dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
Hello out there in netland. I am putting together a pamphlet on "Objective Evidences For The Christian Faith" and I thought I would try them out on you net.religioners for size. The articles contain excerpts from various authors put together as concise as possible. Please feel free to comment, criticize, or flame away. If they survive netland, their ready to hit the press!
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
The Uniqueness of The Bible Unique in its continuity: Written over a 1500 year span; 40 generations. Written by over 40 authors from every walk of life (Kings, peasants, poets, fisherman, herdsman, doctor, tax collector etc.) Written in different places: In the wilderness, in dungeons, in a palace, in prisons etc. Written during different moods: Written in war time, peace time, heights of joy, depths of sorrow. Written on three continents; Asia, Africa, Europe. Written in three languages; Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial subjects which would normally create oppossing opinions when discussed, yet biblical writers spoke on these issues with harmony and continuity. There is one unfolding story: God's Redemption of Man. The message is one great drama in which all parts fit together! Such a work, encompassing the lives of generations of individuals, can only be accounted for by a common author, the Spirit of God. Unique in its Teachings: Historical accounts found to be tremendously accurate. Confirmed by other historians, by archealogy, by geography. Teaches contrary to human thought. Records the sins and failures of its own characters and own country. Even the greatest of the Heroes are shown at their worst. King David commits adultry, Moses loses his temper and disobeys God, Elijah falls into self-pity, Jonah disobeys God out of prejudice, Peter denies Christ, Paul condemns himself for persecuting the church, Jacob deceives his brother out of his birth right. The great prophets of Isreal and the Apostles accuse their country of disobedience, wickedness, and apostasy. Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself below his true nature. Man also has a tendency to avoid responsibility for his own actions. This attribute of secular humanism, blaming our environment, genes, and other people for our behaviour is nothing new. It all began when God questioned Adam, "Did you eat of the fruit that I told you not to eat?" Adam's irresponsible reply, "The WOMAN that YOU GAVE ME gave me the fruit and I ate it!" The writer's of scripture could only have portrayed such an accurate picture of man, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The bible is unique in its teaching about salvation. All religions of the world have one thing in common. They all portray salvation as attainable through human effort. The natural desire of man to earn merit is completely absent in the writers of scripture as they, one by one, from Genesis to Revelation, illustrate the inadequecy of man and the Gracious gift of God: Salvation! The teaching of Christ attest to the bible's uniqueness! The very restrained portrait of Christ testifies to their inspiration. One only has to read the mythologies of various cultures to see the propensity of man to embellish the truth with fantastic imagination. Even the non-biblical writings of Jesus, portray him as a childhood prodigy instructing His schoolteachers with hidden mysteries in the alphabet and astounding His family and playmates with miraculous works. One story has Jesus, age 5, fashioning 12 sparrows out of clay on the Sabbath. When questioned by His father about such activity, Jesus clapped His hands and the sparrows flew away chirping! In total contrast, the Bible portrays the miracles of Christ with straight forward simplicity. The biblical writers purpose is not to entertain or to sensationalize, but to demonstrate the power, authority, and glory of Christ. The bible has survived various attacks and attempts to destroy it. Some powerful men in history have tried to rid the world of the holy Scriptures, as others have predicted its demise. The French humanist, Voltaire, boastfully proclaimed, "Fifty years from now the world will hear no more of the Bible." In that year, the British Museum purchased one manuscript of the Greek New Testament from the Russian government for $500,000 while a copy of his own book was selling for eight cents a copy! Fifty years after his death, bibles were being printed by the Geneva Bible Society in the very house where Voltaire had lived and on his presses! The Bible, is the only religious book in which there has never been found a legitimate error. The Koran, the Book of Mormon, and many other "sacred" books contain gross errors and inconsistencies. The bible is accurate in history, science, and most importantly, in human nature. The hope of mankind is not in our world leaders, not in science, but in the intervention of God in human history, in the person of Jesus Christ. One need only examine the content of the sacred scriptures for a clear, accurate description of the world today. Mankind, in his rejection of the creator/redeemer, has vainly attempted to recapture his lost dominion over nature and mortality, destroying everything in his path in the process. All the while the Saviour waits, hands outstretched, longing to restore man to his God-given image. The most unique book the world has ever known, Gods loveletter to the human race, contains the solutions to the worlds problems and the remedy for the human paradox. A book as unique as the bible could only be supernatural in origin!
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
Reliability of The New Testament It is true that Christianity views the bible as God's revealed word to mankind. Those who oppose this view object that the biblical account can not be deemed reliable. It is argued that the accounts would become distorted during their textual transmission. However, it can be shown that the New Testament documents are the most reliable of all historical documents; and to reject the New Testament records without rejecting all other historical documents and regarding them unreliable, would be to act in utter bias and absurdity. Manuscript Evidence There are more than 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament today. Over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the "Iliad", by Homer, is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. Besides the number of manuscripts, the New Testament differs from all other writings in its interval of time between the composition of the book and date of the earliest extant manuscripts. The New Testament books were written (originals) in the latter part of the first century. The oldest manuscripts in exsistance are of the fourth century. From 250 - 300 years later. This is nothing compared to most of the great classical authors. Examples below: no. of manuscripts interval of time Ceasar's Gallic Wars 10 900 years later Roman History of Livy 35 400 years Histories of Tacitus 14 800 - 1000 years History of Thucydides 8 1300 years History of Herodotus ? 1300 years Greenlee writes in "Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism", "The oldest known manuscripts of most of the Greek classical authors are dated a thousand years or so after the authors death. In all of these thousands of manuscripts, there is a discrepency rate of less than 1 per cent while there is five per cent textual corruption in the Iliad. 40 lines of the New Testament in question as compared to 764 lines in the Iliad. Gleason Archer, "A careful study of the variants of the various earliest manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of Scripture. Benjamin Warfield, "If we compare the present state of the New Testament with that of any other ancient writing, we must declare it to be marvelously correct. The New Testament has been transmitted to us with no or next to no variation; and even the most corrupt form in which it has appeared, the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. The scrolls were dated 125 B.C. and was placed in the location about A.D. 68. The tremendous exactness with the Isaiah scroll found compared to the Massoretic text of Isaiah that we already possessed, dated 916 A.D., demonstrates the unusual accuracy of the copyists of Scripture. Reliability supported by external writings The church Fathers of the first and second centuries qouted the scriptures in their writings extensively. Between Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Eusebius, the Gospels were quoted over 19,000 times, the book of Acts quoted 1352 times, Paul's epistles over 14,000 times, general epistles 870 times, book of revelation 664 times for a total of 36,289 quotations. Are the Scriptures reliable? F. F. Bruce, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us; of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
Evidence For The Historical Jesus Cornelius Tacitus reports about the Christians in the time of Nero (A.D.64) and mentions that Christ was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Pliny, in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, concerning the "superstition" of Christianity, refers to Christ. Pliny was seeking council from Trajan as to how to treat the christians. Pliny had been killing all he could find (men, women, & children), and wondered if he should continue. Suetonius mentions the expulsion form Rome of certain Jews who had caused a great tumult under the influence of "Christus". (A.D.120) Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote a history of the Jews which he titled "Antiquities". Born in A.D. 37, Josephus is described as an egoist, motivated by self-interest, and a flatterer of the Romans. One statement in "Antiquities" gives an account of Herod's action in killing John The Baptist, which supports the validity of the Gospel records. Another passage makes specific statements about Jesus. Here it is: "Now about this time arose Jesus, a wise man, if indeed he should be called a man. For He was a doer of marvellous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure, and he won over to himself many Jews and many also of the Greek nation. He was the Christ. And when on the indictment of the principal men among us Pilate had sentenced Him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not cease; for He appeared to them on the third day alive again. The divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him. And even now the tribe of Christians named after Him is not extinct. A third passage in Antiquities mentions Jesus in connection with James, His brother, whose murder by the Sanhedrin Josephus describes. There are also statements concerning Jesus in Josephus' work, "The Jewish Wars". Josephus is the principle source for Jewish history between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D. Recent archeological discoveries at Qumran and Masada have indicated that the accounts of Josephus are remarkably accurate and rank him as a topographer. His writings also speak of other Gospel personalities such as Herod, Pilate, Agrippa, Felix, etc. Arnold Toynbee rates him among the first five greatest Hellenic (Greek) historians, along with Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and Xenophon. There are several references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud. This Talmud is an extra-biblical sacred book of the Jews. It contains the record of laws and traditions which were not recorded in the Old Testament. The Talmud was compiled between the last century B.C. and the early second century A.D. It was completed by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi in A.D. 135-217. The references in the Talmud demonstrate some knowledge of Jesus as a historical figure but gives some indication of the scorn with which Rabbi's regarded him. For example, one passage refers to the hanging of Jeshu of Nazareth and mentions his practice of sorcery. Another refers to five disciples of Jesus by name, but none of the names coincide with the Gospels. Another passage describes a proselyte calling up the spirit of Jesus by spells while another refers to a man "born of a woman" who was to arise and "make himself God", against whom people were warned. There is a reference to Him departing and coming again. One portion warns that this man will lead the whole world astray. In two sayings there are descriptions of Jesus reflecting Jewish ridicule of the Virgin Birth. Lucian of Samosata was a satirist of the second century, who spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians. Thallus, a Gentile writer of A.D. 52, mentions Christ. However, his writings have disappeared and we only know of them from fragments cited by other writers. A letter from a prisoner named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion, dated about A.D. 75, is preserved in the British Museum. In the letter Mara mentions the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ: "What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgement for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given." The Encyclopedia Britanica, concerning the testimony of the many independant secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, records the following: "These independant accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th century." Enc. Brit. 15th Ed. 1974.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/30/85)
The Resurrection Presupposing the reliability of scripture, it has been suggested that the gospel writers may have been mistaken concerning the Resurrection, or even purposely perpetrated such a hoax. In discussing the possibility of such theories, several questions remain unanswered. Where did his body go? Did the disciples steal it? Shortly before the crucifixion, the disciples fled away like scared rabbits. Peter denied even knowing Jesus for fear of his life. What is the probability that these 12 frightened sheep, ruined and dejected at the loss of their shephard, would go to the tomb of Jesus, face the Roman guards and all their weapons, move the stone and take the body. These 12 men, mostly fisherman, country boys, strangers to the city-life, would hardly be cast as the dirty dozen, ready to take on the Roman guards. Did the soldiers fall asleep while guarding the tomb? To do so would have meant death for these highly trained soldiers. The Roman soldiers were under the very strictest of discipline and training. Did someone else steal His body? Who? The Jewish leaders hated him and wanted him dead. They knew of his claims to be King of the Jews and many knew of his claims to rise from the dead. The Pharisees begged Pilate to guard the tomb to prevent anyone from stealing His body so that such a thing would NOT happen. The soldiers were not able to explain the empty tomb. They were told what to say and bribed by the Sanhedrin. Did the Romans steal the body? It would have been to the governor's advantage to keep the body in its grave. Pilate's main interest was to keep things calm and peaceful. Moving the body would have caused unwanted agitation to arise from the Jews and the Christians. Was Jesus really dead? Jesus was beaten with a cat-of-nine-tails, slapped in the head and face repeatedly, punctured in several places with a crown of thorns (these thorns were about 3 inches long), spit upon, made to carry his own heavy cross to calvary, and nailed to the cross. How much can a man take? To survive all of that would be a MIRACLE! T. J. Thorburn -"The victims of crucifixion seldom recovered, even under the most favorable circumstances." Did the women and the disciples go to the wrong tomb? You gotta be kidding! The Romans and the Jewish leaders would have produced the body instantly to stop the Christian movement that started as a result of the Resurrection. The trouble was, they didn't have the body! Evidences in favor of the Resurrection: Jesus appeared to over 500 people after His Resurrection. The enemies of Christ gave no refutation of the Resurrection! Why? They had no alternative conclusion! The transformed lives of the Apostles! After being frightened away and left in a state of depression and self-pity, suddenly the Apostles become brave, courageous, outspoken, empowered witnesses for Christ. Facing prison, persecution, and death, the Apostles continued to evangelize and proclaim the Gospel. The transformed lives of the last 1900 years. The courage of the Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Huss, etc. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus who became the Apostle Paul. Saul persecuted the church, went on regularly scheduled "roundups" finding and turning in to the authorities all who were belonging to "The Way" Paul was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, and a student of the great Jewish Rabbi, Gamaliel. Why would Paul suddenly on one of his roundups, give up all of his prestige and position, to serve a being of which he had been persecuting the followers of, knowing that he too would soon be persecuted. Phenomenal growth even through persecution. The church grew by the millions in the first century. The more they were put to death for their faith, the more they attracted others who marvelled at their behaviour. Not only was the Resurrection predicted by Christ over and over again, but it was predicted in the Old Testament over 1000 years before it happened. Psalm 22 vividly describes the Lord being crucified and the purpose for it. The Empty Tomb!!!! One more very important and involved argument: The Person and Character of Christ: Who was Jesus Christ? The 64,000 dollar question! Most people say that he was a great moral teacher! Hogwash! For a man to make the claims that Jesus made and not be true, He could not be a great moral teacher. Jesus claimed equality with the Father. He claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed that His purpose here was to die for mankind to redeem them to God. Jesus claimed that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He said that NO ONE could come to the Father except through him. Pilate asked Jesus if he was indeed the King of The Jews; Jesus answered in the affirmative. Jesus spoke with authority. (You have heard it said...But I say to you...) Jesus judged the hypocrites. (Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees...) And to the city of Capernaum: (It shall be more tolerable in the day of judgement for Sodom and Gemorah than for you....) Jesus claimed He would rise from the dead. Jesus said, "I am the Resurrection and the Life". "Pick up your cross and follow me...". For Christ to make these claims, knowing that they were not true, He would be a vicious, wicked, liar! But could He have been a liar? The moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in His every word and work, refutes this hypothesis. How could the purest and noblest character ever recorded in history, someone who lived as Jesus did, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died, ever have been a liar. If Jesus was not a liar, than he must have believed the things He said. Therefore He must have been a madman! A lunatic! Another inconsistency! Someone with such a sound and clear intellect, sailed serenly over all troubles and persecutions, returned the wisest of answers to the most tempting of questions, one so calm and self- possessed could NOT be a madman. His character is so inconsistent with that of a lunatic or any power-hungry enthusiast, He provoked Napoleon to say of him, "I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. Everything in Christ astonishes me! His ideas...His truth...His manner of convincing, are not explained either by human organization or by the nature of things...I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ or anything which can approach the Gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, not the ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or explain it. Here everything is extraordinary!" Napolean was right, Jesus was not JUST a man; He was the God-Man! Jesus Christ was anything but a great moral teacher! The choices are few: He was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or The Lord! Yet all but the last choice would seem to defy logic. It is true that to accept Christianity one must exercise a certain degree of faith. However, faith is one thing, BLIND faith is another! It would appear that to reject the Resurrection would be to reject logic. God has provided us with a great supply of objective evidence. However, there is that last obstacle which we must overcome. We must be willing to accept the Christ of the Bible on His terms, to embrace the gift of His atonement for sin, and to make Him not only Saviour but Lord of every area of our lives. With all the objective evidence available, still mankind asks for more. Only when the objective evidence is illuminated through the acknowledgement of our desperate condition and need for His Grace, is the formula for faith complete. There can be no greater proof of Christianity than the proof of the thirst of our souls for that something that seems to be missing. That strong but misdirected desire of humankind to be restored to that position we were intended for; To be in perfect harmony with God and nature! To be restored to the eternal life that God intended for us. And to experience perfect love and companionship with God and our brothers He also created! This is the evidence within us! This is the evidence we need and must act upon! Jesus told a parable of the rich man who died and went to the place of torment. He asked the Lord to let him go back to the living just so he could go and warn his brothers of the coming judgement. But Christ replied, "They have Moses (Moses writings) and the prophets, and they will not believe. Neither shall they believe though one should rise from the dead."
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/07/85)
In article <1019@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> The Uniqueness of The Bible > >> Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's >> tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself >> below his true nature. > >As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! >"Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, >destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what >is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon >oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, >it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. >Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what >to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is >clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's >species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an >external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very >cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. > > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Man: A Paradox Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man. The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to be fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own nature and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the Eastern religions but not exclusively. The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care and concern, man is everything. This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of destroying life. The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man has not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse of the Hydrogen Bomb: "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head. "I still prefer the human heart!", he said. Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! Through Christ, man's governing disposition can be changed. The raging tiger in man's heart can be overcome by the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, who came to earth as the Lamb of God. He can conquer and control man's fallen nature. Psalm 8:4-5 "What is man that you are mindful of him... For you have made him a little lower than the angels and have crowned him with glory and honor." Dan
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/07/85)
What Is Objective Evidence There is a fine line separating "objective" and "subjective" reasoning. Webster defines "objective" as "that which is verifiable by observation" and "perceptible to persons other than an affected individual", and finally, "expressing the nature of reality as it is apart from personal reflections or feelings". Well, that solves the problem, doesn't it? In order for Christianity to prove as true, its claims should be provable by evidence that is perceptible to persons unaffected by it. But, this is not as easy as it appears. Who is not affected by Christianity? Only those who have never heard of it. But not having heard of it, it would not be perceptible to them. But you say, Christianity does not affect sceptics. But, to reject a belief is to be affected by it. To reject Christianity, one must first understand its claims, then reject them in favor of an alternate view. You have just been affected by Christianity. It's existence was instrumental in the formation of your belief system. Lets suppose that you are unaffected by Christianity and can remain neutral or "objective". What possible "objective" evidences are there that could lead you to believe in it? Its teachings include: God created the universe and life, Man a free and moral agent rebelled against his creator which subsequently resulted in separation from God and moral depravity, God then justified and redeemed His creation through the Incarnation, Salvation is now offered as a gift, through faith. Are any of these acts on the part of God verifiable through observation? The answer would seem to be NO! Since none of us were there to witness any of it. However, what if we had been there to see it? Is this purely objective evidence? Might we not have been mistaken? Isn't the hand quicker than the eye? Could it have been an illusion or a dream? Have we not been affected by what we saw? If we take it to far, "objective evidence" seems to be non-existant. So what can we consider "objective" as opposed to "subjective"? There has to some criteria for a reasonable person to follow in discerning what can be considered objective evidence! How do we know Abe Lincoln existed? How do we know Hitler existed? If we weren't there to see them, (even if you were, you still can't be sure what you saw was what you saw) why believe they ever existed? As a rational and reasonable person (obviously these terms are relative), one must enter into the situation with presuppositions. The first presupposition is that you exist. (Objectively unprovable) The next presupposition is that others exist. At this point we might say that a reasonable person could base (relative) truth on two things. What he has observed, and what others have observed and agreed upon. This is one way that truth can be ascertained in a court of Law. In other words, if several persons that had reputations for being trust- worthy, all agreed upon the same set of events of which they were all eyewitnesses, it would not be unreasonable to except their testimony as true. How do I know that Lincoln and Hitler existed? How do I know that Lincoln was an admired President and Hitler was a murdering scoundrel? By the testimony of individuals who observed and recorded their observations. Still, these observations are based on subjective perceptions. I am faced with a choice! I can either toss out all evidences as being "subjective" in nature, or I can follow the reasonable path described above and accept historical testimony as "objective evidence". If we can accept historical testimony as reasonable and objective evidence, then we can observe some of the Christian teachings listed earlier. For example, we can observe the change in Peter, with and without the power promised that would come through the Holy Spirit. We can observe the changed lives down through history from Paul to Luther to Colson. We can reasonably believe that Christ was raised from the dead since several honest, reputable, eyewitnesses have recorded their observations of the incident. (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc.) Incidently, there have been no eyewitnesses to attest to the assumption that Christ was not raised from the dead. No corpse produced either. Coming, evidence that would reasonably lead to the conclusion that man is a fallen creature. Dan
padraig@utastro.UUCP (06/09/85)
> Man: A Paradox > > Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is > a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. > I thought God was supposed to have made man in his own image? Padraig Houlahan.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (06/09/85)
Dan Boskovich writes: > The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material > substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern > psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. Dan, you have really got to stop talking about things you know nothing about. If you were studying behaviorism and stated anything of that sort on one of the exams, I could guarantee you a failing grade. A paper of that sort submitted to a journal of behaviorism would not get past initial review. The whole point of behaviorism is to avoid that kind of metaphysical speculation and concentrate only on what can be proved by the scientific method. It is not materialistic, it is not degrading to humanity: it is merely a laboratory discipline used to guarantee verifiability of results. It provides no "final answers". Any discussion of "material substance and chemical processes" is anathema to behaviorism. The subject matter is behavior. The question of what internal processes cause behavior is explicitly not addressed, because no scientific method of establishing them yet exists. All behaviorist rules are of the sort "the presentation/removal of stimulus A has been followed in lab trials by an increase/decrease in the frequency of emission of operant B". You will find nary a word about anything except stimuli and operants, and super-structures such as schedules of reinforcement that are built on these. Skinner did publish "Verbal Behavior", in which he claimed to reduce all human behavior to operant processes. But his conclusions were met with immediate skepticism even within the behaviorist community, since such claims are unprovable and have been made many times before. Before Skinner, the Watsonians claimed that all behavior could be reduced to their models, and before them it was the Pavlovians. You will not find many behaviorists these days who would come out in public as being absolute adherents of Skinner's models in "Verbal Behavior". Your easy willingness to speak from a position of ignorance provides yet more evidence (as if any were needed) that you are indulging in post facto reasoning, intended not to find the answer to questions but to establish fixed conclusions that have already been reached on non-rational grounds. You can no more reason correctly in this fashion than you can bicycle in reverse from Maine to Wisconsin, or run a C program from the "exit(0)" to the "main(argc,argv)". Unfortunately, it is rather easier to delude yourself in the intellectual arena than on the roads or peering at a CRT. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
root@trwatf.UUCP (06/10/85)
In article <340@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > Man: A Paradox > > Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is > a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. I wouldn't call this a paradox. Man has it in him to do both good and evil. That's not a paradox. That's called reality. > This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man.... > This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, > bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. > Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of > destroying life. Views? Nope. Observations. > The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's > behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, > noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores > his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit > himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, > prejudice, and power struggle... > > Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up > a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. > You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! Which only tells us that the set of things considered to be "good" is smaller and more restrictive than the set of things considered to be "wrong." Is man inherently evil? Does evil overwhelm good without some higher guiding hand (be it God, social order, what have you)? Well that might make a good experiment on some isolated and remote world. Hmmmmmmm, a world called "Earth" perhaps. This also brings into question the definitions of "good" and "evil." Are the terms "good" and "evil" simply labels placed on certain social and personal behavior and modes of thought or what? There's more here than meets the eye. > Through Christ, man's governing disposition can be changed. The raging > tiger in man's heart can be overcome by the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, > who came to earth as the Lamb of God. He can conquer and control man's > fallen nature. Ick... this is almost as bad as MY poetry. Labeling things as "paradoxes" and "enigmas" and "mysteries" of the universe is really saying nothing. Words like this simply gild the issue. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/12/85)
Could someone please send me a copy of the parent article to this one <340@scgvaxd.UUCP> from Dan Boskovich. It never arrived here at Piscataway, and since it seems to be a followup to an article of mine, and since the excerpts I've seen from it in responses to it are most intriguing, I'd like a chance to respond to it. (It was the one in which Dan mentioned behaviorism as a negative view of humanity as "just another animal", among other things. Thank you in advance. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jomibase@ihu1h.UUCP (opperman) (06/13/85)
> > Man: A Paradox > > > > Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is > > a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. > > > > I thought God was supposed to have made man in his own image? > > Padraig Houlahan. In his image, not a xerox copy. -- C.J. Opperman ihu1h!jomibase IH 2D315A x5014
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/19/85)
>> Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's >> tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself >> below his true nature. [BOSKOVICH] >As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! >"Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, >destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what >is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon >oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, >it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. >Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what >to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is >clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's >species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an >external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very >cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. [ROSEN] * Man: A Paradox * * Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is * a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. * This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man. Well, those words "noble" and "depraved" are sure laced with subjective judgment there. Who defines noble? Depraved? If you get right back to your own bible (that which you're trying to prove), you haven't said anything. * The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material * substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern * psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. * * The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to * be fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own * nature and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the * Eastern religions but not exclusively. Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called "anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., themselves) that way. (Motivations for that I'll leave to the psychological minded among us.) In other words, wishful thinking. The so-called lower view is only "low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view. "Nothing more than" what makes up the rest of the universe. This "higher" view is held by people for whom that view is "not enough" for their tastes. Is there any reason to hold such a view other than anthropocentrism? Is there any evidence to support it? * The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness * of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care * and concern, man is everything. Another example of the wishful thinking school of justification. Lost in the vastness of the universe, humans might see themselves as "nothing" (depending on their perspective---with respect to our immediate surroundings, none of us is nothing, but in the universe as a whole we are less significant, yet somehow still having an effect on our surroundings). Does that mean that because someone feels that way, there MUST be a deity who, through its "care and concern" makes that person feel like "everything"? * This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, * bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. * Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of * destroying life. * The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's * behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, * noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores * his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit * himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, * prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the * senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass * will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man * has not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse * of the Hydrogen Bomb: * "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head. * "I still prefer the human heart!", he said. * * Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up * a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. * You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! As someone else said, that is because there are many more "bad" things one can do than "good", so statistically your conclusion might be valid. But I don't think so. What makes a person act in a good fashion? What makes societies form rules based on "good"? (i.e., actions not harmful to others). What does that mean "no instruction as he grows"? Left alone, without the interaction of others, a child might grow up solely seeking his/her own best interests. Put the child in an environment with others (not his/her parents, who may choose to spoil and indulge him/her and thus truly "spoil" the child's upbringing), and see how long the child takes to learn what it takes to live with other people. Perhaps, like a microcosm of human history, the children will at first fight until the point where they realized (as some elements of humanity have throughout history) what cooperation and respect for other people mean. Moreover, let's look at your definition of "misbehave". No one had to teach the child to do what felt good and what was in its best self-interests. In a world where the child was by himself/herself, what is "evil" about that? Of course, the child is not alone in the world. It is in relation to behavior towards others that behavior that HARMS other people can be considered evil. Every organism on the planet acts in its best interests. Is a predator evil for killing and eating its prey? If anything could be said at all about humanity's good and evil, the fact that humans can seek out a longer term good for more people bespeaks our "good" side. My thanks to all those who sent me a copy of Dan's article. I'd still like to hear what he has to say directly about all our comments on his "pamphlet". Does he still intend to publish it after all we've said? Can we thus assume that its purpose is not to provide objective evidence but to "convince" those who want to be convinced. (Not exactly the hardest job in the world.) By the way, I understand that Dan wrote another article (<339@scgvaxd.UUCP>??) on other aspects of the objective evidence debate. I would appreciate it if someone (hopefully the author) would send me a copy of that. Thanks in advance. (I have to wonder why people who yell at me and call me all sorts of heinous things would WANT to send me an article knowing that I'm going to respond to it more than likely in a way they're not likely to like. I didn't know masochism was so rampant. But thanks. :-) -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/08/85)
>> Who would paint such a picture of man as we find in scripture. Man's >> tendency is to either exalt himself above what he is or reduce himself >> below his true nature. [BOSKOVICH] >As seen, in fact, in the Bible, which clearly does both at the same time! >"Man (sic) was made in the image of god, the flower of his (sic) creation, >destined to have dominion over the earth." If that's not overexalting, what >is? The very basis of this sort of religious thinking is to impose upon >oneself a feeling of self-importance: in a natural world of natural events, >it's nice to think that a god is controlling things and watching over YOU. >Ironically, at the same time, the image of a vengeful god telling humans what >to do and punishing those who "disobey" is prevalent. Such an image is >clearly a self-imposed one involving a negative self-worth regarding one's >species: man is evil, he must be controlled and told what to do by an >external judgin entity. Who would paint such a picture? People with a very >cockeyed sense of what humanity and the universe are all about. [ROSEN] * Man: A Paradox * * Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is * a paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. * This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man. Well, those words "noble" and "depraved" are sure laced with subjective judgment there. Who defines noble? Depraved? If you get right back to your own bible (that which you're trying to prove), you haven't said anything. * The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material * substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern * psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. * * The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to * be fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own * nature and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the * Eastern religions but not exclusively. Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called "anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., themselves) that way. (Motivations for that I'll leave to the psychological minded among us.) In other words, wishful thinking. The so-called lower view is only "low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view. "Nothing more than" what makes up the rest of the universe. This "higher" view is held by people for whom that view is "not enough" for their tastes. Is there any reason to hold such a view other than anthropocentrism? Is there any evidence to support it? * The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness * of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care * and concern, man is everything. Another example of the wishful thinking school of justification. Lost in the vastness of the universe, humans might see themselves as "nothing" (depending on their perspective---with respect to our immediate surroundings, none of us is nothing, but in the universe as a whole we are less significant, yet somehow still having an effect on our surroundings). Does that mean that because someone feels that way, there MUST be a deity who, through its "care and concern" makes that person feel like "everything"? * This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, * bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. * Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of * destroying life. * The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's * behavior. Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, * noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores * his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit * himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, * prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the * senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass * will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man * has not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse * of the Hydrogen Bomb: * "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head. * "I still prefer the human heart!", he said. * * Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up * a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. * You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! As someone else said, that is because there are many more "bad" things one can do than "good", so statistically your conclusion might be valid. But I don't think so. What makes a person act in a good fashion? What makes societies form rules based on "good"? (i.e., actions not harmful to others). What does that mean "no instruction as he grows"? Left alone, without the interaction of others, a child might grow up solely seeking his/her own best interests. Put the child in an environment with others (not his/her parents, who may choose to spoil and indulge him/her and thus truly "spoil" the child's upbringing), and see how long the child takes to learn what it takes to live with other people. Perhaps, like a microcosm of human history, the children will at first fight until the point where they realized (as some elements of humanity have throughout history) what cooperation and respect for other people mean. Moreover, let's look at your definition of "misbehave". No one had to teach the child to do what felt good and what was in its best self-interests. In a world where the child was by himself/herself, what is "evil" about that? Of course, the child is not alone in the world. It is in relation to behavior towards others that behavior that HARMS other people can be considered evil. Every organism on the planet acts in its best interests. Is a predator evil for killing and eating its prey? If anything could be said at all about humanity's good and evil, the fact that humans can seek out a longer term good for more people bespeaks our "good" side. My thanks to all those who sent me a copy of Dan's article. I'd still like to hear what he has to say directly about all our comments on his "pamphlet". Does he still intend to publish it after all we've said? Can we thus assume that its purpose is not to provide objective evidence but to "convince" those who want to be convinced. (Not exactly the hardest job in the world.) By the way, I understand that Dan wrote another article (<339@scgvaxd.UUCP>??) on other aspects of the objective evidence debate. I would appreciate it if someone (hopefully the author) would send me a copy of that. Thanks in advance. (I have to wonder why people who yell at me and call me all sorts of heinous things would WANT to send me an article knowing that I'm going to respond to it more than likely in a way they're not likely to like. I didn't know masochism was so rampant. But thanks. :-)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/11/85)
In article <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to >that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called >"anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the >center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., >themselves) >that way. (Motivations for that I'll leave to the psychological minded among >us.) In other words, wishful thinking. The so-called lower view is only >"low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view. "Nothing more >than" >what makes up the rest of the universe. This "higher" view is held by people >for whom that view is "not enough" for their tastes. Is there any reason to >hold such a view other than anthropocentrism? Is there any evidence to >support it? I am not going to step into this firefight again, but I would like to make a couple of observations: (1) These aren't the only two possibilities; there's a whole scale from on to the other. (2) Rich's anthropocentricism argument doesn't make much sense. Nobody said anything about man being the center of the universe. It's pretty hard to characterize Don's description of the nature of man as anthropocentric in the face of persistent speculation about what relationships hold between whatever extraterrestrial peoples there may be and YHWH. (3) Both sides seem to think that psychology and Christianity are irreconcilable. This just isn't true (read any book by M. Scott Peck if you think otherwise). (4) Nor should one take behaviorism as the epitome of current psychological thought. People seem to reconciled to the fact that people act on the basis of mental states, as well as a result of stimulae. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "What about all that talk about changing future events, the space-time continuum?" "Well, I figured, what the hell."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/12/85)
>>Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to >>that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called >>"anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the >>center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., >>themselves) that way. (Motivations for that I'll leave to the psychological >>minded among us.) In other words, wishful thinking. The so-called lower >>view is only "low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view. >>"Nothing more than" what makes up the rest of the universe. This "higher" >>view is held by people for whom that view is "not enough" for their tastes. >>Is there any reason to hold such a view other than anthropocentrism? Is >>there any evidence to support it? [ROSEN] > (1) These aren't the only two possibilities; there's a whole scale from on > to the other. [WINGATE] Let's get clear on this. What I was referring to as the "lower" view is simply the view of human beings as they are, biological organisms, animals as it were, with the basis of their existence in a physical world, with no pretty flourishes about special status or specially designated purpose assigned by an external, just what *is*. That view is certainly lower than "higher" views, but what is the basis for those higher views? Evidence pointing to the existence of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings as being unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful thinking that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the presence of counter-evidence)? Sure there's a whole scale! But ANYTHING on that scale that adds wishful thinking notions to reality, no matter how much so, is STILL wishful thinking, and not grounded in reality! > (2) Rich's anthropocentricism argument doesn't make much sense. Nobody said > anything about man being the center of the universe. It's pretty hard to > characterize Don's description of the nature of man as anthropocentric in > the face of persistent speculation about what relationships hold between > whatever extraterrestrial peoples there may be and YHWH. See above comments about special status. Lo, the Bible is certainly well filled with them. This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra- terrestrials is a modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not? > (3) Both sides seem to think that psychology and Christianity are > irreconcilable. This just isn't true (read any book by M. Scott Peck if you > think otherwise). > > (4) Nor should one take behaviorism as the epitome of current psychological > thought. People seem to reconciled to the fact that people act on the basis > of mental states, as well as a result of stimulae. Modern behaviorism (as I understand it) is nothing like simple stimulus response stuff. As the long running conversation with Torek has mentioned, one of the main differences between human beings and so-called "lower" animals is our innate ability to go beyond stimulus-response, to draw on a catalogue of stored experience as part of our basis for decision making, though not necessarily in any more of a truly "voluntary" way than Pavlov's dog, simply more elaborate in internal structure and implication (and, from our standpoint, "unpredictability", although what it really is is just too complex for us to untangle and decipher what with all the chains of implications and "mental states".) -- Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (07/13/85)
From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr, of course): > What I was referring to as the "lower" view is simply the view of human beings > as they are, biological organisms, animals as it were, with the basis of their > existence in a physical world, with no pretty flourishes about special status > or specially designated purpose assigned by an external, just what *is*. I posted an article a while back asking the questions I'm about to ask, but (since news from here didn't get past ihnp4 for a while) you may never have seen it. If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of commission? This seems to be a notable logical inconsistency between different parts of your beliefs. > That view is certainly lower than "higher" views, but what is the basis for > those higher views? Evidence pointing to the existence of things like > "souls", or a special status for human beings as being unassociated with the > rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful thinking that there are such things > in the absence of evidence (and in the presence of counter-evidence)? "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! > 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). -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq If you don't bet your life on at least one wild-looking chance before you die, then you won't have really lived....
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/14/85)
>>What I was referring to as the "lower" view is simply the view of human beings >>as they are, biological organisms, animals as it were, with the basis of their >>existence in a physical world, with no pretty flourishes about special status >>or specially designated purpose assigned by an external, just what *is*. > If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of > protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there > be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have > plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of > chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of > commission? This seems to be a notable logical inconsistency between > different parts of your beliefs. [SARGENT] 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. >>That view is certainly lower than "higher" views, but what is the basis for >>those higher views? Evidence pointing to the existence of things like >>"souls", or a special status for human beings as being unassociated with the >>rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful thinking that there are such things >>in the absence of evidence (and in the presence of counter-evidence)? > "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. >>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". -- Like a bourbon? (HIC!) Drunk for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/14/85)
> If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of > protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there > be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have > plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of > chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of > commission? This seems to be a notable logical inconsistency between > different parts of your beliefs. It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require absolute moralistic criteria. Padraig Houlahan.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/15/85)
In article <353@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of >> protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there >> be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have >> plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of >> chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of >> commission? This seems to be a notable logical inconsistency between >> different parts of your beliefs. >It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to >members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort >resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require absolute >moralistic criteria. The hell it doesn't. You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and comfort. Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this supposed human nature should be catered to. I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. And besides, you must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any essential human nature? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/15/85)
In article <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison >>>to that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called >>>"anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the >>>center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., >>>themselves) that way. >>> In other words, wishful thinking. The so-called lower >>>view is only "low" with respect to this wishful thinking "higher" view. >>>"Nothing more than" what makes up the rest of the universe. This "higher" >>>view is held by people for whom that view is "not enough" for their >>>tastes. Is there any reason to hold such a view other than >>>anthropocentrism? Is there any evidence to support it? [ROSEN] >> (1) These aren't the only two possibilities; there's a whole scale from on >> to the other. [WINGATE] >Let's get clear on this. What I was referring to as the "lower" view is >simply the view of human beings as they are, biological organisms, animals >as it were, with the basis of their existence in a physical world, with no >pretty flourishes about special status or specially designated purpose >assigned by an external, just what *is*. That view is certainly lower >than "higher" >views, but what is the basis for those higher views? Evidence pointing to >the existence of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings >as being unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful >thinking that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the >presence of counter-evidence)? Sure there's a whole scale! But ANYTHING >on that scale that adds wishful thinking notions to reality, no matter how >much so, is STILL wishful thinking, and not grounded in reality! I really don't want to get deep into this argument. Rich has already stated that no one can produce convincing evidence to him. I will point out,t however, that his argument of wishful thinking is wishful thinking, see as how it cannot be proven or disproven. >> (2) Rich's anthropocentricism argument doesn't make much sense. Nobody >> said >> anything about man being the center of the universe. It's pretty hard to >> characterize Don's description of the nature of man as anthropocentric in >> the face of persistent speculation about what relationships hold between >> whatever extraterrestrial peoples there may be and YHWH. >See above comments about special status. Lo, the Bible is certainly well >filled with them. This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra- >terrestrials is a modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it >not? Dammit, Rich, read the thing! And you could also listen to what I say, once in a while. First off, I don't believe in Biblical literal truth, or even in anything but the very weakest possible form of inerrancy. Be that as it may, I see nothing in the Bible that says that whatever extraterrestrial races exist are "just animals", or anything else, for that matter. The question simply isn't discussed. And I would submit to you that being the only known race of anything in need of redemption is hardly a distinction to be proud of. It seems to me that you are overly anxious to erase any notion that humanity has any special problems that (say) rabbits don't. >> (4) Nor should one take behaviorism as the epitome of current psychological >> thought. People seem to reconciled to the fact that people act on the >> basis of mental states, as well as a result of stimulae. >Modern behaviorism (as I understand it) is nothing like simple stimulus >response stuff. As the long running conversation with Torek has mentioned, >one of the main differences between human beings and so-called "lower" >animals is our innate ability to go beyond stimulus-response, to draw on >a catalogue of stored experience as part of our basis for decision making, >though not necessarily in any more of a truly "voluntary" way than Pavlov's >dog, simply more elaborate in internal structure and implication (and, >from our standpoint, "unpredictability", although what it really is is just >too complex for us to untangle and decipher what with all the chains of >implications and "mental states".) But that isn't where the distinction between mentalism and behaviorism lies. You can have mentalist AND deterministic theories at the same time. The key thing about bevaviorisn is that it says that you can ignore the mental states. Given our current level of understanding, I'd have to say that this is unproven. "Give to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!" Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/15/85)
In article <2127@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: > If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of > protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there > be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have > plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of > chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of > commission? Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait. It can be a heuristic for optimizing reproductive success. Just like intelligence. Your example resolves simply in terms of game theory: kill a relative of somebody and you are reducing the genetic fitness of the survivor. Thus it may pay to make standing threats against people who bump off your relatives. Making killing someone immoral is a shorthand that is simpler to teach than game theory. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/16/85)
> In article <353@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > > >It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to > >members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort > >resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require absolute > >moralistic criteria. > > The hell it doesn't. You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere > else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and > comfort. I don't understand this. The fact that "moral authority" has been transferred in now way proves that it is absolute. The fact that it could be transferred could be taken as evidence that it is not absolute. > ...Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute "moral authority" to justify this. > It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best > I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, > perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some > empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this > supposed human nature should be catered to. I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over and above what has already been said. > I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively > with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings > which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. > ... And besides, you > must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any > essential human nature? > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Perhaps, but that is a separate issue. Padraig Houlahan.
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (07/16/85)
In article <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>Now hold on! The "lower" view is only "lower" when held up in comparison to >>>that "higher" view. And what is that higher view? Why, it's called >>>"anthropocentrism", that old standby of those who proclaim humanity as the >>>center of the universe, because they'd like to think of them (i.e., >>>themselves) that way. ... [more definitions] ... >>>Is there any reason to hold such a view other than anthropocentrism? Is >>>there any evidence to support it? [ROSEN] > >> (1) These aren't the only two possibilities; there's a whole scale from on >> to the other. [WINGATE] > >Let's get clear on this. What I was referring to as the "lower" view is >simply the view of human beings as they are, biological organisms, animals >as it were, with the basis of their existence in a physical world, with no >pretty flourishes about special status or specially designated purpose assigned >by an external, just what *is*. Rich, you seem to be making an assumption here. You claim (I think) that what "is" is limited to that which can be shown to exist physically. While I agree that this materialist approach is a powerful model, it is not the only useful model, nor is it the only model that describes "reality". > ... That view is certainly lower than "higher" >views, but what is the basis for those higher views? Evidence pointing to >the existence of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings >as being unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful >thinking that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the >presence of counter-evidence)? Please correct me if I misunderstand your position: You claim that such evidence is wishful thinking because it cannot be proven using methodology which is used within the materialist model. Your claim seems to be that the "higher" (sorry, can't think of a better label) views are invalid because their evidence is somehow flawed; circular reasoning, fabricated evidence, etc. However, the materialist model makes very similar claims in its fundamental approach. For example, I could claim that the intuitive basis for accepting causality is wishful thinking. > ... Sure there's a whole scale! But ANYTHING >on that scale that adds wishful thinking notions to reality, no matter how >much so, is STILL wishful thinking, and not grounded in reality! Once again, your model of reality isn't an exact map of reality, and it isn't going to get you anywhere to tell other people that they are engaged in wishful thinking when you don't share the same basic assumptions. Hopefully you can point out places where SHODDY thinking is occurring, which is more useful and probably more productive. >> (2) Rich's anthropocentricism argument doesn't make much sense. Nobody said >> anything about man being the center of the universe. It's pretty hard to >> characterize Don's description of the nature of man as anthropocentric in >> the face of persistent speculation about what relationships hold between >> whatever extraterrestrial peoples there may be and YHWH. > >See above comments about special status. Lo, the Bible is certainly well >filled with them. This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra- >terrestrials is a modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not? Extraterrestrials aren't dealt with in the Bible at all, Rich. You've set up a straw man by claiming a modification here. >Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time... > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Like a purge(IN); flush()ed for the very first time... (I LIKE THESE SIGNOFF LINES!) Hutch
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/16/85)
>>Let's get clear on this. What I was referring to as the "lower" view is >>simply the view of human beings as they are, biological organisms, animals >>as it were, with the basis of their existence in a physical world, with no >>pretty flourishes about special status or specially designated purpose >>assigned by an external, just what *is*. That view is certainly lower >>than "higher" >>views, but what is the basis for those higher views? Evidence pointing to >>the existence of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings >>as being unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful >>thinking that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the >>presence of counter-evidence)? Sure there's a whole scale! But ANYTHING >>on that scale that adds wishful thinking notions to reality, no matter how >>much so, is STILL wishful thinking, and not grounded in reality! > I really don't want to get deep into this argument. Rich has already stated > that no one can produce convincing evidence to him. I will point out,t > however, that his argument of wishful thinking is wishful thinking, see as > how it cannot be proven or disproven. To whom have you produced convincing evidence of your argument? Yourself? The reason no one can produce convincing evidence to support YOUR argument might very well be that there IS none, in a real objective sense. >>>(2) Rich's anthropocentricism argument doesn't make much sense. Nobody >>>said >>>anything about man being the center of the universe. It's pretty hard to >>>characterize Don's description of the nature of man as anthropocentric in >>>the face of persistent speculation about what relationships hold between >>>whatever extraterrestrial peoples there may be and YHWH. >>See above comments about special status. Lo, the Bible is certainly well >>filled with them. This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra- >>terrestrials is a modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it >>not? > Dammit, Rich, read the thing! And you could also listen to what I say, once > in a while. First off, I don't believe in Biblical literal truth, or even > in anything but the very weakest possible form of inerrancy. Be that as it > may, I see nothing in the Bible that says that whatever extraterrestrial > races exist are "just animals", or anything else, for that matter. The > question simply isn't discussed. And I would submit to you that being the > only known race of anything in need of redemption is hardly a distinction to > be proud of. It seems to me that you are overly anxious to erase any notion > that humanity has any special problems that (say) rabbits don't. Only known race? That's rather anthropocentric in and of itself! Known by whom? By us, who don't know all that much about the rest of the universe yet who (at least some of whom) claim to believe in a book that states that a deity created US and OUR PLANET first and foremost? Only some of us "need" redemption, the way some of us need parental caretaking and similar things all our lives. What are these "special problems", and what are their roots? >>>(4) Nor should one take behaviorism as the epitome of current psychological >>>thought. People seem to reconciled to the fact that people act on the >>>basis of mental states, as well as a result of stimulae. >>Modern behaviorism (as I understand it) is nothing like simple stimulus >>response stuff. As the long running conversation with Torek has mentioned, >>one of the main differences between human beings and so-called "lower" >>animals is our innate ability to go beyond stimulus-response, to draw on >>a catalogue of stored experience as part of our basis for decision making, >>though not necessarily in any more of a truly "voluntary" way than Pavlov's >>dog, simply more elaborate in internal structure and implication (and, >>from our standpoint, "unpredictability", although what it really is is just >>too complex for us to untangle and decipher what with all the chains of >>implications and "mental states".) > But that isn't where the distinction between mentalism and behaviorism lies. > You can have mentalist AND deterministic theories at the same time. The key > thing about bevaviorisn is that it says that you can ignore the mental > states. Given our current level of understanding, I'd have to say that this > is unproven. I say again. The mental states are achieved through the same process that behaviorists talk about, even in that dreaded behaviorist model. I doubt that many behaviorists are so pure that they deny the existence of "mental states". That's one fo the big differecnes that came out of the conversation I mentioned above: humans store knowledge constructs (mental states?) better than "lower" animals. You weren't listening. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/16/85)
>>It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to >>members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort >>resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require absolute >>moralistic criteria. [PADRAIG HOULAHAN] > The hell it doesn't. You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere > else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and > comfort. Transferred? That assumes that is "was" someplace before. Any particular place that you had in mind? That you might have assumed? Not a transfer at all, but a proper placement. > Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? [WINGATE] Because it benefits you. Roads, telecommunications, all these real marvey type things. Could you create and maintain them yourself? Could you ever in your wildest dreams be "self-sufficient". The interdependence of humans and the benefits of cooperation behoove to cooperate or not partake of the fruits of the cooperation. > It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best > I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, > perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some > empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this > supposed human nature should be catered to. > I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively > with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings > which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. And besides, you > must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any > essential human nature? On the contrary, one's immediate natural instincts lead one to immediate gratification type actions, which in a world with other people will most likely hurt you in the long run. That's one thing humanity has (at least partially) learned over thousands of years, and the reason why such societies are built. The notions have nothing to do wih "human nature", but rather with a system that provides maximal benefits. "You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!" -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/17/85)
>>Let's get clear on this. What I was referring to as the "lower" view is >>simply the view of human beings as they are, biological organisms, animals >>as it were, with the basis of their existence in a physical world, with no >>pretty flourishes about special status or specially designated purpose >>assigned by an external, just what *is*. [ROSEN] > Rich, you seem to be making an assumption here. You claim (I think) that > what "is" is limited to that which can be shown to exist physically. > While I agree that this materialist approach is a powerful model, it is not > the only useful model, nor is it the only model that describes "reality". > [HUTCH] For the n+1-th time: 1) What is "non-material"? (we've been through this whole mill before, and no one has yet been able to explain how "supernatural", "non-physical", or any such word is anything but an anthropocentric label based on what limits there are [at a given time] to human perception, or else a synonym for "not really existing") 2) Are the religious claims about the flourishes and status I describe above based on hard evidence about such things, or on speculation rooted in what is wished for or expected from the world? >>... That view is certainly lower than "higher" >>views, but what is the basis for those higher views? Evidence pointing to >>the existence of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings >>as being unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful >>thinking that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the >>presence of counter-evidence)? > Please correct me if I misunderstand your position: > You claim that such evidence is wishful thinking because it cannot be proven > using methodology which is used within the materialist model. Your claim > seems to be that the "higher" (sorry, can't think of a better label) views > are invalid because their evidence is somehow flawed; circular reasoning, > fabricated evidence, etc. However, the materialist model makes very similar > claims in its fundamental approach. > For example, I could claim that the intuitive basis for accepting causality > is wishful thinking. Ah, but there is hard evidence of the workings of causality. Are the higher views based on such evidence, or on what I described above? The point is NOT just that the higher view cannot be proven using certain (any?) methodologies, the point is that the ideas aren't based on evidence uncovered in the real world but rather on speculation. It's one thing to speculate about things like quarks and such based on evidence for them, quite another to speculate in a vacuum, with a basis only in what one might like to believe about the world. >>... Sure there's a whole scale! But ANYTHING >>on that scale that adds wishful thinking notions to reality, no matter how >>much so, is STILL wishful thinking, and not grounded in reality! > Once again, your model of reality isn't an exact map of reality, and it isn't > going to get you anywhere to tell other people that they are engaged in > wishful thinking when you don't share the same basic assumptions. Hopefully > you can point out places where SHODDY thinking is occurring, which is more > useful and probably more productive. It is shoddy to build notions from what one wishes for rather than what there is evidence for. I would have thought that was clear. At the root, we do share the same assumptions, but religious believers regularly choose to just arbitrarily make exceptions to make their beliefs fit, as with the wishful thinking notions of the existence of god in and of itself. >>>(2) Rich's anthropocentricism argument doesn't make much sense. Nobody said >>>anything about man being the center of the universe. It's pretty hard to >>>characterize Don's description of the nature of man as anthropocentric in >>>the face of persistent speculation about what relationships hold between >>>whatever extraterrestrial peoples there may be and YHWH. >>See above comments about special status. Lo, the Bible is certainly well >>filled with them. This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra- >>terrestrials is a modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not? > Extraterrestrials aren't dealt with in the Bible at all, Rich. You've set > up a straw man by claiming a modification here. Not at all. Sargent above made the statement about current speculation about extraterrestrials. Clearly the story of Genesis, in which it is detailed how god created the earth and then the other "heavenly bodies" makes the earth (and later, humanity) the focal point of god's creation. To suddenly admit that the earth is just liek any other planet in the universe in terms of origin, and not something special (thus offering the potential for other life on those other planets) would contradict that story. >>Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time... > Like a purge(IN); flush()ed for the very first time... > (I LIKE THESE SIGNOFF LINES!) You've seen the last of them (thank Ubizmo!). -- "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
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/17/85)
>> ...Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? >>[Wingate] >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute >"moral authority" to justify this. [Houlahan] It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. >> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best >> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, >> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some >> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this >> supposed human nature should be catered to. >I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to >say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone >from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect >me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting >to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature >to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you >with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over >and above what has already been said. It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to in that case. >> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively >> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings >> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. >I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (07/18/85)
From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr): > It is shoddy to build notions from what one wishes for rather than what > there is evidence for. I would have thought that was clear. At the root, > we do share the same assumptions, but religious believers regularly choose > to just arbitrarily make exceptions to make their beliefs fit, as with the > wishful thinking notions of the existence of god in and of itself. I think that when Hutch referred to "shoddy thinking" he meant places where there might be an error in the actual process of thinking, rather than in the basic assumptions. And again, it is only because your basic assumptions rule out anything other than empirical evidence that you consider the evidence for the life and power of God to be wishful thinking. (As I wrote you privately, isn't your strong assertion that all religious belief is wishful thinking the surest proof that you yourself wish it to be true? That's the only way you would have any excuse for that sweeping claim to know how believers think when you make so much noise about not being one -- that you know, or think you know, what would have to happen to enable you to come to a belief in God.) > Sargent above made the statement about current speculation about > extraterrestrials. Clearly the story of Genesis, in which it is detailed > how god created the earth and then the other "heavenly bodies" makes the > earth (and later, humanity) the focal point of god's creation. To suddenly > admit that the earth is just like any other planet in the universe in terms > of origin, and not something special (thus offering the potential for other > life on those other planets) would contradict that story. Actually, the statement about speculation about ET's was by someone else (Wingate?). My comment (not quoted by Rich in this article) was that the Bible was written by and for humans, so certainly the earth and humanity are the focal point of the *Bible*. And I must agree with Wingate that if earth is something special, it is so in a negative sense (that this is a planet that needs to be saved -- i.e., a planet full of people so badly wounded that they tend to blindly wound others [often innocent victims], people who need healing for their wounds and release from their tendency [indeed, often desire] to accept being less than fully creative and loving human beings, people who could live in a Godlike condition of joy but need to be fed the love and confidence necessary to be such full persons). > "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 While some who call themselves Christians may be trying to create this homogeneity, Christ has no such intention. More than once the Bible refers to Christians being different parts of the same body, each with different gifts, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses; it strongly makes the point that, for instance, a "foot" should not think itself not part of the body because it is not a "hand". In fact, cummings's statement fits well into Christianity. Several times throughout the New Testament the image of a fight is used -- a fight against the forces of evil, which seek to kill the Godlike life given to you when you meet Christ, and make you into just another blindly acting chunk of meat (or at best, an animal). Be careful that you do not (or have not) fall into this yourself -- e.g. with mechanical repetitions of the phrase "wishful thinking", which you seem to use as a charm or an anesthetic to keep yourself from the quite possibly terrifying perception that there is a God there who loves you so much He hates to see you as anything less than your best, and will do anything to help you, and convince you, to give up your past wounds (no matter how painful the healing) and live up to your fullest Godlike potential, to be the person that He hoped you'd be in the first place. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq If you don't bet your life on at least one wild-looking chance before you die, then you won't have really lived....
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/18/85)
> If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of > protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there > be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have > plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of > chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of > commission? This seems to be a notable logical inconsistency between > different parts of your beliefs. [SARGENT] > [Rich Rosen] > 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. Hardly, my foot. Why should any of these be optimized? That is, why should any of them be optimized, given your outlook? I may *agree* that these things should be optimized, but what reason can *you* give, other than bare assertion, that they *should* be? You have given us an "ought" without a reason for the ought, other than just "I say so". Perhaps there is a presupposition lurking somewhere in your rationale... bolstered, presumably, by wishful thinking that "freedom" (undefined) and "benefit" (also undefined - both probably subjective) are of some value. Perhaps you are right - but why should anyone believe you are? You can't give a reason, so you end up with proof by assertion. >> "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. Baloney. Your postings consist mostly of *assertions that there is such evidence*; but you rarely give any. > I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You thought wrong. If what it says is correct, then it cannot by itself be the *whole* truth, being finite. > Ask a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful > notion (put forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation An unnamed Christian clergyman - maybe you had a wishful-thinking dream. (You can disprove this by naming him.) > story is [q]uite 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". Focal in what sense? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/18/85)
>> [Jeff Sargent] >> If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of >> protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there >> be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have >> plugged many times? Why should it matter in the least if one collection of >> chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of >> commission? > [Mike Huybensz] > Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait. It can be a heuristic for > optimizing reproductive success. Just like intelligence. You merely remove the question one level. Why should evolutionary adaptiveness be valued? Or survival? (Again, I may agree that they *should be*, but why should I believe it, for reasons *you* can give?) > Your example resolves simply in terms of game theory: kill a relative of > somebody and you are reducing the genetic fitness of the survivor. Thus > it may pay to make standing threats against people who bump off your > relatives. Making killing someone immoral is a shorthand that is simpler > to teach than game theory. Still presupposes the value of survival. Which was the question! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)
>>It is shoddy to build notions from what one wishes for rather than what >>there is evidence for. I would have thought that was clear. At the root, >>we do share the same assumptions, but religious believers regularly choose >>to just arbitrarily make exceptions to make their beliefs fit, as with the >>wishful thinking notions of the existence of god in and of itself. [ROSEN] > I think that when Hutch referred to "shoddy thinking" he meant places where > there might be an error in the actual process of thinking, rather than in > the basic assumptions. [SARGENT] One in the same. Making assumption is indeed a part of thinking, is it not? > And again, it is only because your basic assumptions > rule out anything other than empirical evidence that you consider the evidence > for the life and power of God to be wishful thinking. Do you know WHY anything other than verifiable empirical evidence is ruled out? Because if it's not verifiable, you have no way of knowing whether or not it really is true. That is why such things as "I know this to be true because I feel it" are thrown out. For example... > (As I wrote you > privately, isn't your strong assertion that all religious belief is wishful > thinking the surest proof that you yourself wish it to be true? That's the > only way you would have any excuse for that sweeping claim to know how > believers think when you make so much noise about not being one -- that you > know, or think you know, what would have to happen to enable you to come to > a belief in God.) For example, as I wrote *you* privately, when one person's subjective opinion is not necessarily fact, as evidenced above. I don't mean to be cruel, but the net has seen plenty of evidence that your view of the universe is that what *you* experience, through your filters of preconceptions, wishful thinking, projection of your own inner qualities as you see them onto other people (we both know about that now), IS reality. When you (if you) feel that someone doesn't like you because he/she didn't react the way you might have liked to you, THAT PERSON DOESN'T LIKE YOU. Period. Because you believe it. It's because of things like that that subjectivity is thrown out of the logical courtroom. > Actually, the statement about speculation about ET's was by someone else > (Wingate?). My comment (not quoted by Rich in this article) was that the > Bible was written by and for humans, so certainly the earth and humanity > are the focal point of the *Bible*. Then it is not the factual truth. It is a slanted view of reality based on the "needs" of humans (read "on the preconceptions and wants of the author). Glad to hear you admit that. Really. > And I must agree with Wingate that if > earth is something special, it is so in a negative sense (that this is a > planet that needs to be saved -- i.e., a planet full of people so badly > wounded that they tend to blindly wound others [often innocent victims], Read what I said about projection above, please. >>"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 > In fact, cummings's statement fits well into Christianity. Several times > throughout the New Testament the image of a fight is used -- a fight against > the forces of evil, which seek to kill the Godlike life given to you when > you meet Christ, and make you into just another blindly acting chunk of meat > (or at best, an animal). Be careful that you do not (or have not) fall into > this yourself -- e.g. with mechanical repetitions of the phrase "wishful > thinking", which you seem to use as a charm or an anesthetic to keep yourself > from the quite possibly terrifying perception that there is a God there who > loves you so much He hates to see you as anything less than your best, and > will do anything to help you, and convince you, to give up your past wounds > (no matter how painful the healing) and live up to your fullest Godlike > potential, to be the person that He hoped you'd be in the first place. Gosh, I am terrified! :-) The repetitions may seem mechanical to you perhaps they are in response to repeated mechanized instance of wishful thinking! Again, your projection that your own (?) feelings are those of others. I'm not terrified because I'm not engaging in the brand of wishful thinking that makes me believe that there's a god of the variety I want and need because I want it and need it. It amazes me how you take lines like Cummings' and twist it to your own ends. If anything, the quote is as anti-dogmatic-religion as any sentence could be: it speaks of how forces of societal pressure and so-called morality try to impose a mold on you that may be contrary to your own wants and needs, and how the fight to maintain one's individuality in the face of those who would tell you how to behave (clergy, so-called authorities, religionist impositionalists) is a difficult struggle. As "anti" your philosophy as you could imagine. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)
>>From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting >>directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute >>"moral authority" to justify this. [Houlahan] > It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving > society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person > involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained > by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion > about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [DUBUC] Short term you may see a benefit, but when the society at large enforces its rights to protection against your interference, it won't be so much of a benefit. An intelligent adult human would see that such interference will come back to haunt, and since there are benefits associated with cooperation, he might just cooperate. >>I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to >>say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone >>from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect >>me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting >>to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature >>to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you >>with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over >>and above what has already been said. > It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what > constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? > You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to > in that case. Let's start with physical harm to one's person, one's loved one's persons, one's property, and add further interference in the exercise of personal rights. Was there anything you wanted to add or subtract? >>I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. > Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" 1) Because it works. 2) Because it happens to be the system of this society (or a variant of it) and as the "patriots" say: "If you don't like its principles, you can get out!" (Though I doubt many of THAT breed of "patriot" that says such things could spell 'principle'.) 3) Because, at its root, it seeks to provide maximal freedom and minimal restriction and interference. 4) As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government we have, except for all the others. -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/19/85)
In article <1299@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > > [Mike Huybensz] > > Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait. It can be a heuristic for > > optimizing reproductive success. Just like intelligence. > > You merely remove the question one level. Why should evolutionary > adaptiveness be valued? Or survival? (Again, I may agree that they > *should be*, but why should I believe it, for reasons *you* can > give?) You misunderstand. There is evolutionary selection for the trait "morality" (not any specific morality) because "moral" people can outcompete those without the trait. And there is competition between the different moralities (and evolution of them) with slightly different modes of propagation and mutation. Valuing morality is one of the adaptive positive feedback characteristics of morality itself. Just as an organism that didn't choose to reproduce would tend to die out, so a morality that didn't value itself would tend to die out. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/20/85)
> > [Rich Rosen] > > 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. > > Hardly, my foot. Why should any of these be optimized? That is, why > should any of them be optimized, given your outlook? I may *agree* > that these things should be optimized, but what reason can *you* give, > other than bare assertion, that they *should* be? You have given us an > "ought" without a reason for the ought, other than just "I say so". > > Perhaps there is a presupposition lurking somewhere in your rationale... > bolstered, presumably, by wishful thinking that "freedom" (undefined) and > "benefit" (also undefined - both probably subjective) are of some value. > Perhaps you are right - but why should anyone believe you are? You > can't give a reason, so you end up with proof by assertion. > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. Padraig Houlahan.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
>>>If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of >>>protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there >>>be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have >>>plugged many times? [SARGENT] >>[Rich Rosen] >>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. > Hardly, my foot. Why should any of these be optimized? That is, why > should any of them be optimized, given your outlook? I may *agree* > that these things should be optimized, but what reason can *you* give, > other than bare assertion, that they *should* be? You have given us an > "ought" without a reason for the ought, other than just "I say so". [DUBOIS] I thought I just said: because cooperation maximizes freedom, overall benefits, stability. Why should such things be maximized or optimized? Because we like them!!! Would you rather have a moral code based on self-annihilation? > Perhaps there is a presupposition lurking somewhere in your rationale... > bolstered, presumably, by wishful thinking that "freedom" (undefined) and > "benefit" (also undefined - both probably subjective) are of some value. I don't think so. Freedom in the sense it is described here means freedom from external coercion or interference. The limits of such freedom, in order to maximalize it, should end "before my fist reaches your nose" or some such witticism. Benefits? Economic well-being. Health through cooperation in sanitation and food growth. Opportunities for exercising freedom. Are there any of those you don't like, where you'd rather a society chose the opposite? > Perhaps you are right - but why should anyone believe you are? You > can't give a reason, so you end up with proof by assertion. I just did. You're the one whose position is solely based on assertion, my friend. Assertions about assumptions. >>>"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. > Baloney. Your postings consist mostly of *assertions that there is such > evidence*; but you rarely give any. Funny how you chose to conveniently leave out the rest of the paragraph in which I did just that. This is getting boorish. >> I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. > You thought wrong. If what it says is correct, then it cannot by > itself be the *whole* truth, being finite. Huh? Come off it. If you have counterarguments, let's hear them. Don't come off badgering me about the use of a pithy phrase! Pretend it just said "the truth" (which is what it meant), now offer a counteropinion. Have anything to say now that the opportunity for smug trivialism about "it's not the 'whole' truth, nyah, nyah". >>Ask a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful >>notion (put forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation > An unnamed Christian clergyman - maybe you had a wishful-thinking > dream. (You can disprove this by naming him.) Unfortunately I can't. It was quite a long time ago. Do you honestly doubt that a Christian would say that which you AGAIN chose to leave out above (about evolution being a beautiful interpretation of the Genesis story)? Is the idea so repugnant to you? I do hope someone does remember the man's name. I believe it was said during or around the time of the Scopes trial, and perhaps it was part of the testimony. Your attempt at vilification only serves to point out how desperate you seem to be regarding this notion: no Christian could POSSIBLY have said THAT, Rosen MUST be lying. >>story is [q]uite 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". > Focal in what sense? Like as in first having created the earth before all the other "heavenly bodies", having created them in relation to the earth. Sounds pretty "focal" to me. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/20/85)
>>[Mike Huybensz] >>Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait. It can be a heuristic for >>optimizing reproductive success. Just like intelligence. > You merely remove the question one level. Why should evolutionary > adaptiveness be valued? Or survival? (Again, I may agree that they > *should be*, but why should I believe it, for reasons *you* can > give?) [DUBOIS] >>Your example resolves simply in terms of game theory: kill a relative of >>somebody and you are reducing the genetic fitness of the survivor. Thus >>it may pay to make standing threats against people who bump off your >>relatives. Making killing someone immoral is a shorthand that is simpler >>to teach than game theory. > Still presupposes the value of survival. Which was the question! If you don't like surviving, Paul, let my friend Stig, who works for the Strongarm Collection Agency ("We have no slogan") help you out. Think about this: those animals for whom survival was not a valued adaptive trait? Where are they now? Why? Get it? Why survive? Why value it? Death IS kind of painful, and it would put an end to all the things my personhood has come to value in life (your presumptions about afterlife notwithstanding). Thus, survival is valued. You're right. Maybe I do assume too much. These are rather basic assumptions I thought didn't have to be gone through at length. If you disagree with them, I'll send Stig over to your house if you like. After all, why value survival? (Stig is a fictitious person, and is a trademark of the Strongarm Collection Agency. Despite this, he can still do a job on a delinquent creditor!) -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/21/85)
> >> ...Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? > >>[Wingate] > > >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting > >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute > >"moral authority" to justify this. [Houlahan] > > It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving > society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person > involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained > by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion > about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. In the context of this discussion, improvement has been explicitly associated with notions like freedom from tyranny and violent acts. In curtailing acts of violence, a society improves. You benefit by being the object of fewer violent actions. You may in fact do better, as an individual, by cheating, but there are only so many hawks that can be supported in a population made up of hawks and doves. In another article I pointed out that refugees constitute empirical evidence that to many people freedom from economic, political, and physical violence is desirable. These people are demonstrating quite unambiguously that given a choice they reject the population dominated by hawks. There are two distinct topics that should not be confused here. The first concerns the form of society ( should it consist of hawks or doves? ), while the second concerns the individuals behaviour (should I be a hawk, or a dove?). For both hawks and doves, the most desirable guiding principles are that for a dovish society. (This assumes that survival, and protection of the self, are goals that are common to both hawks and doves. Criminals are not normally opposed to laws, only against them being used to curtail the criminal's activity). > >> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best > >> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, > >> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some > >> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this > >> supposed human nature should be catered to. > > >I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to > >say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone > >from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect > >me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting > >to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature > >to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you > >with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over > >and above what has already been said. > > It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what > constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? > You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to > in that case. The paragraph indicates quite clearly that violent acts are a good example of what I meant by harm. An example is all that is required since the goal was to illustrate how an individual benefits from such laws. > >> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively > >> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings > >> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. > > >I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. > > Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Go ask a refugee. Padraig Houlahan.
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (07/21/85)
In article <618@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait. It can be a heuristic for > optimizing reproductive success. Just like intelligence. > Not to be blatantly contradictory and knitpicky, but morality is not evolutionarily adaptive, self-preservation instincts are. Morality is the tendency for species (humans) with higher mental capacities to step outside the realm of instinct and analyze the different instincts on a rational level. Just because an instinct for self-preservation will make it more likely that an organism's genes will get into the gene pool and hence be reproduced doesn't mean that that is rational or moral. If an organism is just a set of chemical reactions taking place, unless any one given set of reactions is "more valuable" than another, there is no rational basis for saying that the perpetuation of a species is a "moral" (i.e. based on a rational premis) issue. Organisms will continue to reproduce that trait because it is an adaptive trait, but that does not make it moral. In a purely scientific and physical sense, a species could flourish or become extinct and all that has happened is that a different set of chemical reactions will be the outcome. > Your example resolves simply in terms of game theory: kill a relative of > somebody and you are reducing the genetic fitness of the survivor. Thus > it may pay to make standing threats against people who bump off your > relatives. Making killing someone immoral is a shorthand that is simpler > to teach than game theory. > -- > That's not really true that killing someone's relatives makes one less environmentally fit. Many species of animal fight among the siblings due to limited resources and a great number of animal, bird, fish etc. young leave their parents quite soon after being born and never see their parents again. They most certainly have nothing to do with killing their own parents (they aren't capable in almost all cases) and if their parents die, that's not a trait that could get passed on. And with humans the argument falls to pieces. If a person's parents die he's less likely to have children? Where did that statistic come from? And if you're arguing for an instinct lodged in the back of our mind from ages past, then again, I would point out that as human beings we have gone beyond instincts in many ways andd such a simple explanation of why we don't murder wouldn't hold water in any realistic analysis of what determines behavior. Rick Frey (...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
In article <1225@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? [WINGATE] >Because it benefits you. Roads, telecommunications, all these real marvey >type things. Could you create and maintain them yourself? Could you >ever in your wildest dreams be "self-sufficient". The interdependence of >humans and the benefits of cooperation behoove to cooperate or not partake >of the fruits of the cooperation. Would it not be even more advantageous to suck off the benefits of other people's cooperation? >> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best >> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, >> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some >> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this >> supposed human nature should be catered to. >> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively >> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings >> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. And besides, you >> must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any >> essential human nature? >On the contrary, one's immediate natural instincts lead one to immediate >gratification type actions, which in a world with other people will most >likely hurt you in the long run. That's one thing humanity has (at least >partially) learned over thousands of years, and the reason why such societies >are built. The notions have nothing to do wih "human nature", but rather >with a system that provides maximal benefits. Benefits to whom? To the rulers! The moral imperative they stress is that everyone should cooperate with them! There is, for every society, a group of people whose interests demand the subversion or destruction of society. Rich's argument, from their point of view, justifies this destruction, because from their point of view, they are NOT maximizing their benefits. Charley WIngate umcp-cs!mangoe "Do you know what this means? It means this damn thing doesn't work at all!"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
[followups to net.philosophy please] In article <392@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence >demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of >increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where >refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and >war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and >consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. But this only presents a problem if you accept the position that all lives are of equal value, and perhaps many others as well. This simply is not universally accepted. It isn't even clear that a majority truly accept it. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "So I took their plutonium and gave them a shiny bomb casing full of used pinball machine parts."
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
[followups to net.philosophy please] In article <395@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >There are two distinct topics that should not be confused here. >The first concerns the form of society ( should it consist of hawks >or doves? ), while the second concerns the individuals behaviour >(should I be a hawk, or a dove?). For both hawks and doves, the >most desirable guiding principles are that for a dovish society. >(This assumes that survival, and protection of the self, are goals >that are common to both hawks and doves. Criminals are not normally >opposed to laws, only against them being used to curtail the criminal's >activity). I don't see that this provides any moral force at all. It seems to bring you to an argument that maximizing freedom is good for criminals because it makes it easier for them to prey on others. Either that, or you must advocate that, for some reason, it is more important to cater to the desires of the victims than that of the criminals. So far, no one has attempted to advance such a reason which holds any water. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
[followups to net.philosophy please] In article <1251@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving >> society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person >> involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained >> by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion >> about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [DUBUC] >Short term you may see a benefit, but when the society at large enforces >its rights to protection against your interference, it won't be so much >of a benefit. An intelligent adult human would see that such interference >will come back to haunt, and since there are benefits associated with >cooperation, he might just cooperate. I don't think that's so. Many people seem to operate on the expectation that they can thwart society forever, or that they don't care about the sanctions imposed. Some seem to succeed in thwarting society all their lives. And if you don't care about the long run, why worry? >> It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what >> constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? >> You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to >> in that case. >Let's start with physical harm to one's person, one's loved one's persons, >one's property, and add further interference in the exercise of personal >rights. Was there anything you wanted to add or subtract? Ah, but it makes all the difference in the world what those personal rights are, and besides, there's no guarantee that these rights don't conflict at times. What then? >> Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" >1) Because it works. 2) Because it happens to be the system of this >society (or a variant of it) and as the "patriots" say: "If you don't >like its principles, you can get out!" (Though I doubt many of THAT >breed of "patriot" that says such things could spell 'principle'.) >3) Because, at its root, it seeks to provide maximal freedom and minimal >restriction and interference. 4) As Churchill said, it's the worst >form of government we have, except for all the others. Suprise! I even agree with these reasons (mostly). But the chain of reasoning is going the wrong way. Reinhold Neibuhr supported democracy, for precisely the same reasons, but he got there from christianity. The principles and and the system are quite distinct. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Give me a milk. Chocolate."
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (07/22/85)
It seems pointless to even try to refute the nonsense that is being said about behaviorism by people who have not studied it. I tried earlier in the summer and people are still making the same dumb mistakes. Nonetheless, here goes again. Behaviorism does not explain behavior in terms of a deterministic stimulus-response model. That is characteristic of the Pavlovian models that preceded behaviorism. Stimuli are dealt with as a minor sub-topic, being a factor that correlates with the frequency of emission of operants, but there is really no such thing as a "response" in behaviorist models. Instead, a probabilistic model based on frequency of emission of observable behaviors called "operants" is used. Behaviorist models deal in a completely scientific way with behavior by dealing only with behaviors that can be objectively measured in the laboratory, and by reporting observations rather than speculating on unprovable causative factors. It NEVER says anything like "Organism O emitted behavior B at time T because of factors F". It does, however, say things like "The frequency with which organism O emitted behavior B was higher when reinforcement schedule S was applied than when S-prime was applied." Again, I have to ask that people who have not studied behaviorism be silent about it. They are spreading lies, where a lie is defined (after Ouspensky) as pretending to have knowledge one does not have. Incidentally, although this is a response to a Rich Rosen message, it is really directed to the person who wrote what Rich responded to (fairly well). -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (07/22/85)
Aha! At last a sensible if incorrect comment about behaviorism, from Charley Wingate. Behaviorism does not say that mental states can be ignored in psychological modelling, it just says that there is no way at present to verifiably observe them in the laboratory. Thus it doesn't deal with them, because behaviorism is a scientific paradigm, not a speculative one. This is not to denigrate speculative paradigms in psychology. They can be quite interesting and valuable. But behaviorism is not one of them. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar) (07/22/85)
In article <2155@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >That's not really true that killing someone's relatives makes one less >environmentally fit. Many species of animal fight among the siblings >due to limited resources and a great number of animal, bird, fish etc. >young leave their parents quite soon after being born and never see >their parents again. They most certainly have nothing to do with >killing their own parents (they aren't capable in almost all cases) and >if their parents die, that's not a trait that could get passed on. > >And with humans the argument falls to pieces. If a person's parents die >he's less likely to have children? Where did that statistic come from? >And if you're arguing for an instinct lodged in the back of our mind >from ages past, then again, I would point out that as human beings we >have gone beyond instincts in many ways andd such a simple explanation >of why we don't murder wouldn't hold water in any realistic analysis of >what determines behavior. The problem is that the argument was used backwards. Killing your relatives doesn't make you any less fit. But, protecting your relatives (who share genetic material with you) increases the chances that your genes get passed on to future generations, even if YOU have no offspring. This can be the basis for the evolution of altruistic behavior (at least toward your relatives). Mark Biggar {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/22/85)
>>> [Rich Rosen] >>> 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. >> >> Hardly, my foot. Why should any of these be optimized? That is, why >> should any of them be optimized, given your outlook? I may *agree* >> that these things should be optimized, but what reason can *you* give, >> other than bare assertion, that they *should* be? You have given us an >> "ought" without a reason for the ought, other than just "I say so". >> >> Perhaps there is a presupposition lurking somewhere in your rationale... >> bolstered, presumably, by wishful thinking that "freedom" (undefined) and >> "benefit" (also undefined - both probably subjective) are of some value. >> Perhaps you are right - but why should anyone believe you are? You >> can't give a reason, so you end up with proof by assertion. >> >> Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > > Padraig Houlahan. > This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence > demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of > increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where > refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and > war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and > consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. Only if you justify the value of survival. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/23/85)
Could we PLEASE take this discussion over to net.philosophy? It has nothing to do with Christianity. If people want to contribute, they can go over there to argue (it isn't like there is that much traffic in net.philo anyway). I am going to drop out of this discussion if it continues here, because it ain't what this newsgroup is for, regardless of whether the discussion started here. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>>Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? [WINGATE] >>Because it benefits you. Roads, telecommunications, all these real marvey >>type things. Could you create and maintain them yourself? Could you >>ever in your wildest dreams be "self-sufficient". The interdependence of >>humans and the benefits of cooperation behoove to cooperate or not partake >>of the fruits of the cooperation. [ROSEN] > Would it not be even more advantageous to suck off the benefits of other > people's cooperation? [WINGATE] Not if they don't let you. That would be stealing, taking the property of other people without their consent, no? >>On the contrary, one's immediate natural instincts lead one to immediate >>gratification type actions, which in a world with other people will most >>likely hurt you in the long run. That's one thing humanity has (at least >>partially) learned over thousands of years, and the reason why such societies >>are built. The notions have nothing to do wih "human nature", but rather >>with a system that provides maximal benefits. > Benefits to whom? To the rulers! The moral imperative they stress is that > everyone should cooperate with them! There is, for every society, a group > of people whose interests demand the subversion or destruction of society. > Rich's argument, from their point of view, justifies this destruction, > because from their point of view, they are NOT maximizing their benefits. So let's have a society where everyone is the rulers! (I'm not sure where you get the notion that rulers seek the destruction of their society. On the contrary, they seek to make it last as long as possible to maximze their benefits at other people's expense. In a maximal tolerance morality, there is no group at whose expense all this is gained: the effort is dispersed, the benefits are maximized. Or are you insisting that every society MUST have and under-group?) -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>>It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving >>>society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person >>>involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained >>>by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion >>>about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [DUBUC] >>Short term you may see a benefit, but when the society at large enforces >>its rights to protection against your interference, it won't be so much >>of a benefit. An intelligent adult human would see that such interference >>will come back to haunt, and since there are benefits associated with >>cooperation, he might just cooperate. [ROSEN] > I don't think that's so. Many people seem to operate on the expectation > that they can thwart society forever, or that they don't care about the > sanctions imposed. Some seem to succeed in thwarting society all their > lives. And if you don't care about the long run, why worry? [WINGATE] And if you stay out of the way of the rest of society, who cares? Like our so-called survivalist friends. Unfortunately, such people are not the pantheons of independence they would like us to believe when they snatch what they need from society at large. Doing that, of course, may run counter to the wishes of the society, and ... >>>It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what >>>constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? >>>You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to >>>in that case. >>Let's start with physical harm to one's person, one's loved one's persons, >>one's property, and add further interference in the exercise of personal >>rights. Was there anything you wanted to add or subtract? > Ah, but it makes all the difference in the world what those personal rights > are, and besides, there's no guarantee that these rights don't conflict at > times. What then? I asked for specific things you wanted to add or subtract, not vague generalities! >>>Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" >>1) Because it works. 2) Because it happens to be the system of this >>society (or a variant of it) and as the "patriots" say: "If you don't >>like its principles, you can get out!" (Though I doubt many of THAT >>breed of "patriot" that says such things could spell 'principle'.) >>3) Because, at its root, it seeks to provide maximal freedom and minimal >>restriction and interference. 4) As Churchill said, it's the worst >>form of government we have, except for all the others. > Suprise! I even agree with these reasons (mostly). But the chain of > reasoning is going the wrong way. Reinhold Neibuhr supported democracy, for > precisely the same reasons, but he got there from christianity. Ah, the "right" way to go, as opposed to my "wrong" way. > The principles and and the system are quite distinct. We value the system because it upholds the principles. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence >>demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of >>increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where >>refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and >>war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and >>consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. [HOULAHAN] > But this only presents a problem if you accept the position that all lives > are of equal value, and perhaps many others as well. This simply is not > universally accepted. It isn't even clear that a majority truly accept it. > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe What is the basis for the system of beliefs of people who don't value life? How do they justify it? Looks like, as I've said all along, to rid the world of such notions would take a great educational effort teaching people how to think, how to reason, and how to know when some powermongering asshole is forcefitting them into his system of nonsense for his own ends. No one said it would be easy. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/24/85)
>>Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait. It can be a heuristic for >>optimizing reproductive success. Just like intelligence. [HUYBENSZ] > Not to be blatantly contradictory and knitpicky, but morality is not > evolutionarily adaptive, self-preservation instincts are. Morality is > the tendency for species (humans) with higher mental capacities to step > outside the realm of instinct and analyze the different instincts on a > rational level. [FREY] I think a better way to phrase it is "a tendency for species with higher mental capacities to realize things about longterm self-preservation and species preservation (two separate but both important issues) and analyze a preferred course of actions on a rational level". >>Your example resolves simply in terms of game theory: kill a relative of >>somebody and you are reducing the genetic fitness of the survivor. Thus >>it may pay to make standing threats against people who bump off your >>relatives. Making killing someone immoral is a shorthand that is simpler >>to teach than game theory. > with humans the argument falls to pieces. If a person's parents die > he's less likely to have children? Where did that statistic come from? I think Mike was talking about the emotional value we as humans place upon our relatives and those in our community. Killing one of them is nearly as bad as direct harm to you, and may provoke retribution as Mike describes. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/25/85)
>>This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence >>demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of >>increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where >>refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and >>war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and >>consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. >>Padraig Houlahan. > Only if you justify the value of survival. > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- But we already DID that. We value survival because we like surviving! Remember that statement you called "pro-found"? So "obvious"? Is the obvious out of your mental reach? Or do you mean something more when you ask for "justification" of the value of survival? Justify it to whom? To what? To some external that YOU value? That you can prove the existence of? If not, what more justification is necessary??????? Except to you... -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (07/27/85)
From rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen): >>> what is the basis for "higher" views? Evidence pointing to the existence >>> of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings as being >>> unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful thinking >>> that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the presence >>> of counter-evidence)? >> "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. You specifically said "in the presence of counter-evidence". Evidence that some specific doctrines may be rooted in wishful thinking does not constitute evidence that the entire gamut of spiritual-oriented world views is false. Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but the effect of this exchange has been to make you appear to make an assertion and then back off when it was challenged. -- -- 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)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/28/85)
>>>>what is the basis for "higher" views? Evidence pointing to the existence >>>>of things like "souls", or a special status for human beings as being >>>>unassociated with the rest of the "animal kingdom"? Or wishful thinking >>>>that there are such things in the absence of evidence (and in the presence >>>>of counter-evidence)? >>>"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. > You specifically said "in the presence of counter-evidence". Evidence that > some specific doctrines may be rooted in wishful thinking does not constitute > evidence that the entire gamut of spiritual-oriented world views is false. > Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but the effect of this exchange has been > to make you appear to make an assertion and then back off when it was > challenged. That's why I love subjective opinions lkke yours, Jeff. The counterevidence I was referring to involves the nature of the beliefs themselves, how they are formulated in direct contradiction to known scientific views of the world in favor of what is wished for. Rather than being a toy played with by an intelligence, the universe seems more like an integrated interweaving machine running according to its "mechanisms" without the introduction of an external. To insist on such an external in the absence of evidence for one is to go against the evidence of the universe as it is. It's nice of you to judge the effectiveness of "this exchange" on your own subjective terms. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/30/85)
>> >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting >> >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute >> >"moral authority" to justify this. [Houlahan] >> >> It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving >> society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person >> involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained >> by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion >> about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [Dubuc] > >In the context of this discussion, improvement has been explicitly >associated with notions like freedom from tyranny and violent acts. In >curtailing acts of violence, a society improves. You benefit by >being the object of fewer violent actions. Can you demonstrate the connection to the tyrant? He is relatively free from being the object of violent acts. Yet he sees no problem with inflicting them on others to bring about his own will. >You may in fact do better, as an individual, by cheating, but there >are only so many hawks that can be supported in a population made >up of hawks and doves. In another article I pointed out that >refugees constitute empirical evidence that to many people freedom >from economic, political, and physical violence is desirable. These >people are demonstrating quite unambiguously that given a choice >they reject the population dominated by hawks. When the hawks run out of doves they prey on each other. Would you expect them to starve rather than do that? I don't think the "hawks and doves" analogy goes very far. Why is the refugee's view of the situation accurate and the tyrant's not? What compels the tyrant to accept the refugee's values? >There are two distinct topics that should not be confused here. >The first concerns the form of society ( should it consist of hawks >or doves? ), while the second concerns the individuals behaviour >(should I be a hawk, or a dove?). For both hawks and doves, the >most desirable guiding principles are that for a dovish society. >(This assumes that survival, and protection of the self, are goals >that are common to both hawks and doves. Criminals are not normally >opposed to laws, only against them being used to curtail the criminal's >activity). So do you have any real objections to the hawks behaviour, or his decision to become a hawk? If so how do you substantiate them? You seem to accept them as normal parts of society. Can you judge a hawk's behaviour to be wrong? If so, how? The last sentence seem's odd. If I am a criminal, then I am not against laws that prohibit what I want to do, I am only against such laws being applied to me. If that's what you mean, then I don't think I see any real difference (only a techical one: either there is no law or I am above the law. In either case none of my actions can be judged as wrong). >>>> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively >>>> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings >>>> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. >> >>>I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. >> >> Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" >> >> Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > >Go ask a refugee. > >Padraig Houlahan. Go tell a tyrant why he should listen to refugees. Paul Dubuc
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/31/85)
In article <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >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. > I must nit-pick here. It would be more correct to say "the creationist line as spouted by certain hyper-literalistic interpretations of the Bible". Reading the Bible without such preconceptions produces quite different results! >>>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". >-- Ah, but creationist are really only a minority of Christians(or at most barely a majority). The Bible is the truth, *in* *areas* *it* *addresses*, in other areas, it simply says nothing. The existance of ET's is one of these areas. In fact all of science as we know it today is one of these areas. The creation myth describes the Earth as central to *the story of the Bible* *not* as God's focal point in the Universe. After all since we live on Earth, its creation is most important to *us*, and is thus quite naturally concentrated upon in a book written by and for us. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/02/85)
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <360@utastro.UUCP> <5593@cbscc.UUCP>, <395@utastro.UUCP> <1046@cbsck.UUCP> > >> >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting > >> >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute > >> >"moral authority" to justify this. [Houlahan] > >> > >> It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving > >> society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person > >> involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained > >> by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion > >> about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [Dubuc] > > > >In the context of this discussion, improvement has been explicitly > >associated with notions like freedom from tyranny and violent acts. In > >curtailing acts of violence, a society improves. You benefit by > >being the object of fewer violent actions. > > Can you demonstrate the connection to the tyrant? He is relatively > free from being the object of violent acts. Yet he sees no problem > with inflicting them on others to bring about his own will. First of all, tyrants are frequently the objects of violence, just like anyone else in power. If he is free from being the object of violence, then he must be providing something - stability perhaps - that people have decided offsets his excesses. Secondly, I may succeed in demonstrating the connection to the tyrant, but he may choose to ignore it afterwords. Whether he chooses to abide by it or not does not reflect on its intrinsic validity, (many people reject christianity, that does not, in itself, invalidate it). > >You may in fact do better, as an individual, by cheating, but there > >are only so many hawks that can be supported in a population made > >up of hawks and doves. In another article I pointed out that > >refugees constitute empirical evidence that to many people freedom > >from economic, political, and physical violence is desirable. These > >people are demonstrating quite unambiguously that given a choice > >they reject the population dominated by hawks. > > When the hawks run out of doves they prey on each other. Would you > expect them to starve rather than do that? I don't think the "hawks > and doves" analogy goes very far. You are being a little obtuse here. The point is that for the population as a whole, the above paragraph is valid. Its aim was to demonstrate the interaction between hawks and doves. It is incorrect to apply it to only one or the other. > Why is the refugee's view of the situation accurate and the tyrant's not? > What compels the tyrant to accept the refugee's values? > >There are two distinct topics that should not be confused here. > >The first concerns the form of society ( should it consist of hawks > >or doves? ), while the second concerns the individuals behaviour > >(should I be a hawk, or a dove?). For both hawks and doves, the > >most desirable guiding principles are that for a dovish society. > >(This assumes that survival, and protection of the self, are goals > >that are common to both hawks and doves. Criminals are not normally > >opposed to laws, only against them being used to curtail the criminal's > >activity). > > So do you have any real objections to the hawks behaviour, or his decision > to become a hawk? If so how do you substantiate them? You seem to > accept them as normal parts of society. Can you judge a hawk's behaviour > to be wrong? If so, how? Yes I have objections to any behaviour that makes life miserable by being the object of violent acts, and other unpleasant stuff. I think that society will always contain a violent element; the guiding principles should aim to curtail these elements. Yes I can judge a hawk's behaviour to be wrong if it is violent and unprovoked. You ask how? The same way I reach the conclusion that muggings are undesirable; I would not like to be a victim of such an act, therefore I am prepared to give up any right to mug people if society's rules prevent others from mugging me. > The last sentence seem's odd. If I am a criminal, then I am not against > laws that prohibit what I want to do, I am only against such laws being > applied to me. If that's what you mean, then I don't think I see any > real difference (only a techical one: either there is no law or I am > above the law... There is a difference, and it has already been pointed out. You may choose to ignore the law, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. >... In either case none of my actions can be judged as wrong). Not in an absolute sense perhaps. So what? If you feel uncomfortable with this prospect then give some examples that clearly show the existence of "wrong" actions which are not related to society, ie actions which most people would agree are "wrong" but which do not hurt or make life less pleasant for others, that is, involve society. Failure to do so argues strongly against any "absolute" criteria (i.e. god based etc.). Padraig Houlahan.