garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (11/18/83)
I have already received Rich Rosen's summary; but the net being what it is, I had already written the following, which I have decided to post anyway, even though some of his points have been better answered elsewhere. (I received his response in the order 4, 2, 3, summary. I haven't received number 1 yet.) In response to Rich Rosen, on the reasons why humanists fear religion (or vice versa): RLR: This is one reason why the notion of "humanism" is so frightening to religionists; it promotes the idea of humans being in charge of their own destiny, as far as their bodies and minds can take them, and not subject to the whims of an incorporeal entity. (The other reason that religionists fear humanism is that such a belief, if widely held, would shake their power base out from under them.) GMS: This sort of nonsense... Let me use the same form of argument: "One reason why the notion of "religionism" is so frightening to humanists is that it promotes the idea of human beings being held responsible for their own actions, and accountable to a higher authority, rather than free to indulge their every whim, no matter what the consequences to others. (The other reason that humanists fear religion is that such a belief, if widely held, would shake their power base out from under them)." RLR: Apparently there is something "nonsensical" about what I said regarding why religionists fear humanism. I hope that someday garys will tell me what that is. GMS: First, it's full of undefined terms. I keep seeing the use of the term "humanist" criticized on the grounds that there is no definitive identification of what a "humanist" believes. Thus, if someone says that "humanists want to achieve such and such an undesirable goal," someone always replies to the effect that one mustn't generalize about "humanists." Now, not only do you use a term which I have been told has no meaning, but you make up a new one, "religionist." Second, "humanists" have no monopoly on the goal of achieving a person's greatest potential. Third, you are using terms for their connotations. Why must a divine command be a "whim"? What is the relevance of the fact that God is "incorporeal"? Fourth, and my main objection, you seem to assume that anyone who believes, or claims to believe, in God must have ulterior motives for doing so. Why can't you believe that I am a Christian because I think that Christianity is true? You certainly didn't like it when I suggested that "humanists" had ulterior motives for being "humanists." -------------------------------------------------------------- RLR: (1) Religionism does not promote the idea of human beings being held responsible for their actions; it teaches that they MUST adhere to a written code that they had no say in, or face eternal damnation; how is that responsible? Christianity (I'm going to try to avoid the term "religionism") teaches that people will have to "give an account" of what they say and do, at the judgment. That is being held responsible, or accountable; I think the two are synonymous. --------------------------------------------------------------- RLR: The tenets of humanism state that human beings determine their own moral code, and that it adhere to the concept that one person's rights end when imposition an another begins. Thus it places limits on the indulging of whims. Either I am to determine my own moral code, or I am to adhere to an external standard. Calling it a "concept" makes it no less a standard, and no less arbitrary. Have these tenets been written down? Then they constitute a "written code," to which you object. I didn't have anything to do with the development of these tenets (I suspect you didn't either); why then should I adhere to them? The point is that in one breath you claim that there is no standard by which to judge human behavior, and then in the next you propose one. I do not object to the existence of such a standard; I do not even object to your saying that you think you have adopted one superior to the one I have adopted. But I do object to your simultaneous claims that there is no standard and that you have a better one. The question is, how do we determine which of a number of proposed standards of human behavior is the best? Would you admit that if an omnipotent, omniscient being existed, that that being could develop a standard superior to what a human could? (I'm not asking you to admit that such a being exists, or that he has; I'm just asking whether you think such a being would have that ability.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- RLR: (2) Yes, humanists fail to see the need for people to be accountable to any extraspecial (ex-tra-spee'-shee-al: a made-up word meaning outside of the species) entity; why do you feel that there is such a need?; is it related to your low opinion of people? When you ask why I feel that there is a need for people to be accountable to God, it sounds like you are assuming that there is no god, and that I am trying to invent one. I do not say that there should be a god to which people OUGHT (3) The notion of any power group fearing the loss of their power base is a given, so TOUCHE', garys! What is happening today is that those who feel no need to depend on a possibly non-existent entity for daily guidance and control are making strides in determining their own destiny (including women, gays, atheists, artists, and others). The problem is that (and this is important): 1) this causes massive changes in the fabric of society, since many formerly controlled people now see themselves as free, 2) these changes affect society as a whole, 3) those unwilling to cope with the problems associated with these changes (because, while they are beneficial to other individuals, they are detrimental to their formerly taken-for-granted power and status) seek to re-establish the "old order" as described in, guess what, the bible.