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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: This is Religion
Message-ID: <1470@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 08:36:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1470
Posted: Mon Aug 12 08:36:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 23:04:55 EDT
References: <258@frog.UUCP> <457@spar.UUCP> <458@spar.UUCP> <459@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 84
Xref: linus net.philosophy:2040 net.religion:6982

>>>     I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now,
>>>     all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of
>>>     introspection. [ELLIS]

>>Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on
>>reality, it's best not taken literally. [ROSEN]

>     Yes, we should ignore the vile subjective manure that often flows
>     incessantly from `our minds'.
>     The only truth is hard Scientific Evidence.

The only thing we can know to be true.  Anything else, that "subjective
manure" has no sure positive correlation to reality except in your mind, where
it can and should stay when discussing the realities of the physical world.
If you can substantiate it, AND if it runs completely contrary to known
quantities in the real world, could it be, Michael, could it just possibly be,
that these are JUST your own subjective thoughts?
  
>     Incidentally, Science itself is an anthropocentrism. It was created by
>     humans to overcome heinous subjective devils like religion. 

Overcome?  Or show the falsity of?  (Actually, that wasn't the
intended purpose of science, it was intended just to find knowledge in the
most positive way.  When this newfound knowledge tore holes in the fabric
of religious thought, THAT was when it took on that purpose.)
   
>     The traditional Doctrine of Causality, which until ~1900, asserted
>     a priori that:
>     1. All phenomena are caused by something.
>     2. All phenomena which are repeatably and demonstrably connected must
>        have some causal explanation.
>     
>     ...has been crucified by randomness and nonlocal interactions.
    
Crucified?  Back to religion again, Michael?  Can you explain to us the
story of this crucifixion (and resurrection)?

>     The Evidence indicates that:
>     1. Effects do repeatably and reliably recur without discernable causes.

"Discernable"?  By whom?  Can you say "anthropo..."

>     2. Totally regular correlations in the Evidence are undeniably present
>        that, under rigorous analysis, have been found to be unattributable
>        to traditional causal connections.

"Traditional"?  You mean like Newtonian mechanics?

>     By Occam's razor, we must abandon the the traditional Doctrine of
>     Causality.

We do?  Only the hopeful causality smashers "must" do this, and do it
preconceptively to.

>     Or would you deny the Evidence and cling to defunct and heretical
>     a priori notions?
    
Defunct?  Can you explain to us how so?

>     Rich, are you a - a wishful metaphysicist??

Yes, my mask is off, my pants are down, my shoes are untied, my wings are
borken and so is my hair, I am not in the mood for words.  Michael, are you
all right?

>         O Nihil, God of Scientific Materialism
>         Who art not, as I am not,
> 	Lead Rich Rosen away 
> 	from his spontaneous subjective fantasies
> 	and back onto the righteous path
> 	of rigorous Objective thought 
>         and verifiable Evidence
> 	and deliver him into the Garden
> 	of Sweet Digital Causality.

Amen.  THIS *is* religion!

>     SMASH SPONTANEITY!!!

Smash your head against the wall.  I think it needs it.  :-?  (Or maybe you've
been doing just that a little too much.  Gotta stay outa them hardcore clubs,
Mike. :-)
-- 
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr