Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!houxz!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Humanism and the myth of Neutrality Message-ID: <708@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 12:09:22 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.708 Posted: Mon Jun 4 12:09:22 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 01:26:46 EDT References: <1161@qubix.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 157 I know I said I would avoid taking on Mr. Bickford's ranting again, but ... Larry mentions a case (apparently) where parents chose to let a severely retarded child with a number of physical problems die rather than have operations performed to extend his life. His presentation is notoriously one-sided (and leaves a number of points unclear), concluding with "condemning him to an early and painful death" (which could just as easily have been called "condemning him to a long and painful life" had the operations been performed). Since Larry left so much unclear in this and the following example (it's not clear whether the girl wanted to have an abortion or not from the text Larry wrote) that it is impossible to make any judgments. Yet Larry seems to point out that his answers are obviously arrived at, though I'm not quite sure how. (What about those religions that forbid any medical intervention?) The point is: what's the point? Why is this a 'religionist'/'humanist' question (except in Larry's eyes)? > More Bob Lied: > > We do not need the heavy baggage of absolute good and evil ... > No, you want the ability to change the rules whenever you feel like it. > Everyone has absolutes; you just don't want to let yours be known. Larry still seems to be (and probably will continue to be) under the impression that non-religion means "making up your own rules as you go along". Which is contrary to the notion of people formulating rules for a society on a rational level (as opposed to simply doing things because it says so in a book that *some* people believe is an ultimate authority). The difference between the non-religion ideal and the religion ideal is that the former uses rational thinking to formulate agreed-upon rules for a society, while the latter employs rote obedience to the words in a book. About this whole business of situational ethics: would anyone like to show me some non-situational ethics? Man: Excuse me, God, I have a question? You say that it is wrong to kill? God: Yes, thou shalt not kill. Man: But this guy is coming at me with a knife. Can I kill him to prevent him from killing me? God: Uhhh, [FLIP, FLIP, FLIP] ... yes, that's OK. Man: Well, he *is* coming after me for having killed his entire family. God: Oh! Well, then he has a right to kill you, an eye for an eye and all that... Man: But it was an accident! Their car went out of control and I couldn't stop my car in time to avoid crushing them. God: Oh, well, then he shouldn't be killing you for that. Well... Yes, *he* should definitely be killed for trying to kill you. Man: But it's not his fault. He went insane years ago from accidentally ingesting this chemical, and he'd been in treatment for it but he couldn't afford it any more because he lost his job, and now he's relapsing and... God: Hmm, where'd that page on absolute good and evil go? [FLIP, FLIP] Oh, OK, well he should get some more of that treatment again, but if he does kill you he'll have to be killed, too, because killing is wrong. Man: Thank you, God. It must be really hard work straightening out all this sort of nonsense. God: It wasn't *my* idea! Larry Bickford told me I had to do it, and who was I to argue with him? > Dick Dunn (for the next four): > > How does one reconcile "Exterminate the worship of other gods" with > > the US doctrine of freedom of religion? > I didn't know that US doctrine had the authority of God:-). "Freedom > *of* religion" is quite the appropriate term - freedom *to* worship. > This is not the same as freedom *from* worship, which tries to have us > believe that it is possible to be without religion. But neutrality is a > myth, and a very devastating one. There's no need to *try* to have many of us believe that it is possible to be without religion; we have already discovered this possibility. This must be what Larry meant in his definition of freedom, where freedom meant being free to do what was right. Obviously once Larry's candidates get elected, *then* the US government would have the authority of god. Then we will all have "freedom to worship", but not "freedom NOT to worship". What is this "neutrality" you refer to that is impossible to achieve? > > I have seen misinterpretations of situation ethics used as an excuse > > for people to do whatever they want - I think that may be what bothers > > Bob [Brown], and it bothers me too; I don't buy it a bit. > What bothers me more is that, in the humanist system, there is no way > to define or control the abuses. As I've already mentioned, humanism has rules just like any other societal construct. The difference is, again, that the rules are logically determined and thought out rather than derived from a book for which no one can offer evidence of its divine origins and authority. > > [Theist]: "Where's the deity?" There isn't one. > The myth of neutrality again. Huh? Again this neutrality. What does it mean? One cannot hope to believe in the wrong god or no god, or to believe that it doesn't matter? One *must* believe in the "right way" and there are no other options? Could someone clarify? Does Larry mean that no one can hope to offer a neutral, rational position/judgment in a situation, that only god can offer final judgment? It's not the myth of neutrality, it's the myth of belief without substance, without evidence, without reason. > For Daryel Akerlind, the key historic evidences you need are two: > fulfilled prophecy and the Resurrection. Neither Mohammed nor Moon > qualifies on either point. (See Romans 1:4 and Luke 24:27,44,46) Again, anyone can take a prophecy from eons ago and interpret that current events are a fulfillment of that prophecy. The Resurrection? Oh, yeah, Larry was there, he saw it all, and he performed scientific tests to make sure it wasn't all legerdemain. > Lest I leave Rich Rosen out, his latest articles (at qubix, anyway) added > nothing new to the above save one, regarding making George Labelle into > a Messiah: I should expect to see George publicly executed, then find > 500 people willing to be thrown to the lions rather than renounce belief > that they saw George alive after he was dead. I should also expect to > see some miracles being performed to authenticate the message (my cobra > would like to taste your arm). I should also expect to find over 300 > specific predictions about George's life and death that had been made at > least 500 years earlier (and compiled in a specific book at *that* time) > should be exactly fulfilled. What a cure for insomnia. The Book of Ubizmo clearly says: "And a man named George will be born. And he will live. And eventually he will die. And, lo, many people will see this as a sign that this very prophecy I am writing right now has been fulfilled. And there will be much rejoicing, and sales of George Labelle t-shirts and paperback books and video games will be humungous in my sight. And seven people who knew George will see him again after he has died, but they will not mention that it was a photograph or a videotape, or that they had partaken of chemicals, or that they were just playing a joke on everyone. And many who choose to believe this all to be a sign of great things, will believe in George. And they will be laughed at, scorned, and have tomatoes thrown at them, and many will die. But one tomato will not reach its target, and will become a splotch on the ground. And this will be called the Miracle of the Red Fruit for all to see. And many will speak to others of George's horrible death at the hands of the unbelievers, failing to mention that he slipped on a bar of soap in the shower. And a great horned beast named Edgar who ..." Didn't I already mention about interpreting "prophecies" the way YOU want to? The Book of Ubizmo is much clearer, and specifically names names (George) and events (slipping in the shower). No room for error, here.... > Now the good news: I'll be too busy with work next week to post > anything major, and on vacation the following week. So if you think I'm > ignoring you - you're probably right. :-) Oh, come on, Larry's been ignoring everything we've said from the very beginning! Why should we expect anything different? :-() -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr