Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Evidences for Anthropocentricism
Message-ID: <855@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 02:15:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.855
Posted: Mon Jul 15 02:15:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:31:44 EDT
References: <2127@pucc-h> <1215@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 49

In article <1215@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>Hardly.  Chances of survival, overall longterm benefits, life in general,
>are optimized by cooperation.  Cooperation, and the maximal freedom and
>benefit for all, are optimized by non-interference.

Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized
benefits?

>> "There you go again".  You have *never* cited any counter-evidence; you
>> have merely asserted its existence.  Don't try to weasel out of this;
>> if you have any actual hard *evidence* that God does *not* exist, cite it!

>I didn't say that I did.  I said that there was (and is) evidence that the
>beliefs are rooted in wishful thinking anthropocentrism.  There is evidence
>that the creationist line as spouted by the Bible is, in a literal sense,
>fallacious, despite numerous attempts by wishful thinkers to prop up
>creationism with augmented wishful thinking.

But that's only a problem if you are going to take that section of the Bible
in a very literal-minded fashion.  Besides, it don't prove A.C..  There is
no solid evidence as to why that particular account was written; Rich's
claim is mere speculation without some independent evidence of what the
author was thinking.

>>>This sudden acceptance of the possibility of extra-terrestrials is a
>>>modification to the literal "truth" of the Bible, is it not?
>
>> Not necessarily.  The Bible doesn't really say anything on the subject one way
>> or the other; after all, its concern is with human beings.  In that sense it
>> is anthropocentric, but again, it was written to help humans toward a fuller,
>> more joyous and freer life on this earth, so it could hardly be otherwise
>> (and it would be of negligible use to humans if it were).
>
>I thought it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Ask
>a creationist, who won't even accept the incredibly beautiful notion (put
>forth by a Christian clergyman) that the whole creation story is wuite
>metaphorical, and that evolution itself shows how beautiful the Bible is
>in telling that story in an imaginative way (actually he said that evolution
>was the most beautiful interpretation of the creation story he had ever 
>heard). 
>In any case, the creation story also describes the earth as god's focal point
>of the universe, so I would have to say "yes, necessarily".

It does not.  Cite verses if you are going to make a claim like that.

Give to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!

Charley WIngate  umcp-cs!mangoe