Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <1463@shark.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 23:02:37 EDT Article-I.D.: shark.1463 Posted: Mon Jul 15 23:02:37 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 04:45:23 EDT References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 71 Summary: 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