Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Did Erasmus live in vain? Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 90 01:20:57 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 56 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu > >Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 21-Nov-90 Re: Did Erasmus > live in vain? John Graves@cellbio.duke (2396) > > >A requirement to believe by faith is by its > >very statement opposed to the free use of the mind. To choose to > believe > >without sufficient evidence is often necessary even in the most mundane > of > >situtations, but a requirement to believe in unproven data explicitly > >denies the ability of a person to make choices based on reason for > >themselves. John, Any rational system must accept some things as a priori truths. These are then the fundamental axioms of the system, and by using reason, further statements are derived from this set of fundamental assumptions. Reason & observation have ample room to maneuver. Many of us in more traditional faiths take the existence of God as an a priori truth ( it is a matter of faith). I have no doubt that within Unitarian Universalism, certain things are taken as a priori truths (and thus, on *faith*). My impression is that U.U. folks believe that reason and empiricism will guide us to a better world. While I believe that fundamentally, God defines what is good, you may believe that reason and observation define what is good. > >Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 21-Nov-90 Re: Did Erasmus > live in vain? John Graves@cellbio.duke (2396) > > >We believe that education and > >reason and nonrational (not irrational) activities such as love and > prayer > >can work together to create a better world on this earth, not in some > >postdeath realm, but for the living. The last time I checked, most of the more traditional Churches were also interested in making the world a better place for the living. To the best of my knowledge, Christianity is about how to live, not how to die. U.U. seems to be the fusion of empiricist philosophy and mainstream Christianity. But it seems to me that by adopting empiricism and taking God out of the picture, you end up pulling out the very foundations for morality (in a sense, U.U. seems to be a nihilist form of Christianity). How does a U.U. decide a moral issue when the material evidence does not provide a decisive material advantage to either side of the argument? Unitarian Universalism, to be consistent with it's own tenets, must decide good/bad by materialistic arguments. Therefore, to remain consistent, U.U. would inevitably have to support relativism - thus eliminating the concepts of Good and Evil. Do U.U. have a concrete idea of Good and Evil which exists apart from God, and is not subject to relativism? Do I misunderstand Unitarian Universalism? Stephen Chan