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: Re: Re: Annotated Humanist (A Christian speaks out)
Message-ID: <677@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-May-84 14:19:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.677
Posted: Wed May 16 14:19:23 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 17-May-84 03:21:01 EDT
References: <250@wucs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 122

> Basically, our objections (or at least my objections) to
> humanism can be broken down into a few major humanistic beliefs which we
> disagree with.

> 1)	Humanists believe there is ONLY an objective reality.
> Although both Christians and humanists seem to agree on the
> existence of an objective reality (i.e. we exist, and the universe
> exists independent of our own perceptions), to a Christian, and the
> followers of most other religions, the story doesn't end there.  We
> believe in some "force" which is external to the universe and which may
> project things (such as morality, definitions of good and evil, etc.)
> into our world.  Of course, I believe that I have perceived such
> projections, by the force which I call God, and you don't.  Whether this
> is due to a flaw in my perception or in yours is pretty much unarguable,
> we could never prove things one way or the other.  The same applies to
> the existence of God, putting aside his projections into our world. 
> Because He is, by definition, existing outside of our perceptions (if He
> exists at all), there is no way to argue for or against His existence,
> except for His projections into our world, or lack thereof.  Thus, in a
> sense, you make exactly the same "leap of faith" we do when you assume
> the non-existence of any force external to the universe.

I think the failure to believe in anything beyond an objective reality owing
to the lack of evidence is not a humanist tenet.  It is a rationalist tenet
in general.  The issue is not unarguable in the sense that you describe.
If god exists, then he created the world and the objective reality as we know
it, and his actions affect the objective reality.  Thus the god you describe
is in effect the objective reality we both describe.  Your claim for something
external to the universe is unfounded and unnecessary.  Rationalists believe
that one can differentiate between the objective and the subjective by
eliminating the subjective facet.  If an incident can be reproduced, if
it is perceived universally, then it cannot be explained away as inner
feelings and opinions ("God spoke to me.  I *know* this.")

> 2)	Humanists believe that man is rational.
> This is an underlying principle of humanism that seems to fly in
> the face of reality, not only to religious people, but also to many
> non-religious people I know.  I know that I certainly act irrationaly at
> times, and that I am surrounded by people who appear to act irrationaly
> much of the time, also.  Even the idea that this is from environmental
> factors (If they were only raised right....) doesn't hold much water
> when compared with historical examples going back to the Spartans all
> the way up to the Nazis.  (This is NOT an attempt to associate humanists
> with either group!)  But in all cases, no matter how society tried, some
> of the kids would always seem not to turn out quite right, showing
> alarming proclivity toward emotionalism and other no-nos.  In general, I
> think this point is the major stumbling block for humanism with both
> religious and non-religious people.

Of course, humans can act irrationally.  Look at the number of people who...
[NO, HE WON'T SAY IT. -ED.]  As long as we are residing in animal bodies with
animal chemicals resulting in animal needs and urges, we can never completely
shirk what you call the "irrational".  But how irrational is this?  From a
biochemical point of view these actions make perfect sense.  Look even at
someone like Hitler.  Due to chemical imbalances/psychological disorders
(really one in the same depending on your perspective), he felt the need
to direct hatred against a whole class of people.  The Jews conveniently
(for him) fit the mold he needed to fill.  What do you think caused him to do
these things?  His "soul"?  External agent "demons"?  Or the chemicals in his
body?  Given his chemical make-up, Hitler's responses were "natural".

But we are different from most other animals in our ability to conceptualize,
to think in a rational and logical fashion.  Witness mathematics, a science
full of concepts that exist independent of "physical" reality.  If we are to
achieve our full potential, we need to think just as logically in the way we
deal with the physical world.  This means formulating rational precepts for
organizing society to replace the irrational ones that exist today.  Amongst
these irrational precepts to be replaced are many that are associated with
religions, given credence solely on the basis of the subjective opinions of
a few.  People should have the freedom to believe what they like (no matter
how irrational).  But the "freedom" to impose such a belief system on others
is not a freedom at all, and as with any societal construct that puts the
society at large in a higher position than that of each individual, it has
no place in a rational society.  Larry will be quick to "point out" (???) that
in his opinion, this means an individual can go and kill someone if he/she
feels like it.  What Larry fails to realize is that the person he would have
killed in this scenario is an individual, too, who has rights and freedoms
accorded to him/her as well.

> 3)	Humanists desire a structureless society.
> This is actually a result of 1) and 2), but has problems of its
> own.  Now, I may be misinterpreting some of Rich's articles, but it sure
> sounds to me like humanism basically advocates anarchy as the best form
> of organization for society.  We object to this not only because we
> believe there is an objective good which society should attempt to
> preserve (see 1) and a need to regulate man to preserve the general
> welfare (because of 2), but also because anarchy is not a very efficient
> form of society.  Basically, without the structures our society gives
> us, we would be unable to feed our current population, much less
> maintain their standard of living.  As a possible victim of this
> starvation, I object to such an idea.  Thus, from a purely
> economic/political/sociological standpoint, humanism seems to fail to
> provide a realistic answer.

The "need to regulate" that you describe will always exist, since we will
still have those "animal chemicals" running through our veins.  The concept
of divine regulation is unnecessary.  What's more, what reason do you have
for obeying "divine authority"?  Fear of an afterlife spent in agony?  What
proof do you have for anyone that that divine authority and the agonizing
afterlife are anything more than figments of your imagination?  With no
proof, what reason would a thinking human being have to obey any rules if
"divine authority" is their only basis?  Would you propose enforcing these
rules by punishing infractions of these rules as a means of "conditioning"
"correct" behavior?  Or would you rather have set up the rules clearly
and deliberately on a rational basis, with every human being understanding
the reasons that the rules exist?  This is clearly nothing like the
"anarchy" that you claim I am proposing.

You also point out worries about the eradication of the structure of society.
I will point out again, that a society that makes the claim that the
individual exists to serve the continued proliferation of the society,
instead of the society existing as a means for individuals to have as full a
life as possible without treading on the rights of other individuals, is not a
viable society at all, but one that is destined to crumble.  Hopefully, it
would be replaced by a more rational one; more hopefully, it will not have to
"crumble" at all if rational thinking and rational education are incorporated
in the current societal structure on a large scale.  (And not interfered with
by calls of "Bring back the old days when everyone knew their place in
society and liked it whether they liked it or not.")
-- 
Pardon me for ...  oh, never mind!!
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr