Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Bob Brown's challenge answered
Message-ID: <7263@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-May-84 17:53:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.7263
Posted: Fri May 25 17:53:03 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 04:17:07 EDT
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 39

Let me begin by stating that I am a "mild" agnostic; i.e. I am not sure
whether it can be known whether God exists.  (A hard-line agnostic believes
nobody can know whether God exists.)  I don't trust the term "humanist", it
seems to be twisted too many ways to have much meaning at all.  So I won't
accept being called one.  Bob Brown proposes the word "materialist" to
describe certain views he doesn't like:  materialists "believe [that]
that which is sensible with the usual five plus the mind
is all that there is in the Universe."  I'm not sure I completely accept a
materialist viewpoint, but I sympathize with it, so here goes.

>>Question #1) Since man is purely a product of his genes and his
>>             environment, on what basis is the statement
>>  	     "I ought..." distinguishable from "I itch.." ?
Easy.  "I ought" refers to reason and experience; "I itch", to desire.
						 
>>Question #2) Following that line, how can responsibility for
>>	     personal behavior be assigned to anyone since
>>	     he or she is not really in a position to control
>>	     their genetic make-up (right now anyway) ?
If you are worried about the compatibility between determinism and freedom,
consult the philosophical literature.  Chin-Tai Kim, a philosopher at Case
Western Reserve University, does a good job of showing that this old bugaboo
is a pseudo-problem.  (See "Norms and Freedom", *Philosophical Forum*
198(3?).)  Anyway, I don't see how materialism implies determinism.

Questions 3 & 5 need no answer because, as pointed out by David Dyer-Bennet,
they are based on dubious assumptions about "humanism" or materialism and 
what these views involve.

>>Question #4) Is there a need for the designations good and evil
>>	     (I think Rich Rosen dealt with this) and do they
>>	     have any meaning in this worldview ? (In light
>>	     of Questions 1 and 2 )
Materialists (as defined by Brown) differ on this one.  I personally think
these concepts are required.  If you are worried about determinism "vs."
moral responsibility, then I recommend Kim's article, again.

			The aspiring iconoclast is back!
			--Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink