israel@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/07/83)
From: CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq@pur-ee.UUCP God has been known to work through many people who don't acknowledge a relationship to him (as witness numerous "secular" songs which have obvious religious overtones, such as an early Billy Joel song entitled "You're My Home" or something similar). Oh, I love the above line! One thing that is a basic problem with arguments/discussions/debates on a newsgroup like this is that all the beliefs are so in-bred that everyone sees the world through <belief>-colored glasses. The comment in the above paragraph is about "obvious religious overtones", but personally, when I hear the song "You're My Home" it comes across to me as non-religious and also with some humanistic overtones. In fact, very often I will look at / read / listen to something religious and notice many humanistic overtones. Especially on a forum like this, people have to be very careful to realize when their beliefs are getting in the way of the actual facts. I've always found it fairly amazing (and a little humorous) how two people with totally polarized viewpoints on a subject can look at the same piece of information and both claim that it supports their idea. I think that a big part of the reason for that is that often there is a lot in common between the opposing philosophies (whether the adherents are willing to acknowledge that or not; In my experience I would say that in the Humanistic vs. Religionistic controversy, the humanists are more likely to agree with that (though you probably couldn't tell it from this forum!)). My own personal viewpoint is that any philosophical system, be it religionism, secular humanism, or being a Jedi knight, have the same goals. I feel that those goals are what's important and not the method of getting there (before anyone starts flaming, I am NOT saying the ends justify the means!) and as a result of that religionism is just as valid a system as secular humanism if it works for its adherents. These goals can be achieved within any system as long as that system works. What these goals are is a tough question. I wish you hadn't asked that. :-) I guess for me that these goals are two-fold (but both interrelated); 1) giving a purpose/meaning to life, and 2) a set of ethics and morals and justifications for them. Comments and additions on these points are extremely welcome! Now I'm not religious (as if you couldn't tell from the above paragraphs), but neither am I anti-religious. My basic problem stems from the fact that I perceive most religious people as saying that only their way and their group is correct (you know the old joke about being quiet outside the Catholics' room in heaven because they think they're the only ones there.), and one of the tenets of my philosophy that I stated above is that there can and are multiple paths to the same goal (equally valid). Though, to be honest I must admit that most faithful (as opposed to religious) people that I've met (not many) are not as self-righteous as I've made up above. You know not the Jerry Falwell types. Hmmm, do you think that means that Jerry Falwell is religious but not faithful? .-j (means half-way joking) I realize that in the above letter I have been coming from the humanistic point of view. Rational replies of any viewpoint are extremely welcome. Irrational replies will sometimes be read for their humorous value. -- ^-^ Bruce ^-^ University of Maryland, Computer Science {rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay (Arpanet)
tim@unc.UUCP (11/08/83)
Not meaning to pick nits, but all this talk about religion and humanism being opposed is a bit offensive to me, since I'm a devoutly religious humanist. I know that no offense was meant, so instead of getting upset I'm just going to ask that you be more precise in your terminology. Thanks. ________________________________________________________ Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)