andree@uokvax.UUCP (10/23/83)
#R:unc:-599000:uokvax:8300002:000:1411
uokvax!andree Oct 14 18:46:00 1983
I feel that I must respond to Paul's long (LOOONG) letter, even though there
is a fair chance that he won't see it. So as to prevent the reoccurrence of
long, multi-topic letters, I am breaking the reply up by subject.
The first subject I'd like to look at is the general topic of the entire
letter. It seems that Paul is complaining about the `persecution' of
Christians, in that they can't promulgate their views in all the manners
they would wish. The first thing this brings to my mind is a paraphrase
from L. Sprague DeCamp's {\i Lest Darkness Fall:} `Religious freedom
includes the right to persecute those not of our religion.' This may seem
silly, but Christians are no more restricted in their ability to spread
their views than any other religion.
Well, they have almost as much freedom as any other religion; there is some
backlash since they have been the `privileged majority' for most of the
history of the western world. This arises from the same sillyness that
led to `affirmative action,' and is just as objectionable. However,
Christians feel this restraint far more than other religions, as they
haven't had to suffer from it until recently.
So, to make Christians happy, let us have prayer every morning in class.
However, to maintain fairness, let's have one prayer for each religion
represented in the class. Of course, atheists can have a `to whom it
may concern' prayer. :-)
<mikeandree@uokvax.UUCP (10/30/83)
#R:unc:-599000:uokvax:8300005:000:1982
uokvax!andree Oct 14 19:22:00 1983
Second topic in my replies to Pauls letter: My morals vs. His morals.
In the first part of his letter, Paul seemed to be arguing that the US
(if not the world) should be run by the rules laid down in the bible.
First question: Which version/translation? Mind you, I'm not questioning
the divine nature of the bible, I'd just like to know which of the
(conflicting) versions I should use as a reference.
For a more basic point, I don't think it would make any difference
anyway. Witness both the rising tide of crime in a supposedly Christian
country, and the number of Christians who are heaven-bound (144,000
comes to mind...). What appears to be happening is that everybody is
doing as they wish, without referencing any authority higher than their
own skull.
Add to this that even {\b Societies} can't agree on what is and isn't
moral. Most of the major taboos of western civilization are (or were),
in one society or another, perfectly proper behavior. Likewise, many of
the things we consider quite reasonable are (or were), in some
societies, immoral acts.
However, Paul states that his morals (`God's Morals') are better than
mine (assuming they are different), as his come from a superior source.
Furthermore, he seems to think that lack of an absolute moral standard
will lead to `might makes right' flavor of society. I've got news for
you, Paul: the reason that most of the world has a moral standard that
is vaguely Christian is that anything that didn't conform to Christian
morals was `uncivilized,' so western society civilized them, whether
they liked it or not. Since we were bettered armed than most of the
rest of the world, we usually succeeded in this process. But in light of
what I've said in the last couple of paragraphs, this isn't surprising.
This is why most of the world has a set of morals that are vaguely
Christian: if they didn't conform to Christian morals, they were
`uncivilized,' so we civilized them, whether they liked it or not.
<mikeandree@uokvax.UUCP (10/30/83)
#R:unc:-599000:uokvax:8300006:000:1994 uokvax!andree Oct 14 19:46:00 1983 Third (and last) in a series of replies to Paul Dubuc letter. The topic this time is what should/shouldn't be taught in schools. Or, why I don't think creationism (either scientific or religious) should be taught in schools. First, let me point out that (for purposes of this letter), all believes can be divided into two categories, each with two subcategories. These are: 1a) That view currently in vogue in the appropriate science; 1b) Any other views held by scientists (past or present); 2a) That view taught by my religion; 2b) Any views taught by other religions. Note that overlap is possible. Comments that I consider obvious: Things of class 1a should be taught in school. Things in class 1b should be relegated to a history of science class. If the verdict isn't in on some topic, it should be mentioned in school. Things of category 2 have no business anywhere in a school, except in a class on religion/mythology (side note: a mythology is a religion that currently has no believers; even if it does happen to be correct). Obviously, creationism does not qualify in category 1a; otherwise Paul wouldn't have complained about persecution of people who espouse the creationist theory in public. I will take it as given that creationism is in category 1b. So, the question comes down to whether or not the verdict on creationism is still out. Given that Paul admits that you can't get creationist papers published in the journals, I would have to say that the answer is no. I will admit that the scientific establishment is VERY close-minded on things that upset the order of the Universe. Creationism is one of these things. Given this, creationism is going to have to settle for the same kind of treatment that other `crackpot' theories (flat earth, jerk, Einstien was wrong, dianetics,etc) get This doesn't include being taught in science classes. <mike P.S. If you think that things of category 2 should be taught in school, then I want equal time for MY religion! <mike
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (10/30/83)
#R:unc:-599000:uokvax:8300007:000:426 uokvax!emjej Oct 15 07:04:00 1983 I beg to differ, Mike! There are all sorts of folks out there who are only too willing to give of their money to people who natter and grommish about how they are being ignored by the "scientific orthodoxy." Besides, aren't the various churches interested in giving some of their money (and they have *lots* of it, sheltered by the Constitution (but that's another topic)) to support creationist "research?" James Jones
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (10/30/83)
#R:unc:-599000:uokvax:8300008:000:4035
uokvax!emjej Oct 15 11:05:00 1983
Precisely. Non-Christian civilizations got "converted" (like Uncle Ben
does to rice, perhaps). This is an answer to Paul Dubuc's question
You also seem to regard any higher standard to be the bane
of the human race based on the fact that it is a "higher
standard" not on the content of that standard. On what basis
can you do this?
If you *truly* believe that you have absolute knowledge that accepting
your flavor of religion is the only way to save me from aleph-null
years of torment in the lake of fire, then by golly, you are doing me a
*favor* by kidnapping me and beating me to a bloody pulp (better finite
amounts of torment than infinite, right?) until I at least act like I'm
converted (like the Aztecs and Incas, among the civilizations that were
"converted;" come to think of it, Christians used even better methods
for them, like baptizing the infants and then bashing their skulls in
before they had a chance to grow up heathen), or maybe killing me ("We
had to destroy the village in order to save it" takes on a whole new
meaning, or does it?). So why don't I act grateful?
Not to pick on Christians; *every* group that has the power and the
dogma tends to do the same. (This is for your own good...) This leads
me up to what I really wanted to talk about--the notion of evolution as
it applies to societies and to ethics. I'd like to see discussion of
how one's individual choice (apologies for the "free will" vocabulary
here) of ethical system affects the survival of one's family/town/etc.,
and that common notions of ethics (come on, folks; the same way
solipsists still talk to what we call "other people" at the local bar,
for the most part we share a fair number of ideas about not killing
people, stealing, and the like) have arisen in this fashion--societies
in which murder is accepted as common practice would, one would think,
tend to croak off. This is a simple question of cultural (not
individual) survival, something observable, and depends on no alleged
absolute standard of justice. (It can be interpreted by Christians who
wish to as God's suggestions, or the functioning of the universe as set
up by Newton's clock-winding God.)
For example, I would claim that tolerance has survival value (*vide*
the effects of suppressing Vavilov (please correct me on his name if
needed) in favor of Lysenko on the Soviet grain supply, or of rejecting
"Jewish science" on the Axis). The United States is a large bet that
I'm right (in a figurative sense, and among other things), and that's
one big reason I live here.
Not that I expect to convert anybody (belief in a god has infinite
(though trivial) explanatory value, but no predictive value), but I
hope some interesting notes will come of this...
James Jones
(...!uokvax!emjej)
P.S. As for how a god would better provide a revelation, I'd propose a
large hunk of something that looks like precious metal that appears at
eye level floating in front of anyone who thinks of wanting to consult
it, with the text appearing in whatever language the user speaks
best, using idioms and allusions appropriate to the intellect and
technology of the user, appearing as a voice, parchment, book, or
hypertext depending on the user's abilities, open to the portion most
directly applicable to the question at hand, and vanishing when the
user is finished with it, but people might think I'm joking.
P.P.S. Concerning why they don't put Christian books at the front of
book stores-- have you ever tried to even find a non-theistic book in a
book store? (You have too little faith in the book store owners' desire
for money, if you're right about Christian books being best-sellers.)
To the extent that prime-time TV mentions religion, it tends to be a
schmaltzy non-denominational Christianity, which I find at least as
offensive as you probably do. (And there I was, hoping that John-Boy
would follow through on facing the problem of evil in that *Waltons*
episode where Michael Learned's character got polio...just call me
"sucker," I guess.)