rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/01/84)
> > Aren't the chemicals in one's brain and body subject to those same > > physical laws that govern billiard balls. (Or rather, isn't their motion > > described by those same physical laws?) To say that the brain and body of > > a person are not within the same realm of physical law is to make a very > > bold assumption. What is the reason for even thinking of making such an > > assumption? Is there some facet of human existence that is unexplained > > by the same physical laws that govern "inanimate" objects? [ROSEN] > I do not like what I find when I carry this reasoning to its logical > conclusion. Are murder and rape then justifiable as a particular mixture of > chemicals and electrical impulses in our brain, none of which we are > responsible for? By the same token, are virtues such as patience, love, > or gentleness not to be rewarded for the same reason? Does Desert have no > meaning in such a system? [NORRIS] 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. 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! 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. Note that the remarks about "why rationalism?" are now seen in a new light. Rationalism, the use of logical inquiry and observation and objective reasoning to uncover explanations for the way things are, result in a view of the world that is unconscionable to some people, thus they must develop a new world view. Since such a view would be based on a non-rational/irrational/ counter-rational foundation, it must be accompanied by reasons for such non-rationality. But all we have seen is "show me why rationalism is the only way?", which is simply saying "what about my way, the non-rational way, which is based on, uh ..." Yes, ask the counter-rational person what their views are based on, and they won't be able to tell you anything molten, liquid, or gaseous, let alone concrete. >>> ... EXPERIENCE PROVES THIS,OR THAT, OR NOTHING, ACCORDING >>> TO THE PRECONCEPTIONS WE BRING TO IT. (italics mine) >> Most of all, it can lead to preconceptions about the nature of the universe >> based on one's own subjective ideas---there is a god watching over me who >> knows what's good and tells us, and I know this because by believing in him >> my life has changed. [ROSEN] > By the same reasoning: "Most of all, it can lead to preconceptions about the > nature of the universe based on one's own subjective ideas--there is no god, > and I know this because I have seen no evidence to prove it." Your statement > proves nothing. [NORRIS] 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. The lack of objective evidence for your point of view is only the tip of the iceberg. Digging deeper, we see that what religionists propose often contradicts evidence. While a scientist would be open to new evidence as a means of modifying/altering/even contradicting current views (provided the evidence is verifiable), a religionist (one with a holy book) believes that that book holds the final answer because a deity wrote the book. Reasons behind this: 1) in the book it says that god wrote it, 2) there is evidence that some of the things in the book actually happened. Beyond this what reasons are giving for believing in the book and in the deity described in it. None that I can see. Oh, "evidence" like "Ubizmo changed my life" abounds. But has anyone who has provided such "evidence" done any close rational examination of said evidence? Or is that against your religion? -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (05/02/84)
Forgive me for adding another level of complexity ot this discussion, but... }> > Aren't the chemicals in one's brain and body subject to those same }> > physical laws that govern billiard balls. (Or rather, isn't their motion }> > described by those same physical laws?) To say that the brain and body of }> > a person are not within the same realm of physical law is to make a very }> > bold assumption. What is the reason for even thinking of making such an }> > assumption? Is there some facet of human existence that is unexplained }> > by the same physical laws that govern "inanimate" objects? [ROSEN] Sounds to me like you have made a claim here that you ought to support, Rich. Why don't you prove to us that our mental processes are purely deterministic. I don't believe you. And don't tell me it's obvious. If our mental proceses are governed by purely physical laws you ought to be able to demonstrate it as such. Failing that, I don't think one assumption is any more bold than the other. } }> I do not like what I find when I carry this reasoning to its logical }> conclusion. Are murder and rape then justifiable as a particular mixture of }> chemicals and electrical impulses in our brain, none of which we are }> responsible for? By the same token, are virtues such as patience, love, }> or gentleness not to be rewarded for the same reason? Does Desert have no }> meaning in such a system? [NORRIS] } }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. 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! }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. }Note that the remarks about "why rationalism?" are now seen in a new light. Rich, when are you going to stop yelling and read more carefully what people are writing? Do *you* like the idea of rapists going unpunished because not they, but deterministic chemical processes are responsible for their actions? Would you defend a rapist in a court of law on those grounds and accept the precident it would set? It's easy to fault Dave for saying something must not be so because he doesn't like it. (I wonder if he is really using that line of reasoning, anyway.) But are you living consistently with the logical conclusion of your determinism? If not, why? }Rationalism, the use of logical inquiry and observation and objective }reasoning to uncover explanations for the way things are, result in a view of }the world that is unconscionable to some people, thus they must develop a new }world view. Since such a view would be based on a non-rational/irrational/ }counter-rational foundation, it must be accompanied by reasons for such }non-rationality. But all we have seen is "show me why rationalism is the }only way?", which is simply saying "what about my way, the non-rational }way, which is based on, uh ..." Yes, ask the counter-rational person what }their views are based on, and they won't be able to tell you anything }molten, liquid, or gaseous, let alone concrete. } So all that is either molten, liquid, gas or solid is all that is real? Sounds like another assertion in need of a defense, especially when you admit that your own ideas abour the existence of God are subjective (although somehow based on an objective scientific method). -- Paul Dubuc ihnp4!cbscc!pmd "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world..." (John 1:9)