Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: DN: "Where's the Morality?" RR: "Underneath the Rock Over There"
Message-ID: <615@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-May-84 14:52:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.615
Posted: Tue May  1 14:52:26 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 2-May-84 05:32:48 EDT
References: <114@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 68

> > Aren't the chemicals in one's brain and body subject to those same
> > physical laws that govern billiard balls.  (Or rather, isn't their motion
> > described by those same physical laws?)  To say that the brain and body of
> > a person are not within the same realm of physical law is to make a very
> > bold assumption.  What is the reason for even thinking of making such an
> > assumption?  Is there some facet of human existence that is unexplained
> > by the same physical laws that govern "inanimate" objects? [ROSEN]

> I do not like what I find when I carry this reasoning to its logical
> conclusion.  Are murder and rape then justifiable as a particular mixture of
> chemicals and electrical impulses in our brain, none of which we are
> responsible for?  By the same token, are virtues such as patience, love,
> or gentleness not to be rewarded for the same reason?  Does Desert have no
> meaning in such a system? [NORRIS]

David has absolutely hit the nail on the head with this one.  What's more, he's
shown that what I've thought all along about the nature of religion is probably
true.  HE DOESN'T LIKE WHAT HE FINDS WHEN HE CARRIES THIS REASONING TO ITS
LOGICAL CONCLUSION!!  HE DOESN'T LIKE THE NOTION THAT MURDER AND RAPE AND
PATIENCE AND LOVE RESULT FROM CHEMICAL PROCESSES!  HE DOESN'T LIKE THE NOTION
OF A UNIVERSE WITHOUT ULTIMATE REWARD/PUNISHMENT!

So what David do?  Since he doesn't like it, he figures it *can't* be this way.
The universe must be the way *he* perceives it, and since strict ratioanalism
produces a world that he doesn't like the shape of, he designs a new one.
Note that the remarks about "why rationalism?" are now seen in a new light.
Rationalism, the use of logical inquiry and observation and objective
reasoning to uncover explanations for the way things are, result in a view of
the world that is unconscionable to some people, thus they must develop a new
world view.  Since such a view would be based on a non-rational/irrational/
counter-rational foundation, it must be accompanied by reasons for such
non-rationality.  But all we have seen is "show me why rationalism is the
only way?", which is simply saying "what about my way, the non-rational
way, which is based on, uh ..."  Yes, ask the counter-rational person what
their views are based on, and they won't be able to tell you anything
molten, liquid, or gaseous, let alone concrete.

>>> ... EXPERIENCE PROVES THIS,OR THAT, OR NOTHING, ACCORDING
>>> TO THE PRECONCEPTIONS WE BRING TO IT. (italics mine)
>> Most of all, it can lead to preconceptions about the nature of the universe
>> based on one's own subjective ideas---there is a god watching over me who
>> knows what's good and tells us, and I know this because by believing in him
>> my life has changed.  [ROSEN]

> By the same reasoning: "Most of all, it can lead to preconceptions about the
> nature of the universe based on one's own subjective ideas--there is no god,
> and I know this because I have seen no evidence to prove it."  Your statement
> proves nothing. [NORRIS]

Well, David, that's the point.  My ideas are not "subjective ideas".  They are
based on that dreadful scientific method, which seeks to eliminate the
"subjective" (God exists in the way I imagine him [sic] to be because I feel
and know it to be true.), concentrating on the objective.  The lack of
objective evidence for your point of view is only the tip of the iceberg.
Digging deeper, we see that what religionists propose often contradicts
evidence.  While a scientist would be open to new evidence as a means of
modifying/altering/even contradicting current views (provided the evidence
is verifiable), a religionist (one with a holy book) believes that that book
holds the final answer because a deity wrote the book.  Reasons behind this:
1)  in the book it says that god wrote it, 2) there is evidence that some of
the things in the book actually happened.  Beyond this what reasons are giving
for believing in the book and in the deity described in it.  None that I can
see.  Oh, "evidence" like "Ubizmo changed my life" abounds.  But has anyone
who has provided such "evidence" done any close rational examination of said
evidence?  Or is that against your religion?
-- 
Pardon me for ...  oh, never mind!!
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr