david@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/03/84)
[] Rich Rosen: >David has absolutely hit the nail on the head with this one. What's more, he's >shown that what I've thought all along about the nature of religion is probably > true. Someone once said that net.religion serves only to further polarize people, and this I suppose only re-affirms it. Must we always have a heated debate rather than an informed discussion? How about something new, like some religious book reviews? Hey, maybe I've hit on something here. Anyone care to read a short blurb on each book in my C. S. Lewis collection? Anyone else want to post some reviews of their favorite religious book? I know I would enjoy it. > HE DOESN'T LIKE WHAT HE FINDS WHEN HE CARRIES THIS REASONING TO ITS > LOGICAL CONCLUSION!! HE DOESN'T LIKE THE NOTION THAT MURDER AND RAPE AND > PATIENCE AND LOVE RESULT FROM CHEMICAL PROCESSES! HE DOESN'T LIKE THE NOTION > OF A UNIVERSE WITHOUT ULTIMATE REWARD/PUNISHMENT! I'm afraid the last statement just isn't true. I do not necessarily "like" the notion of Hell (I have said so in earlier articles...). But where is this discussion going? All I can find is the old Ad Hominem again in the whole paragraph. No answers to my question, "Does Desert have no meaning in such a system". No statements about the place of individual or group morality in what Rich calls the "rationalist" system. I know I would appreciate somebody making a comment on this, from the "rationalist" perspective, and I'm sure that there are others. Would you please provide us with one (or at least point us to some reference work, a book, perhaps? Anything?) Of course, I see the point; we are meant to believe that I believe it is false because I don't like it (and that it is therefore true?) Psychogenetic fallacy, again. >So what David do? Since he doesn't like it, he figures it *can't* be this way. > The universe must be the way *he* perceives it, and since strict ratioanalism > produces a world that he doesn't like the shape of, he designs a ^ > new one. | ^ I do not know what kind of world "ratio-anal-ism" would produce, but I can take a good guess. (Sorry, I couldn't resist... :-) Of course I haven't designed anything "new". But here are some questions which may clarify our conversation (re-iterating some above), in an attempt to clearly define the concept of "rationalism": 1) Does the concept of Desert have any meaning in this system? 2) Does the concept of Justice have any meaning in this system? 3) Are murder and rape "bad"? What do you do with rapists, and why? 4) Is there any morality in this system? Why or why not? > Well, David, that's the point. My ideas are not "subjective ideas". They are > based on that dreadful scientific method, which seeks to eliminate the > "subjective" (God exists in the way I imagine him [sic] to be because I feel > and know it to be true.), concentrating on the objective. This is an interesting point, and one that may be worthy of discussion here. Science vs. Theology/Philosophy/History/Art/etc. You see my point. I see nothing wrong with the scientific method, but recognize it is a tool with inherent limitations. But I think your view is not Science; it is Scientism. I would appreciate a few good pointers to any works on this topic, though: the limits of the scientific method, or something like. > The lack of > objective evidence for your point of view is only the tip of the iceberg. I have repeatedly asked in the past that such sweeping generalizations such as "lack of objective evidence" be at least somehow emphasized by asking some more detailed questions. Jon White, for example, may throw something at me from his book, "Myths and Fallacies of the Bible", or whatever the name is. How about it? (What's the rest of the iceberg, anyway?) > Digging deeper, we see that what religionists propose often contradicts > evidence. What are you talking about? Will you provide no facts for me to use? I don't see that we have "dug" anywhere, much less got our hands dirty. The statement may have some merit if the term "creationist" is lumped in with the undefined and vague term "religionist". Or if "religionist" means church officials from the dark ages. Since I belong to niether of these groups (and I don't think Christianity in and of itself proports such facts) I fail to see any facts which support your conclusion. If you have done such digging, will you show us the dirt, or at least point to the pile? > But has anyone > who has provided such "evidence" done any close rational examination of said > evidence? Or is that against your religion? Volumes have been written on the subject. A small few have been recommended here on the net. It is not against Christianity. As a suggestion, you could start with the Summa... -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
nxs@fluke.UUCP (05/04/84)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><>< NORRIS ASKS 1) Does the concept of Desert have any meaning in this system? I do not have the manifesto of rationalism at my desk, but I have a feel for the basic concepts (although I not sure if you are reffering to rationalism or humanism). REPLY Yes. In direct opposition to Levitian(sp?) religions, Desert is served (sorry) here on earth. By doing good unto others, others are more willing to return the favour (not all, but some, and the more people react to one another in this fashion, the more we will see of this type of interaction). NORRIS ASKS 2) Does the concept of Justice have any meaning in this system? REPLY What Justice are you reffering to. Devine, or The loose collection of laws which humans use to avoid suffering? I'm moving on to number three because its response is also a part of question 2. NORRIS 3) Are murder and rape "bad"? What do you do with rapists, and why? REPLY First of all a mild flame. I think you are confusing rationalism (of which Humanism is a part of) with Anarchy. Maybe you are mis-interputting what rich was pointing out in his tretise on chemical reaction. I understood it to mean, that there is no inherent difference is the processes of the body, therefore one cannot be born evil or born good. Yes killing is wrong, it is also totally UN-Rational. If killing humans was not WRONG, eventually, there would be no humans. (Flaming again. What bothers me the most about fundimentalist and religous persons with an evangelistic bent is the mass genocide the have carried out throughout the ages. Now I have no intention of accussing anyone on the net of murder, understand where YOUR history has been. For better or worse, noone has given humanism a chance at creating one). And this leads us to question number 4. Wheres the MORAILITY. Let me answear that with a question. Where is the morality of killing someone EVER. Most humanists I know won't hunt or eat meat. (Personally I beleive in the food chain, but thats another story). I guess the morality is right here. Things are right and wrong because of how the effect another human (i.e. Having sex with someone is great, forcing sex upon someone is wrong; now, is that so hard to differentiate). The problem with this type of thinking is that it becomes very hard to impose YOUR morals upon OTHERS when the question really does not concern you. If you feel that having sex with another (who may not be your spouse) is immoral, then don't particapate. If someone forces it upon you, then they are immoral. It really is that simple. Well I've said enough for now, hope this has been enlighting. Bruce Golub