrifice offerings. >RR: And your beliefs, especially those that tolerance is impossible and > that moral code exist necessarily at the expense of others, are JUST > beliefs, despite your insistence that they are...words from god. Wrong again. Such beliefs are based solely on LOGIC, irrespective of any particular religion. RationalISM has been trying to conform various religions which are incompatible with it into subsets of it (see companion article differentiating between "different views of God" and "views of different Gods"). I am also puzzled by the logical comparison of RR's statements, taken from the same article: > Rationalism's "circularity" begins with certain postulates that Larry > would probably agree to ... vs. > There ARE no absolute standards. All these things, like good and evil, > are evolved precepts from human minds. Logically, the postulates ARE the absolute standards. In fact, to "evolve better and more humane ways of organizing society for everyone's benefit," you need to have some sort of standard of "everyone's benefit." And if you say there is none because it can change, I'll ask for the underlying standard by which one change is considered good rather than bad. >> 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." >What are we guilty of? Take a look at modern psychology: people blaming their actions and behavior on their heritage, their environment - everything but themselves. Rich's example of teaching rationality (showing a 2-year-old the size of a truck so he won't go out into the street by himself) flies in the face of reality (consumes 47 times its weight in religion). You could demonstrate the rational truth of something (e.g., cancer-causing agents) to people, but will they do the rational thing (e.g., quit smoking)? Even though they KNOW the reason why not to, people will STILL do. (BTW, have your ever tried to explain to a kid why he can't have anywhere close to the number of Christmas presents he usually asks for?) > ...all human beings in this world are as different as they are the same. I think Kor answered this best when he told Kirk "I'm not referring to minor ideological differences. I mean as a species." I once walked the path where Rich walks; it took a power beyond me to leave that path. I doubt Rich has ever walked where I now walk. > Larry will continue to speak in platitudes about what is wrong with > humanism, and he will misquote people to ensure that it is made to look > bad, but I feel sure that he will fail to produce anything of substance. They won't be platitudes as long as humanism puts on its various masks. And I challenge the author to produce evidence of the misquotes. As for substance, I have posted such in the past, but certain [unnamed] individuals replied with flames to avoid any real discussion of them. My survey on Rights is just about complete (with no reply from pyuxn). The "should" in "the desire and ability to do what you should" doesn't depend on "Larry's Laws." They can apply almost anywhere, even in the workplace. "Doing what I should" means getting my assigned tasks done, helping others as best I can, etc. It is *not* trying to take a place that isn't mine. It's the secret of "freedom under authority," which so many chafe at because they don't like the idea of ANYONE having authority over them, or that they know better than those who are over them. I guess it's because they don't have a God to look out for them... As for me, I work to make those over me successful, which is *much* more rational than it appears at first glance. >> Humanist justice >> keeps the criminals on the streets and people behind barred windows. > WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Take a look at the world around you! Murderers are back on the streets in 7 years. Many robbers and rapists never go to prison (usually off on some technicality). People are afraid to testify because of probable vengeance against them. Gangs roam freely, and woe to you if you trespass in their territory. Sales of security measures are on the increase. One final point that I will attribute to a lack of clarity on my part: >> Humanistic peace is accomplished through total domination (their >> "universal society"; let's hear it for local control) Note the LACK of a smiley. That last point was NOT sarcasm. I am strongly in favor of local control, starting with the family unit. Not surprisingly, the family unit is one of the first things targeted for change by the humanists. The "universal society" would eliminate "regionalistic and nationalistic groupings" as well. More rationalist illogic: > People should have the freedom to believe what they like (no matter > how irrational). But the "freedom" to impose such a belief system on > others is not a freedom at all ... Net.try.your.logic.again. By what standard do you say that it is not a "freedom"? It may be an illogical freedom, but RR has just said people can have irrational beliefs. Obviously, "freedom" isn't. More rationalist meets rationalist: > ... as with any societal construct that puts the society at large in a > higher position that that of each individual ... vs. > [RR] will point out again, that a society that makes the claim that > the individual exists to serve the continued proliferation of the > society, instead of the society existing as a means for individuals to > have as full a life as possible without treading on the rights of other > individuals, is not a viable society at all ... So who's on top, society or individuals? BTW, we're getting back to the question of "rights" again, and there WILL be treading on other people's rights, like it or not, as long as man's basic nature remains unchanged. >What proof do you have for anyone that that divine authority and the >agonizing afterlife are anything more than figments of your imagination? Neither fire from heaven nor the dead coming back to life would convince a rationalist. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA