Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <1628@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Aug-85 04:09:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1628
Posted: Sat Aug 31 04:09:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 02:33:47 EDT
References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP> <1544@pyuxd.UUCP> <952@bunker.UUCP>, <1376@umcp-cs.UUCP> <5808@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.politics:10801 net.religion:7525

> Exercising faith is not the same as choosing to do without reasoning. [DUBUC]

Take out the word "not" and you have a true sentence.  Unless you are saying
"do without reasoning" to mean "do without" in a permanent way.

> Unless one also recognizes reasoning to have certain limits in
> a particular case.  Also, even in case like this, reason and faith
> may be used in conjunction with one another, the latter picking up
> where the former leaves off.

The problem arises when a person arbitrarily chooses these "limits" so as to
increase the chances of reaching a "preferred" conclusion, insisting that
"reasoning has limits" and that these limits have ipso facto been reached
at some point where switching to faith mode helps to reach the desired
conclusion.

>>>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.

> No, good example.

Nice rebuttal.

> Sounds like another way of representing Descartes' hat trick to me.
> It's still circular.  The conclusion (i.e. "I exist") is already
> contained in the premise ("I consider").
> 			     ^
> 			   right here.
> Evidence can't interpret itself as being evidence for the existence
> of itself.

I'm not sure I understand, why is this "circular".  The fact that there is
considering going on would seem to point to something considering.  It
may all be a simulation in that there's not earth and no people, but that
simulation is played out for something.
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr