From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:27:01 GMT

howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:

>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>>> 
>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>live their life without persecution.
>>
>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>

>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
>an oxymoron.  

Not everyone gives a damn about secularism either, but it appears to
be forced on the great majority of the population whether they will it
or no.  Furthermore, anyone who has spent any amount of time studying
the history of science would find your last statement to be absolutely
absurd.  The entire concept of a university was founded around advancing
theological study.  Indeed, the term "professor" began as a reference to
one who was a "professor of the faith" and who studied it regularly.

Historians agree that western science was defined and structured by
Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes.  Without Christianity, western
science, as such, would simply not exist.  It is only in the last
100 years that science has developed this peculiar aversion to religion.
Certainly, one can point to instances in which religious authority 
fought certain concepts and ideas that later turned out to be correct.
However, they performed no better or worse than did (or does) the established
scientific community today in terms of accepting radically new, correct,
ideas.  To say that religous reasoning is an oxymoron, or that secular
reasoning is somehow superior, is to profess an ignorance so profound that
it boggles the mind.

>Andrew Jackson had a lot to say about avoiding religious arguments
>pertaining to legislation.

What makes Andy an authority?

>> [loads of opinionated attacks on secular reasoning deleted]

>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
>at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.

>-Howard


Certainly, many deaths have been done in the name of religion.  I will 
merely point out that more people have died in "secular" wars than in
any combination of religious wars you care to name.  If you wish to 
compare infinities of violence, "secularity" will not come out the better.
I would furthermore argue that this violence is much harder to justify
and continue using Christianity as the foundation than it is using
secular reasoning.  Genocide is much simpler to reason away to your 
fellow man than it is to the unwinking eye of God, as Hitler, Stalin,
Hussein, and Pol Pot have already shown.

>-- 
>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
>Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper?
>He sold his soul to Santa.				-Herb Caen
>... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu