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
Subject: This is Religion
Message-ID: <1468@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 08:29:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1468
Posted: Mon Aug 12 08:29:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:49:28 EDT
References: <258@frog.UUCP> <457@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 124

In this article, which Michael Ellis has given a title stolen from a great
Public Image Ltd. song, it seems that Michael has gone off the deep end.
First he attributes an extended list of arguments against crossposting
between net.religion and net.philosophy to me (despite the fact that I
have encouraged such crossposting for a number of reasons).  Then he begins
ranting and raving about nothing in particular.  Could this diatribe of
his be the strawman that broke the Michael's back?

> Read these carefully, and watch...
>>        1)  Religion is partly idiocy.
>>        2)  Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of
>>            religion.  (Faith is the practice of claiming
>>            truth without evidence.  I am not concerned
>>            with other meanings of the word, like "trust".)  ...
>>        4)  Therefore it is important to exclude religious
>>            arguments from net.philosophy .  [I DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH THIS]
>>        7)  Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting
>>            between net.philosophy and net.religion .  [?????] ...
>>        10) It is still possible for philosophy to be
>>            crushed by the religious boot, if people don't
>>            take preventive care.

Though I agree with a good deal of what the author has said, I don't reach
his conclusions at all regarding cross-posting.  How this extract has any
relevance to what Michael discusses later is beyond me.

> Now examine this interaction between me and Rich Rosen:
> ME>Who said science should be shackled?
> RR>YOU did, by insisting that certain things are "not in the realm" 
>    of science..
> 
> ME>.. you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below:
> ME>        The universe of science is All That Is.
> ME>        Science will somehow be able to describe everything.
> RR>Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are 
> RR>the things that are.  That's my position.  
> 
>     There are many more. 

What of them?  What don't you like about them.

>     These are all examples of totally compulsive, unphilosophical, a priori
>     thought that not only assume the notions of what is, and what is
>     knowable, and so on, but which demonstrate a self-righteous indignation
>     that ANYBODY MIGHT EVEN DOUBT OR QUESTION SUCH MATTERS.

I would think otherwise, Michael.  What these are examples of is a debunking
of your apparent presumptions about what science is, and how it should be
"limited" to describing only certain things.  (After all, you mock the notion
that scientific inquiry and method may be able to describe "everything", but
you speak little about what things it would be unable to describe.)  Self-
righteous?  It seems that your position is the self-righteous.

>     Is this not religion?

You mean YOUR ideas about how things thought of only subjectively, wishes
for souls and free will, MUST exist because you believe in them?  Yes, that
is religion.

>     Rich, you have wasted this newsgroup for many months by brutally
>     reasserting a single meaningless statement:
> 	    "free will does not exist"

Wasted?  I could just as easily (and with more supporting evidence) proclaim
that it is the reassertions that "it does it does it does!" are the truly
watseful utterances.  Brutally?  Does it hurt to hear that your precious
wishes may not be quite true?  Is that why you are left only with your
subjective opinions, which you thus must assert the veracity of in the
absence of evidence?  Is this "brutal"?

>     What does that mean?  Nothing, as far as I can tell, since you simply
>     have reasserted YOUR definitions, YOUR assumptions, YOUR truth so
>     numbingly, repeatedly, unthinkingly, like a ritual, a chant, a 
>     religious mantra, that the network might believe the true word.

Michael, if decrying Humpty Dumptys who change the meanings of words to suit
their conclusions (peacekeeper missiles, eastern European democratic
republics?), and presenting evidence to show my point can be considered
numbing and unthinking, what shall we make of "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH
CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH
CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY"?  Is that a chant?  A ritual?  A "mantra"?
It certainly qualifies as numbing.  Or at least numb.  This is called
"projection", isn't it?  Do YOU present evidence to support your position?
Or do you just whimper and whine (as in this article) about how much you
want free will?

>     And is it philosophical speculation to gloss over peoples' careful 
>     arguments with wild and unjustifiable accusations of..
> 	..Wishful Thinking?

If the shoe fits...  (CAREful?????  If the evidence shows otherwise, which is
has, if the evidence shows gaping holes and wishfulness, well...

>     Rich, the only thing I wish for is that you might think more.

Likewise, Michael.  None of us can ever think "enough".

>     Why should anyone engaging in philosophical inquiry want the statement
>     `free will exists' to be true?  Making a rigorous definition of a
>     subjective, legal, and philosophical term is a challenging problem, but
>     who cares if your definitions yield falsity?

Do they?

>     YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SO DESPERATELY WANTS SOMETHING NOT TO EXIST.

>From the tone and wild rambling of this message, it is quite clearly YOU
who very very desperately wants a particular thing to exist.  Do you work from
the assumption that it does (a la "this is religion") or from no assumptions
about it at all until some evidence is presented to show how human minds
differ from any other chemical system in inner content?

>     That is not philosophy.
>     That is religion.
>     YOUR RELIGION.

And I would guess a tenet of your religion is to ridicule anyone who doesn't
base their thought on similar ideals of faith as you have.  What relevance
did the original quoted list have to any of this?  Are you so positively
lost without your free will (as shown in later articles) that you must
engage in such utter nonsense?  Relax, Michael.  Think a little.  Then
call back.
-- 
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr