mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/15/85)
In article <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >Hardly. Chances of survival, overall longterm benefits, life in general, >are optimized by cooperation. Cooperation, and the maximal freedom and >benefit for all, are optimized by non-interference. Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized benefits? >> "There you go again". You have *never* cited any counter-evidence; you >> have merely asserted its existence. Don't try to weasel out of this; >> if you have any actual hard *evidence* that God does *not* exist, cite it! >I didn't say that I did. I said that there was (and is) evidence that the >beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking anthropocentrism. There is evidence >that the creationist line as spouted by the Bible is, in a literal sense, >fallacious, despite numerous attempts by wishful thinkers to prop up >creationism with augmented wishful thinking. But that's only a problem if you are going to take that section of the Bible in a very literal-minded fashion. Besides, it don't prove A.C.. There is no solid evidence as to why that particular account was written; Rich's claim is mere speculation without some independent evidence of what the author was thinking. >>>This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra-terrestrials is a >>>modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not? > >> Not necessarily. The Bible doesn't really say anything on the subject one way >> or the other; after all, its concern is with human beings. In that sense it >> is anthropocentric, but again, it was written to help humans toward a fuller, >> more joyous and freer life on this earth, so it could hardly be otherwise >> (and it would be of negligible use to humans if it were). > >I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Ask >a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful notion (put >forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation story is wuite >metaphorical, and that evolution itself shows how beautiful the Bible is >in telling that story in an imaginative way (actually he said that evolution >was the most beautiful interpretation of the creation story he had ever >heard). >In any case, the creation story also describes the earth as god's focal point >of the universe, so I would have to say "yes, necessarily". It does not. Cite verses if you are going to make a claim like that. Give to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary! Charley WIngate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/16/85)
>>Hardly. Chances of survival, overall longterm benefits, life in general, >>are optimized by cooperation. Cooperation, and the maximal freedom and >>benefit for all, are optimized by non-interference. [ROSEN] > Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized > benefits? [WINGATE] Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? >>>"There you go again". You have *never* cited any counter-evidence; you >>>have merely asserted its existence. Don't try to weasel out of this; >>>if you have any actual hard *evidence* that God does *not* exist, cite it! >>I didn't say that I did. I said that there was (and is) evidence that the >>beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking anthropocentrism. There is evidence >>that the creationist line as spouted by the Bible is, in a literal sense, >>fallacious, despite numerous attempts by wishful thinkers to prop up >>creationism with augmented wishful thinking. > But that's only a problem if you are going to take that section of the Bible > in a very literal-minded fashion. Besides, it don't prove A.C.. There is > no solid evidence as to why that particular account was written; Rich's > claim is mere speculation without some independent evidence of what the > author was thinking. But so many do just that, take it in a very literal minded fashion, even though you may feel more enlightened than they. Either the author was "inspired by god", or he/she was speculating on the nature of the creation of the universe from a subjective perspective. Since so much of the story is clearly false, one can assume that the author wasn't getting the word straight from god's mouth, thus the latter is more likely true. >>>>This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra-terrestrials is a >>>>modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not? >>>Not necessarily. The Bible doesn't really say anything on the subject one >>>way or the other; after all, its concern is with human beings. In that >>>sense it is anthropocentric, but again, it was written to help humans >>>toward a fuller, more joyous and freer life on this earth, so it could >>>hardly be otherwise (and it would be of negligible use to humans if it were). >>I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Ask >>a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful notion (put >>forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation story is wuite >>metaphorical, and that evolution itself shows how beautiful the Bible is >>in telling that story in an imaginative way (actually he said that evolution >>was the most beautiful interpretation of the creation story he had ever >>heard). >>In any case, the creation story also describes the earth as god's focal point >>of the universe, so I would have to say "yes, necessarily". > It does not. Cite verses if you are going to make a claim like that. How about the passages in which it is claimed that the earth was created before the sun, the moon, and the other planets (let alone the stars). That would seem to make the earth the focal point of the universe, would it not? I'll point out the specific passages if you like, but clearly we are not just talking about little individual passages, we are talking about the whole scope of the story! -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
In article <1226@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized >> benefits? [WINGATE] >Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? I don't think this is a universal principle, Rich; the mere existence of suicide is sufficient counter-evidence. Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals. It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count. >> But that's only a problem if you are going to take that section of the >> Bible in a very literal-minded fashion. Besides, it don't prove A.C.. >> There is no solid evidence as to why that particular account was written; >> Rich's claim is mere speculation without some independent evidence of >> what the author was thinking. >But so many do just that, take it in a very literal minded fashion, even >though you may feel more enlightened than they. Either the author was >"inspired by god", or he/she was speculating on the nature of the creation >of the universe from a subjective perspective. Since so much of the story >is clearly false, one can assume that the author wasn't getting the word >straight from god's mouth, thus the latter is more likely true. [flames ahead] Rich, there is no logical connection that gets you from "Some christians believe this" to "All christians believe this". You are talking to me, not some fundamentalist. I do not believe in the literal truth of Genesis ch 1. I do believe that it is inspired, and has some meaning. I do not take inspired to mean that the author took dictation from God. Inspiration is a stretchy word, and covers a lot more meaning then that. Besides, you simply are not in any position to judge why the words were written. You are taking anthropocentricism in such a strong sense that by your definition, anything written down is anthropocentric. Who are you to say that, because it mentions only humans, a God who sees all the rest of the universe could not have been the source? You have set up a standard which no writing could ever possibly meet. >>>In any case, the creation story also describes the earth as god's focal >>>point of the universe, so I would have to say "yes, necessarily". >> It does not. Cite verses if you are going to make a claim like that. >How about the passages in which it is claimed that the earth was created >before the sun, the moon, and the other planets (let alone the stars). >That would seem to make the earth the focal point of the universe, would it >not? I'll point out the specific passages if you like, but clearly we are >not just talking about little individual passages, we are talking about the >whole scope of the story! Rich, on what basis do you make the claim that the Bible should refer to alien races (or whatever)? I've already stated that I do not take the story literally (although on a metaphorical level it is quite close to man's current conception of the creation of the earth). Hanging your entire argument on that one verse is rather weak, especially when you consider that the Hebrew really doesn't say "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" but rather something more like "In the beginning when God *was beginning to create* the heavens and the earth" Finally, I think Rich's argument makes about as much sense as the argument that God deliberately left out the part about the aliens and about evolution because he knew Rich Rosen wasn't going to believe it if he did. It's all unbounded speculation uncontaminated by fact. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "For the mouse is a creature of great personal valour." C. Swift
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>>Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized >>>benefits? [WINGATE] >>Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >>continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? [ROSEN] > I don't think this is a universal principle, Rich; the mere existence of > suicide is sufficient counter-evidence. [WINGATE] People commit suicide when, by delusion or otherwise, they feel there is no hope in their existence. People who commit suicide have a distorted sense of their place in the world, feeling that possibilities for them do not exist. The fact that so many are brought back from the ledge, not with bullshit about "God will send you to hell", but with a realization of what hope there is and what they CAN do in the world (realistically, not extended lies about what they can do or what they mean to a given person), is in fact an affirmation of life and survival as viable goals. > Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals. > It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count. Yes, indeed. Arbitrary criteria like "MY God says you can't do this, and thus this behavior 'hurts' me and should be eradicated" can be eliminated right off the top as candidates. >>>But that's only a problem if you are going to take that section of the >>>Bible in a very literal-minded fashion. Besides, it don't prove A.C.. >>>There is no solid evidence as to why that particular account was written; >>>Rich's claim is mere speculation without some independent evidence of >>>what the author was thinking. >>But so many do just that, take it in a very literal minded fashion, even >>though you may feel more enlightened than they. Either the author was >>"inspired by god", or he/she was speculating on the nature of the creation >>of the universe from a subjective perspective. Since so much of the story >>is clearly false, one can assume that the author wasn't getting the word >>straight from god's mouth, thus the latter is more likely true. > [flames ahead] > Rich, there is no logical connection that gets you from "Some christians > believe this" to "All christians believe this". You are talking to me, not > some fundamentalist. I do not believe in the literal truth of Genesis ch 1. > I do believe that it is inspired, and has some meaning. I do not take > inspired to mean that the author took dictation from God. Inspiration is a > stretchy word, and covers a lot more meaning then that. Note that I said "so many do just that". Did that imply that I was referring to you? Did a strike a nerve or something? > Besides, you simply are not in any position to judge why the words were > written. You are taking anthropocentricism in such a strong sense that by > your definition, anything written down is anthropocentric. Who are you to > say that, because it mentions only humans, a God who sees all the rest of > the universe could not have been the source? You have set up a standard > which no writing could ever possibly meet. YOU have set up that standard yourself by twisting what I said. The point was that the writings of the Bible claim a central point in the universe for humans above all (or most) others. Since we know this not to be true, since we know other things mentioned in those writings are not to be taken literally, can we thus look closely at the possibility that the reason behind statements about "man" as God's light of the world are rooted in anthropocentrism? >>How about the passages in which it is claimed that the earth was created >>before the sun, the moon, and the other planets (let alone the stars). >>That would seem to make the earth the focal point of the universe, would it >>not? I'll point out the specific passages if you like, but clearly we are >>not just talking about little individual passages, we are talking about the >>whole scope of the story! > Rich, on what basis do you make the claim that the Bible should refer to > alien races (or whatever)? I've already stated that I do not take the story > literally (although on a metaphorical level it is quite close to man's > current conception of the creation of the earth). Hanging your entire > argument on that one verse is rather weak, especially when you consider that > the Hebrew really doesn't say "In the beginning, God created the heavens and > the earth" but rather something more like > > "In the beginning when God *was beginning to create* the heavens and the > earth" It's not just one verse, it's the whole order of things listed which forms the basis of creationism! I don't care whether the Bible talks about people, aliens, or unicorns. But if it claims to be the story of the creation of the universe and contradicts the facts, then it can be assumed that an author writing about these things wrote not from fact but from his own view about humanity's place in the spectrum of the universe. Not a horrible thing: we like to think of ourselves as important. But to then attribute to a god that same line of thinking is preposterous. > Finally, I think Rich's argument makes about as much sense as the argument > that God deliberately left out the part about the aliens and about evolution > because he knew Rich Rosen wasn't going to believe it if he did. It's all > unbounded speculation uncontaminated by fact. There are a lot of arguments in this world that you don't think make much sense, I'm sure. If you just choose to ignore evidence in favor of such arguments whilst not providing any counterevidence of your own, let's just call it "your opinion" then. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/31/85)
In article <1298@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>>Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized >>>>benefits? [WINGATE] > > >> Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals. >> It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count. > >Yes, indeed. Arbitrary criteria like "MY God says you can't do this, and thus >this behavior 'hurts' me and should be eradicated" can be eliminated right off >the top as candidates. > This does not answer his question. What was asked is: When survival or maximal freedom of two people are in direct conflict how do *you* decide who's survival or freedom to honor? What principles do you propose for resolving conflicts generated by your primary principles? >> Besides, you simply are not in any position to judge why the words were >> written. You are taking anthropocentricism in such a strong sense that by >> your definition, anything written down is anthropocentric. Who are you to >> say that, because it mentions only humans, a God who sees all the rest of >> the universe could not have been the source? You have set up a standard >> which no writing could ever possibly meet. > >YOU have set up that standard yourself by twisting what I said. The point was >that the writings of the Bible claim a central point in the universe for humans >above all (or most) others. Since we know this not to be true, since we know >other things mentioned in those writings are not to be taken literally, >can we thus look closely at the possibility that the reason behind statements >about "man" as God's light of the world are rooted in anthropocentrism? > Again, since it is written *for* humans, it quite naturally concentrates on them! It does *not* actually claim any ultimately central position for humanity. Also, if the Bible is read as talking about *spritual* matters then trying to read it *literally* becomes *invalid* and any arguments based on the "falsity" of such a "literal" interpretation are also invalid. >> Rich, on what basis do you make the claim that the Bible should refer to >> alien races (or whatever)? I've already stated that I do not take the story >> literally (although on a metaphorical level it is quite close to man's >> current conception of the creation of the earth). Hanging your entire >> argument on that one verse is rather weak, especially when you consider that >> the Hebrew really doesn't say "In the beginning, God created the heavens and >> the earth" but rather something more like >> >> "In the beginning when God *was beginning to create* the heavens and the >> earth" > >It's not just one verse, it's the whole order of things listed which forms the >basis of creationism! I don't care whether the Bible talks about people, >aliens, or unicorns. But if it claims to be the story of the creation of the >universe and contradicts the facts, then it can be assumed that an author >writing about these things wrote not from fact but from his own view about >humanity's place in the spectrum of the universe. Not a horrible thing: >we like to think of ourselves as important. But to then attribute to a god >that same line of thinking is preposterous. > Again, you seem to miss the point, if you do not *expect* literalism then violations of "literal" "truth" are *irrelevent*. How about looking at the creation story as an *allegory* about the relationship btween God and the Universe! In order to make his point the (human) author took the then current story of the origin of the world(the Babylonian creation myth) and shifted its emphasis to the single God of his faith, rather than the original pantheon. Now what you see is a story emphasizing God's *responsibility* for the state of the Universe that really has nothing to say about *how* He shaped it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/04/85)
>>>>>Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized >>>>>benefits? [WINGATE] > >>>Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals. >>>It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count. >>Yes, indeed. Arbitrary criteria like "MY God says you can't do this, and thus >>this behavior 'hurts' me and should be eradicated" can be eliminated right off >>the top as candidates. [ROSEN] > This does not answer his question. [FRIESEN] He didn't ASK a question. He made a statement. I merely proposed some of those principles he was speaking of. The answer to his question in '>>>>>' was contained in my response that would have been labelled '>>>>' had it been included here for examination. > What was asked is: > When survival or maximal freedom of two people are in direct conflict > how do *you* decide who's survival or freedom to honor? What > principles do you propose for resolving conflicts generated by your > primary principles? As I said, the principles I suggested are at least a start in the direction mentioned. The question originally asked had nothing to do with such conflicts, it merely asked why we valued survival. And I answered that. Why don't you give some specific, even hypothetical examples and we'll see what principles we can come up with. Nothing can be said in the absence of such specifics. Except, as I suggested, the ignoring of arbitrary whim as a means of doing such deciding. >>> Besides, you simply are not in any position to judge why the words were >>> written. You are taking anthropocentricism in such a strong sense that by >>> your definition, anything written down is anthropocentric. Who are you to >>> say that, because it mentions only humans, a God who sees all the rest of >>> the universe could not have been the source? You have set up a standard >>> which no writing could ever possibly meet. >>YOU have set up that standard yourself by twisting what I said. The point >>was that the writings of the Bible claim a central point in the universe >>for humans above all (or most) others. Since we know this not to be true, >>since we know other things mentioned in those writings are not to be taken >>literally, can we thus look closely at the possibility that the reason behind >>statements about "man" as God's light of the world are rooted in >>anthropocentrism? > Again, since it is written *for* humans, it quite naturally > concentrates on them! Physics texts are written FOR humans, yet they would seem to offer a much more objective and certainly less anthropocentric view of things. > It does *not* actually claim any ultimately central position for humanity. I humbly suggest that you haven't read Genesis too recently. > Also, if the Bible is read as talking > about *spritual* matters then trying to read it *literally* becomes > *invalid* and any arguments based on the "falsity" of such a "literal" > interpretation are also invalid. Fine, tell that to those who would use its "literal" interpretation to justify impositional morality. Furthermore, it seems that some people have very different dividing lines between what's "spiritual" and what's "literal". >>It's not just one verse, it's the whole order of things listed which forms the >>basis of creationism! I don't care whether the Bible talks about people, >>aliens, or unicorns. But if it claims to be the story of the creation of the >>universe and contradicts the facts, then it can be assumed that an author >>writing about these things wrote not from fact but from his own view about >>humanity's place in the spectrum of the universe. Not a horrible thing: >>we like to think of ourselves as important. But to then attribute to a god >>that same line of thinking is preposterous. > Again, you seem to miss the point, if you do not *expect* > literalism then violations of "literal" "truth" are *irrelevent*. > How about looking at the creation story as an *allegory* about the > relationship btween God and the Universe! In order to make his point > the (human) author took the then current story of the origin of the > world(the Babylonian creation myth) and shifted its emphasis to the > single God of his faith, rather than the original pantheon. Now what > you see is a story emphasizing God's *responsibility* for the state of > the Universe that really has nothing to say about *how* He shaped it. First, thank you for pointing out that the authorship of the Bible is clearly in the hands of a wishful thinker who took existing myths to fit them to hie new world view about HIS god. Second, see above (regarding those who do take it literally and those who use it to justify impositional morality). -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/06/85)
>> = unknown, > = Rosen >> Again, since it [the Bible] is written *for* humans, it quite naturally >> concentrates on them! > Physics texts are written FOR humans, yet they would seem to offer a much more > objective and certainly less anthropocentric view of things. You're mixing apples and oranges here, Rich. The Bible was written to show humans how best to live their entire lives. Physics texts are written for a much more limited purpose and make no claim to provide even hints to answers to the deeper questions of life which the Bible addresses. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/09/85)
In article <1419@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >He didn't ASK a question. He made a statement. I merely proposed some of >those principles he was speaking of. > The "question" I was speaking of was *implied* in the following: >>>>Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals. >>>>It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count. > Or asked more explicitely as a question: >> When survival or maximal freedom of two people are in direct conflict >> how do *you* decide who's survival or freedom to honor? What >> principles do you propose for resolving conflicts generated by your >> primary principles? > >As I said, the principles I suggested are at least a start in the direction >mentioned. The question originally asked had nothing to do with such >conflicts, it merely asked why we valued survival. And I answered that. Yes, and then a difficulty with that was brought up, namely the problem of internal conflict with your own principles, and you seemed to ignore it. >Why don't you give some specific, even hypothetical examples and we'll >see what principles we can come up with. Nothing can be said in the >absence of such specifics. Alright, the let's use the old classic of two men in a lifeboat with little food. If they do nothing they will *both* starve, if one kills the other he will have a *much* better chance of survival. Now we have twom people whose survival is in *direct* conflict, at *least* one of them will die! Now, who lives, and who dies, and above all, HOW do you decide! > >> Again, since it is written *for* humans, it quite naturally >> concentrates on them! > >Physics texts are written FOR humans, yet they would seem to offer a much more >objective and certainly less anthropocentric view of things. > In a completely different way! A physics book is intended to provide understanding of the "physical" world while the Bible is aimed at a completely different set of goals, so the comparison is not valid. >> It does *not* actually claim any ultimately central position for humanity. > >I humbly suggest that you haven't read Genesis too recently. > Oh, but all Genesis says is that we have dominion(i.e. control) over the Earth, which is obviously true even if you are not a Christian. Or do you believe that the incredible changes in the surface of the Earth we have performed are not control? Ever been to Los Angeles lately? Hundreds of square miles of land so utterly changed *by* *man* that the original animals can no longer live there! No other animal has anywhere *near* the power that man does over the Earth and everything in it. Why, when another animal causes us too many problems we kill it, we have even driven many spp to extinction. >> Also, if the Bible is read as talking >> about *spritual* matters then trying to read it *literally* becomes >> *invalid* and any arguments based on the "falsity" of such a "literal" >> interpretation are also invalid. > >Fine, tell that to those who would use its "literal" interpretation to >justify impositional morality. Furthermore, it seems that some people have >very different dividing lines between what's "spiritual" and what's "literal". > Oh, I do! But what thier *opinions* of the Bible are not binding on me, and arguments based on those interpretations are only significant to those who accept those interpretations. My problem is that you seem to be trying to say that the Bible itself is invalid because of some *interpretation* of the Bible. This just doesn't wash unless the interpretation in question is the only reasonable one, which it most certainly is *not*. An example from another field. In the early part of this century when the scientific theory of evolution was first becoming widely known a group of philosophers reached the conclusion that it applied to human *society* as well as to organisms, thus producing the theory of Social Darwinism, which provide a wonderful justification for the ravages of the very rich, and implied that the poor essentially *deserved* to be poor. Does this misinterpretation of Darwinism invalidate the theory of evolution? I would say NO, it is merely a silly, poorly concieved misunderstanding of what the theory was about. So why should Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible be any more applicable to the validity of the Bible? > >First, thank you for pointing out that the authorship of the Bible is clearly >in the hands of a wishful thinker who took existing myths to fit them to >hie new world view about HIS god. Second, see above (regarding those who do >take it literally and those who use it to justify impositional morality). >-- I would rather say that Genesis is an *allegory*, intended to *illustrate*(not define) the relationship between God and the world. I believe the author was trying to show that the *existing*, *accepted* account of the origin of the world was consistant with God's sovereignity. This is the opposite of what fundamentalists are trying to do! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
> The "question" I was speaking of was *implied* in the following: >>>>>Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals. >>>>>It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count. > > Or asked more explicitely as a question: >>> When survival or maximal freedom of two people are in direct conflict >>> how do *you* decide who's survival or freedom to honor? What >>> principles do you propose for resolving conflicts generated by your >>> primary principles? > >>As I said, the principles I suggested are at least a start in the direction >>mentioned. The question originally asked had nothing to do with such >>conflicts, it merely asked why we valued survival. And I answered that. > > Yes, and then a difficulty with that was brought up, namely > the problem of internal conflict with your own principles, and you > seemed to ignore it. First off, no such "difficulty" was brought up in any article I ever saw. Second, what sort of conflicts? (YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE BELOW) >>Why don't you give some specific, even hypothetical examples and we'll >>see what principles we can come up with. Nothing can be said in the >>absence of such specifics. > Alright, the let's use the old classic of two men in a > lifeboat with little food. If they do nothing they will *both* > starve, if one kills the other he will have a *much* better chance > of survival. Now we have twom people whose survival is in *direct* > conflict, at *least* one of them will die! Now, who lives, and who > dies, and above all, HOW do you decide! Draw lots? Wait for the waitress to come by and order a leg of Hodges? I mean, seriously, this particular example is all well and good. How does Christian morality deal with it? What I'm saying is that 1) the men are going to have to come to an agreement of some sort of their own doing regardless of ANY societal morality, and 2) that is THEIR agreement alone and no existing system of morality answers this question any better than what I've described. >>> Again, since it is written *for* humans, it quite naturally >>> concentrates on them! >>Physics texts are written FOR humans, yet they would seem to offer a much >>more objective and certainly less anthropocentric view of things. > In a completely different way! A physics book is intended to > provide understanding of the "physical" world while the Bible is aimed > at a completely different set of goals, so the comparison is not valid. But achieving those goals can and should be performed in just as rigorous a fashion as study of the physical world. Like determining what you are all about as an individual person, etc. Unless the "goals" you are speaking of include serving as a book of fairy tales, in which case I would of course concur. >>> It does *not* actually claim any ultimately central position for humanity. >>I humbly suggest that you haven't read Genesis too recently. > Oh, but all Genesis says is that we have dominion(i.e. control) > over the Earth, which is obviously true even if you are not a Christian. Whoa, slow down! "Obviously true"? I don't recall if you were one of the voices of anti-science that have been barking about recently, but they would be the first to tell you that one of the biggest failings of scientific "progress" is in the fact that we have ASSUMED that we did have dominion over the earth and could do with it as we liked. But thanks for pointing out where that assumption comes from: not from those who study science, but from those who study the Bible! > Or do you believe that the incredible changes in the > surface of the Earth we have performed are not control? Ever been to > Los Angeles lately? Hundreds of square miles of land so utterly > changed *by* *man* that the original animals can no longer live > there! I would never use Los Angeles as an example of humanity's "control" by any stretch of the imagination. :-) PERCEIVED control, perhaps, but again, it's nice to hear the place where this notion comes from pointed out. >>> Also, if the Bible is read as talking >>> about *spritual* matters then trying to read it *literally* becomes >>> *invalid* and any arguments based on the "falsity" of such a "literal" >>> interpretation are also invalid. >>Fine, tell that to those who would use its "literal" interpretation to >>justify impositional morality. Furthermore, it seems that some people have >>very different dividing lines between what's "spiritual" and what's "literal" > Oh, I do! But what thier *opinions* of the Bible are not > binding on me, and arguments based on those interpretations are only > significant to those who accept those interpretations. My problem is > that you seem to be trying to say that the Bible itself is invalid > because of some *interpretation* of the Bible. No, what I'm trying to do is to debunk the notion that the Bible can be used as a basis for impositional morality. Those who want to do so feel that they can and should because it's the so-called word of god. Thus, to eradicate and squelch their notions it is necessary to show the Bible for what it is: a nice set of stories, nothing more. > This just doesn't wash > unless the interpretation in question is the only reasonable one, > which it most certainly is *not*. An example from another field. > In the early part of this century when the scientific theory of > evolution was first becoming widely known a group of philosophers > reached the conclusion that it applied to human *society* as well > as to organisms, thus producing the theory of Social Darwinism, > which provide a wonderful justification for the ravages of the > very rich, and implied that the poor essentially *deserved* to be poor. Of course there are invalid applications and conclusions drawn by bad so-called scientists. The point of real science (no, that's not a movie in which high school kids build a woman and blow up New Jersey :-) is to ferret out the silly. The question is: Are there VALID applications and conclusion drawn by religious believers, and how do we ferret THEM out from the wishful thinking? -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/14/85)
> I would rather say that Genesis is an *allegory*, intended to > *illustrate*(not define) the relationship between God and the world. > I believe the author was trying to show that the *existing*, > *accepted* account of the origin of the world was consistant > with God's sovereignity. This is the opposite of what fundamentalists > are trying to do! > -- > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Please elaborate. What do you mean by "*existing* *accepted* account of the origin of the world"? There have been several down through the ages. What exactly do you think fundamentalists are trying to do? You never really made that clear. Julie A. Harazduk Mother to child: "If you could be anyone in the Bible, who would you be?" Child to mother: "I would be Lo" Mother to child: "Lo???" Child to mother: "Sure, 'Lo, the angel of the Lord came....'
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/17/85)
> How on earth can anyone scientifically, "rigorously" determine what he or she > is about? That is something that can at best only partially be determined > "objectively" (by aptitude and interest tests, and they don't really answer > the deeper question "Who am I?"). I thought you said that you had gone through therapy at one point to help you through some things. That is a perfect example of this. >>No, what I'm trying to do is to debunk the notion that the Bible can be used >>as a basis for impositional morality. Those who want to do so feel that they >>can and should because it's the so-called word of god. Thus, to eradicate >>and squelch their notions it is necessary to show the Bible for what it is: >>a nice set of stories, nothing more. > No, to squelch their notions you should go to the Book they claim as authority > and point out things like '"Everything is permissible for me" -- but not all > things are beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me" -- but I will not > be mastered by anything.' (I Cor. 6:12) Your assertion that the Bible is > purely stories won't convince anyone; but your pointing out that the Bible > itself (particularly the New Testament) supports freedom, not imposition, may > cause a few people to rethink their position. The fact that ten given people have twelve different positions on the Bible as supporting freedom vs. imposition makes that not only impossible, but ridiculous. Besides, people who love imposition don't listen to the rational Christian types. >>The question is: Are there VALID applications and conclusion drawn by >>religious believers, and how do we ferret THEM out from the wishful thinking? > The same way I've suggested before: "Try it! You'll like it!" (Sometimes you > may indeed need the Alka-Seltzer, but that doesn't mean the meal isn't good.) No, Jeff, that's NOT the way you ferret out wishful thinking, that's the way you propagate it. Feed on personal needs of people, tell them to "try this", see that it works because of the power of self-belief to change them, and get them believing in your ideas. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/26/85)
In article <1475@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >> Alright, the let's use the old classic of two men in a >> lifeboat with little food. If they do nothing they will *both* >> starve, if one kills the other he will have a *much* better chance >> of survival. Now we have twom people whose survival is in *direct* >> conflict, at *least* one of them will die! Now, who lives, and who >> dies, and above all, HOW do you decide! > >I mean, seriously, this particular example is all well and good. How >does Christian morality deal with it? What I'm saying is that 1) the >men are going to have to come to an agreement of some sort of their own >doing regardless of ANY societal morality, and 2) that is THEIR agreement >alone and no existing system of morality answers this question any better >than what I've described. > Well, I think Christian morality *does* have an answer for this. It is not an easy answer, and you may not like it, but it is there. The basis for the Christian answer is two-fold, first there is the belief that death is not the end, nor even the ultimate evil, second there is the idea that to be responsible for anothers death will harm me. So this leaves two possibilities, sacrifice myself for the other person(especially if that person is not a Christian) or leave the outcome to "fate" or "the hand of God" or whatever you wish to call it. > >> Oh, but all Genesis says is that we have dominion(i.e. control) >> over the Earth, which is obviously true even if you are not a Christian. > >Whoa, slow down! "Obviously true"? I don't recall if you were one of the >voices of anti-science that have been barking about recently, but they >would be the first to tell you that one of the biggest failings of scientific >"progress" is in the fact that we have ASSUMED that we did have dominion over >the earth and could do with it as we liked. But thanks for pointing out >where that assumption comes from: not from those who study science, but >from those who study the Bible! > >I would never use Los Angeles as an example of humanity's "control" by any >stretch of the imagination. :-) PERCEIVED control, perhaps, but again, >it's nice to hear the place where this notion comes from pointed out. > I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was that we have the *ability* to alter our environment to meet our percieved needs or desires. That we indeed *can* do so is amply attested to by history, humans in all eras and in most cultures have deliberately modified thier environment. The LA example is in fact a perfect example of what I was talking about, since it is a case where we have heavily modified the world for our own benifit. Other examples, think of all the millions of acres of land in cultivation instead of its original wild state, how did we do this if we do not have the ability to control our world? And in many parts of the world the conversion of large tracts of land long predated Christianity. Much of China has been rice paddies for uncountable years. Or here are the Roman aquaducts, which were a way of saying, we want that water over *here* not over there. I would not say that we can do anything we please without consequence, indeed all actions have consequences. As someone with a background in ecology I am very aware of the temendous dangers ingerent in unrestrained use of our power to manipulate the world, but the fact that there are consequences doesn't alter the fact that we *do* have that power. In fact Christian morality provides an aexcellent basis for tempering our tendency to misuse the Earth, we are in domnion yes, but it is the dominion of a steward or caretaker, not the dominion of an owner or ruler. We are *responsible* for what we do with our world. It is a sad fact that many people take a might makes right approach to life and feel that if we *can* do it ther is no reason not to. >No, what I'm trying to do is to debunk the notion that the Bible can be used >as a basis for impositional morality. Those who want to do so feel that they >can and should because it's the so-called word of god. Thus, to eradicate >and squelch their notions it is necessary to show the Bible for what it is: >a nice set of stories, nothing more. > But you are not demonstrating that unless you use valid argumentation, based on the actual content of the book, not someone's interpretation of what the book says. Or areyou trying to say that impositional morality is so bad that you are justified in using improper reasoning to eliminatre it? Also, I do not think that debunking the Bible is necessary to squelch these people, All you need do is show the absurdity of thier position. >Of course there are invalid applications and conclusions drawn by bad >so-called scientists. The point of real science (no, that's not a movie >in which high school kids build a woman and blow up New Jersey :-) is to >ferret out the silly. The question is: Are there VALID applications and >conclusion drawn by religious believers, and how do we ferret THEM out from >the wishful thinking? Well, I would use many of the same tools as science. I would use archaeological evidence, textual criticism, careful study of the whole Bible, with proper attention paid to the different sorts of literature it contains. In short a bit of old-fashioned study will do wonders for weeding out absurdity in theology as well as in science. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/26/85)
In article <413@philabs.UUCP> jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) writes: > >> I would rather say that Genesis is an *allegory*, intended to >> *illustrate*(not define) the relationship between God and the world. >> I believe the author was trying to show that the *existing*, >> *accepted* account of the origin of the world was consistant >> with God's sovereignity. This is the opposite of what fundamentalists >> are trying to do! >> -- >> >> Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >Please elaborate. What do you mean by "*existing* *accepted* account of >the origin of the world"? There have been several down through the ages. >What exactly do you think fundamentalists are trying to do? You never >really made that clear. > In this case I meant that the author was using the existing, accepted version *at the time he was writing*. Fundamentalist, such as Rev Morris, are trying to remove modern evolutionary theory from the schools and replace it with the old Babylonian myth that was current when the book of Genesis was written. This is quite the opposite of using the current concept of origins(now evolutionary theory + cosmological theory) to illustrate the sovereignty of God over the whole World -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/28/85)
>>I mean, seriously, this particular example is all well and good. How >>does Christian morality deal with it? What I'm saying is that 1) the >>men are going to have to come to an agreement of some sort of their own >>doing regardless of ANY societal morality, and 2) that is THEIR agreement >>alone and no existing system of morality answers this question any better >>than what I've described. > Well, I think Christian morality *does* have an answer for > this. It is not an easy answer, and you may not like it, but it is > there. The basis for the Christian answer is two-fold, first there is > the belief that death is not the end, nor even the ultimate evil, > second there is the idea that to be responsible for anothers death > will harm me. So this leaves two possibilities, sacrifice myself for > the other person(especially if that person is not a Christian) or > leave the outcome to "fate" or "the hand of God" or whatever you wish > to call it. Your "solution" is no solution at all, in fact it raises new problems. (The whole "death is not the end, so let me eat your leg" thing notwithstanding.) First, you may get stuck with two people in a lifeboat each offering themselves to the other for dinner, which sounds like a Python sketch involving a waitress taking an order for a "leg of Hodges". The other problem involves the real crux. The Christian morality TELLS you that "God will punish you" for your "evil ways" (whether we are talking about truly evil things like murder or non-evil things like sexual "aberration"). What if you don't believe it? What if you see the evidence of the world and conclude that there's no proof at all for this God business!!! Well, obviously you go ahead and eat Hodges (the other guy in the boat) because there's no reason not to. And then when you return home, you ransack the town, rape and pillage, take what you want, etc. After all, the only thing you learned from this Christian morality was that "God says (don't) do it, so (don't) do it". Given that you've shirked the notion of God (owing to non-proof), what reason do you have not to do as you like? You haven't learned anything to the contrary! On the other hand, rational minimal morality lets you in on the reason why you shouldn't do harmful things to other people: enlightened longterm self-interest. If you do "bad", you're likely to provoke retribution of others in some form or other. The Golden Rule wasn't a good idea just because Jesus said so. What more stupid reason for adhering to it could there be! It's a good idea because it makes sense in dealing with other people. The point is that a religious morality for a society is completely untenable and unsupportable in this world. If the only thing stopping you from doing something (or making you do something) is "God says so", without proof for the existence of God, you have no reason to adhere to the code! God says so? Big deal!! Religionists claim that it is the breakdown of religious values that cause the "moral decay" of society. Guess what? Without proof of the existence of God, those values will simply wither away, and all you'll have left is a society with people who think "There's no God, who's to stop me? What reason do I have not to do this?" The only alternative I can see is the strict indoctrination of everyone into a belief in God at all costs. Is that the goal of your morality? >>> Oh, but all Genesis says is that we have dominion(i.e. control) >>> over the Earth, which is obviously true even if you are not a Christian. >>Whoa, slow down! "Obviously true"? I don't recall if you were one of the >>voices of anti-science that have been barking about recently, but they >>would be the first to tell you that one of the biggest failings of scientific >>"progress" is in the fact that we have ASSUMED that we did have dominion over >>the earth and could do with it as we liked. But thanks for pointing out >>where that assumption comes from: not from those who study science, but >>from those who study the Bible! > >>I would never use Los Angeles as an example of humanity's "control" by any >>stretch of the imagination. :-) PERCEIVED control, perhaps, but again, >>it's nice to hear the place where this notion comes from pointed out. > I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What > I meant was that we have the *ability* to alter our environment to > meet our percieved needs or desires. That we indeed *can* do so is > amply attested to by history, humans in all eras and in most cultures > have deliberately modified thier environment. The LA example is in > fact a perfect example of what I was talking about, since it is a case > where we have heavily modified the world for our own benifit. You've obviously never been to Los Angeles. :-) Or else your using a new definition of the word "benefit" which I am totally unfamiliar with. > Other examples, think of all the millions of acres of land in cultivation > instead of its original wild state, how did we do this if we do not > have the ability to control our world? Modify, yes. Control, eh. Los Angeles is a perfect example of that. > In fact Christian morality provides an > aexcellent basis for tempering our tendency to misuse the Earth, we > are in domnion yes, but it is the dominion of a steward or caretaker, > not the dominion of an owner or ruler. We are *responsible* for what > we do with our world. It is a sad fact that many people take a might > makes right approach to life and feel that if we *can* do it ther is > no reason not to. True, but you have gon far afield of the original point, which was the anthropocentrism of the Bible, as especially noted in the Genesis story. You have merely proven my point about the Bible's claims for a special status for humanity based on nothing but anthropocentrism. And face it, some people don't like to be knocked off a pedestal, so they're not likely to cotton to this revelation. >>No, what I'm trying to do is to debunk the notion that the Bible can be used >>as a basis for impositional morality. Those who want to do so feel that they >>can and should because it's the so-called word of god. Thus, to eradicate >>and squelch their notions it is necessary to show the Bible for what it is: >>a nice set of stories, nothing more. > But you are not demonstrating that unless you use valid > argumentation, based on the actual content of the book, not someone's > interpretation of what the book says. Or areyou trying to say that > impositional morality is so bad that you are justified in using > improper reasoning to eliminatre it? Also, I do not think that > debunking the Bible is necessary to squelch these people, All you > need do is show the absurdity of thier position. The absurdity of their position is in the fact that they seek to use this book as the basis of a societal morality. As I mentioned above, since there is no proof for their subjective notions, not only is it wrong to impose their unprovable view onto others, it is downright stupid, it won't work. If all you've got to go on is "God says to/not to do this", and if you can't prove your funny notions about God (whatever they may be), do you honestly expect everyone to just believe them and say "Uh, huh, right, God's gonna punish me for this, sure, excuse me..."? The only way to enforce such a morality is with rigorous mass indoctrination. We've tried that. Eventually the stalwart individualists still win out and break through, and real learning recommences. What is your alternative? >>Of course there are invalid applications and conclusions drawn by bad >>so-called scientists. The point of real science (no, that's not a movie >>in which high school kids build a woman and blow up New Jersey :-) is to >>ferret out the silly. The question is: Are there VALID applications and >>conclusion drawn by religious believers, and how do we ferret THEM out from >>the wishful thinking? > Well, I would use many of the same tools as science. I would > use archaeological evidence, textual criticism, careful study of the > whole Bible, with proper attention paid to the different sorts of > literature it contains. In short a bit of old-fashioned study will do > wonders for weeding out absurdity in theology as well as in science. Sounds good, but it seems you're more interested in using scientific tools to somehow prove yourself right rather find out the truth. What I was referring to had nothing to do with archaeology or textual criticism (esp. since neither has any bearing on a proof about God). What I meant was to use those same reasoning tools to figure which of the notions present in the Bible are good, which are not, which other outside might also be included or rejected, and build from there. Without bogus assumptions of "this is good because god said so"... -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr