hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/16/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ A Ray Miller posted an article to net.origins that would have more been more at home in net.religion, but it contained some character- istic tactics/interpretations that is typical of creationist liter- atures. A Ray Miller (by the way, what is your first name?), please move this topic over to net.religion, as it deals with moral/ethical principles and the misapplication of science to them. This newsgroup is strict- ly scientific. (Or at the very least, it SHOULD be. Too many people have already grossly violated this.) I am posting this article here so that it will be visible to you, in addition to the reason given in the introduction above. > { from: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA } > > Several evolutionists wrote notes on creationist or Christian beliefs leading > to war; I take a portion of one note as representative for a reply: In fact, there are only two (maybe one or two others that I might have missed) that produced original material on the topic that you discussed here. > > { from: Ernest.Hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA } > > > > Imagine Reagan, for a moment, sitting with his finger over "the button". > > He is someone who believes in the Bible and Christianity and etc... He > > might say to himself, "Gee, if I push this button, God would have known > > and planned it that way. If not, He will stop me or stop the electrical > > signals or the missiles themselves etc. Now, the Bible says that the > > end of the physical world is coming, and that there will be a great > > battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good. The Soviet > > Union is an empire of evil. We are obviously a Christian nation, and > > hence, good. The good Rev. Falwell and Rev. Robertson all say that > > the events leading to Armageddon is shaping up. Oh, what the heck ... " > > Click. Please note that this contains a lot of "stabs" at the "Radical Right", and not at Christianity as a whole. It does not contain any "stabs" at the creationists, although, as many of you already know, creationists do have a sizable percentage of right-winged ultraconservatives. > This is a two-edged sword in that I can also fabricate an equally ridiculous > scenario for evolutionists. Try this one: > > As we all know, the life expectancies for Russian leaders has been less > than satisfactory recently. Suppose Gorbachev comes down with one of > those infamous Soviet "colds". He, then, about to kick off and feeling > a tad grumpy about it, begins to reassess a few things. He notes that, > when it comes right down to it, the bottom line of reality is physics. > Are we not, after all, chemical machines (extremely complex ones, granted)? > Do we have a responsibility or morality towards physics? Right here is the problem. (I am assuming that this is suppose to be the thinking of an evolutionist.) The inaccuracy here, as with a lot of creationist literature (off the top of my head I can state at least one specific example: _The Creation vs Evolution Handbook_ by Thomas Heintz [sp?], who began his book with a short essay on science applied to morality and ethics), is that scientific principles should be some how translated into moral/ethical principles. (Note that there is a difference between science saying that you need vitamins and science saying that you shall not commit adultery; science cannot say anything about the latter, as it is a moral/ethical principle.) There is nothing in science that have anything to do with moral or ethical practices. A typical statement in creationist literatures would be like this: "Young people everywhere are screaming out for spiritual peace and are being hit in their faces with this false teaching of evolution tearing away from them any moral absolutes that their parents have carefully instilled." In fact, I have seen several examples of "well, I guess you secular humanists don't feel any obligation or responsibility toward God, so you can just eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, you may die ..." posted in net.religion and net.origins. First, a morally wrong or ethically wrong practice does not imply that it is improper science (provided that it is scientific other- wise). For example, many people feel that nuclear research is im- moral because one of products of the research is the ability to use nuclear power for destruction. This may be an argument in surveying practical applications of nuclear power, but it has no valid role in determining the propriety/correctness of the research. The context of research is science; the context of the application of the knowledge gained by the research include morality/ethics. In short, morality/ethics cannot determine science. Second, scientific knowledge is only scientific knowledge; science does not look for moral/ethical principles hidden in nature some- where. Science assumes that nature is consistent in that it follows a fixed set of laws (finite or infinite, that is left to be deter- mined). Its only job is to figure out what those laws are. The context here, again is strictly scientific and objective (these two words go hand-in-hand, so I guess the wording here is kind of redun- dant.) Moral and ethical principles are general guidelines that we use to maintain some sort equilibrium in our society. One can base these upon God (or some other supernatural source), in which case the principles are most probably recognized as absolute, or one can base these upon the general concensus of the population, in which case it is highly variable, or something else, or somewhere in be- tween two or more of these. There are many ways to formulate morals and ethics. Science, on the other hand, has very strict guidelines regarding the formation of scientific knowledge. It can discover that radiation is harmful to you survival, but ultimately it cannot discover that exposure to radiation is immoral. Scientific knowledge can be used to formulate ethics and even morals; however, science cannot directly determine morals/ethics. A popular accusation of creationists, as mentioned above in somewhat different words, is the "free-for-all" anarchy that would result in a context consisting of only relative (rather than absolute) morals and ethics. Applying some logical thinking to this, one would realize that "free-for-all" guidelines cannot arise in a democracy, due to their destructive nature. The important idea to keep in mind here is that everyone should be informed of the consequences of any estab- lished guidelines. You might support free for all initially, but when you realize that you could just as well be done-in by someone else, you would probably reconsider. The practicallity of "free-for-all" thinking is near nonexistent. > Should we feel guilty about stopping the chemical reactions in the > state we chose to call a burning candle? No? Why then should we > feel guilty about stopping the chemical reactions in the state we > chose to call homo sapiens? Other than the complexity of the re- > action, is there really any objective difference between the can- > dle and humans? Why should I (Gorbachev) care about the survival/ > improvement of the species/planet? WHY?? I'm about to bump off. > WHY? Who cares that others will be hurt? I won't be around. > They're just complex chemical reactions anyway, to which I have no > responsibilities. Physics, that's all it is, just physics. Oh what > the heck ... Click. (insert vast amounts of physics here, ala boom) Correct me if I am wrong, but does the general population of creation- ists and right-winged ultraconservatives feel that a God is necessary to make all of us behave and be responsible? How about all you other religious people? I feel I have a lot of responsibilities to a lot of people and abstracts, but I could not possibly take any religion seri- ously. (Religion in the supernatural context, please. Sort of a loose Rich Rosen approach.) I have a much more rigorous set of values than several religious friends of mine. > Later, the note contained this interesting sentence: > > > I cannot think of a reason to survive. It is just my general attitude. > > Perhaps the writer or some other secular evolutionist (no theistic > evolutionists, please) could elaborate on this topic? Why indeed > should we as a species survive? 1,000,000 years from now no one we > know or care about will be alive, nor is anyone likely to remember > anyone on this net. We'll all be dust, as will those 1,000,000 years > in the future also soon be dust. Eventually, the universe itself will > expire in heat death (maximum entropy) and the materialistic reality > will neither know nor care. It almost seems as though you are trying to support my statement. Once again, your responsibility seems to come from the need to be responsible or you will get spanked when you are done here on earth. Why must you be scared in order to be responsible to your fellow human beings? Are you truly that selfish, once your religious over- alls are removed? By the way, theistic evolution can be viewed in several ways. I see it as a compromise between theology and science. It can be scientific, once the theological ideas are removed. > One more comment: such allegations that creationists are more likely > to start a nuclear war has another side effect. An inference can be > drawn that the Soviets are much more likely to be kind, thoughtful, > futuristic thinking peace lovers, while the Americans (corrupted as > they are by the creationists) are much more likely to be blood thirsty, > war seeking, crazed swine who want to blow up the world and get on > with the kingdom of God. The only course of action, then, is to > unilaterally and immediately disarm the US, and welcome the generous > humanistic Soviets over to quickly set up some "reeducation centers". Another creationist attitude of polarized options. It's either us or them. If we're not good, then THEY must be. Well, I'd rather that we are good, too. (add two teaspoons of sarcasm to this last one.) In your phrasing alone, you have already made several errors. First, you already assume that God exists (and in some "kingdom", no less). Second, you assume that the general population of the United States consists of fundamentalist Christians. Third, you assume that human- ism is an "obviously" incorrect philosophy. Fourth, you assume that the only one of the two Superpowers can be "good" and "kind" and all that other stuff, while the other must be the other extreme. You have a stereotypical "you Walter Mondale-supporting, communist, pinko, subversive, homosexual, aids-infested, IQ-10, bed-wetting, masturba- ting, shit-eating, democrat-voting, fem/gray/queen/fairy/sammy, bloody- rectummed fudge packer--move to the USSR if you don't love the USA" attitude. Are you any more than this religous/righteous/red-neck stereotype? > A. Ray "more than just physics" Miller I seriously doubt that this is in any way an accurate reflection of yourself, given the flavor of your posts. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }