Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Jul-85 01:34:38 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1215 Posted: Sun Jul 14 01:34:38 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 04:12:15 EDT References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> <2127@pucc-h> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 53 >>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