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: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <854@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 02:01:15 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.854 Posted: Mon Jul 15 02:01:15 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:31:24 EDT References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 83 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