Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: one point in Rosen's response to my uplifting digression
Message-ID: <375@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 16:56:51 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.375
Posted: Fri Feb 22 16:56:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 02:25:00 EST
References: <488@pyuxd.UUCP> <1825@pucc-h> <536@pyuxd.UUCP> <1862@pucc-h>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 36
Summary: 

In article <1862@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes (to Rich R):
> Surely your own reasoning would tell you that one thing that can help you
> find what is best for you is to utilize the wisdom of others who have dealt
> with the same sort of things you have to handle.  You seem to want to
> re-invent the wheel, ignoring or distrusting the advice of anyone outside
> yourself.  If you wish to do this, that's your choice; but you could 1) spare
> yourself a lot of trouble, 2) get valuable input to help you make the
> decisions of your life, if you consulted other people -- either talking with
> those living now, or reading the writings of those who lived previously.

How absurd to suppose that Rich (and I and other agnostic/atheists) don't!
Rather than use the traditional square wheel you seem to prefer, we look for
round wheels, in the writings of others and our own thoughts.  And we
customize them as necessary.

> I also dispute the idea that reason alone is sufficient to find a life that
> will satisfy the whole person; you aren't entirely made up of rationality.
> Or, put it another way, reasoning is only as good as its premises.  Your
> reasoning is founded on the premise that there is no God -- something which
> itself *cannot* be proved by reason.  Do not confuse rationality with
> empiricism.

Neither Rich nor I would suggest that idea.  We don't use reason to walk,
for example.  However we feel that there are places where reason is
applicable but some of you don't apply it.  Excess assumptions like gods
can hinder the application of reason to problems.

> Finally, I would invite all readers to contrast the joyous but realistic
> optimism of my "uplifting digression" with the rather dry and dead ideas
> of skepticism expressed by Rich and others.  Which would you prefer?

"Finally, I'd invite all you sailors to contrast this wonderful rum with
those sour lemons.  Which would you prefer to prevent scurvy?"   :-)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh