Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <1376@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 15:06:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1376
Posted: Sun Aug 25 15:06:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 02:03:49 EDT
References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP> <1544@pyuxd.UUCP> <952@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 30
Xref: watmath net.politics:10670 net.religion:7478
Summary: I pursue a tangential issue

In article <952@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>Mr. Rosen, of course, has an unshakable faith that objective reasoning
>is the one which should be used.  On what other grounds could one
>possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ?  The pot cannot
>contain itself.
>
>The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
>(which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
>first decide which to use to make the choice.

Actually, the idea that one can *choose* to do without reasoning is
wrongheaded.  The very representation of the alternatives is a mental
act governed by norms of rationality; one has to be rational in order
to represent the choice to oneself.  But then, the choice one identifies
as 'reasoning' must be recognized as the correct choice, because 
recognizing something as rational means acknowledging it as correct.

>Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
>and others on the basis of objective reasoning.  That, of course, is
>what people really do.  For a trivial example, I maintain that each
>person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence.  No objective
>reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
>reasoner exists to do the reasoning.

Bad example.  Each person accepts on *evidence* -- *conclusive* evidence --
the fact of her own existence, which is implied directly by the fact
(of which she is immediately aware) that she is considering the issue.
No faith need apply for the job; reason is quite sufficient here.

--Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief