Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!nike!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion Subject: Re: Banning books, religion etc... Message-ID: <1641@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Sep-86 20:55:21 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1641 Posted: Wed Sep 3 20:55:21 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 05:03:20 EDT References: <1637@ames.UUCP> <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 94 Xref: linus net.religion:10694 talk.religion:49 From: stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman): >In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >>From: stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman): >> >I will just say that they belong >> >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. >> >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish >> >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. > >> Why? Oh, I can see that it runs counter to creationist >> dogma, but most Xians, and presumably all existentialists, are >> not creationists. I fail to find anything anti-religious in the >> notion that human evolution has not stopped with the current >> model. Arrogant? How so? If anything, the admission that the >> human race could stand some improvement shows an admirable humility. > >A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to >improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without >consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got >into such a mess in the first place! Is everything that doesn't involve God explicitly anti-religious? If Clarke speculates about mankind evolving to higher states without God's direct help, does his vision exclude the possibility of God being around, too? Are airplanes sinful because God was not consulted about their development? >An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows >that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. Since I'm not an existentialist, I'll do the sensible thing and let them speak for themselves. You might consider doing the same. >Why I don't diet exclusively on garbage: Glad to see you're being objective :-). >> What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire >> to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not >> agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are >> incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits >> such refinement. > >When I read that many people eat garbage to stay alive, I went out >to our garbage cans and looked at it, smelled, and put my finger in some >slime (I couldn't bring myself to actually taste it). I wanted to >have some idea of what these people went through. I don't, however, >ever eat garbage. I might if I had to live in such conditions in order >to befriend and help the people, but it would be foolish for me to >do so just for kicks. Bad analogy. People only eat garbage out of desperation, though some eat things that might disgust *us* (slugs, grubs, insects), with delight. And they seem healthy. Many follow humanistic philosophies willingly and happily; why not just say it's not to *your* taste? >When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and >found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy >marriage someday) and read several articles. My conclusion: the articles >were typical of magazines and only occasionally disgusting. People must >buy it for the pictures. It has enough besides the pictures for a lot of women to enjoy it. And if some buy it for the pictures, so what? I've yet to hear of Playboy's pictures destroying a marriage; by contrast, I *have* heard of marriages destroyed by religion, when one partner becomes "born again", and the other doesn't. Which do you suppose is a bigger threat to marriages, oral sex or Oral Roberts? :-) >When I saw 2001, I enjoyed HAL and the gang. The first part of the movie >was more enjoyable than the last. At the end, it abandons traditional >storytelling and attempts to communicate Mankind's dream of becoming God >via disconnected but increasingly visionary scenes. This last part is >difficult to enjoy without sharing the philosophy of the authors. If >I was a full-time movie critic, I would probably see 2010. Since I am >not, I only have time for a movie 2 or 3 times a year. Sorry you're unable to see more movies. I think the ending of 2001 is easier to understand if you also read the book. From what I know of Clarke's philosophy, "becoming God" in any literal sense is not his message. Becoming better than we are, is. I suspect there's a lot of room for improvement of humanity without invading God's turf. We're a long way from perfect. In any case, my intent was not to dispute your taste in movies. What seemed odd to me was avoiding movies (or books) because one simply disagreed with the philosophy in them. I'm a big Heinlein fan, myself, even though I have many disagreements with the political philosophy he presents. I find the differences of opinion thought-provoking, not offensive. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry