From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:52:31 GMT

In article <C0Az1r.CGu@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>In article <C08qtH.C81@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>>>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 

>>>In other words, science and secular logic has demonstrated that science
>>>and secular logic is no more or less supportable than any other culturally-
>>>based form of thought.

>>    What about that "empirical evidence"?  Where's the empirical
>>evidence to back up religious reasoning?

>Pardon.  Perhaps you are unaware of Godel's work.  He demonstrates that
>there can be *NO*, nada, zero, zilch, empirical evidence and/or line of
>theoretical reasoning which can show _a_priori_ that a logical system is
>valid.  

That is NOT what he said.  Perhaps you ought to read what he wrote rather than
what irrationalists would like to think we wrote.

He does have a point in that no abstract system can by itself be related
to reality.  For that, some kind of axiomatic premises (and perhaps sense
perception) are required.  Fortunately, we are not limited to peano 
arithmetic in real life.

>You are asking for that which cannot be obtained - it matters not
>whether you ask that of science or of religion.  It appears that whether
>one is a scientist or a priest, one necessarily operates on faith. 

Perhaps instead, one ought to consult an Objectivist philosopher instead.

Faith is NOT REQUIRED in order to derive a philosophical system (by faith,
I mean belief without evidence or proof).

>>    A decision to have sex acknowledges the possibility of conception.
>>(I'll assume for simplicity's sake that we're only talking about
>>heterosexual vaginal sex.)

Really?  Sterile people never have sex?  People on the pill never have sex?
Your "religious reasoning" astounds me!

Are these supposed to be syllogisms?  Sure, they have three parts, but that's
about where they end...do you really think this is logic at work?

>>>No human being exists at conception.
>>>Sex results in conception.
>>>Sex results in the existence of no human being.

>>>Birth is the event which creates a new human being.
>>>Men never give birth.
>>>Men never take part in the creation of a new human being. 

Even you ought to be able to see that these are faulty syllogisms.  Do you
really maintain otherwise?

>Indeed, this is how scientists obtain brain tissue.  They induce labor
>in the woman to be aborted, wait for the head to show in the birth
>canal, then drill a hole in the skull and evacuate the contents while it
>is held in the vise-like embrace of the birth canal.  This assures the
>minimum contamination from extraneous fluid sources (blood, other tissues,
>etc.).  The body is discarded after the woman's labor expels it.
>This is being done at the University of Colorado - Denver, and at Yale.

This is luducrous.  Where in the world did you hear this?  You may not
have heard about this, but labor is a fairly messy process, and not one which
generally provides a stable platform for brain surgery.

>Of course *I* do.  But I'm just one of those damn-fool religious nuts
>who insist that a child must exist at conception.  I argue with the 
>premises.  If I were to admit the premises, I could do naught but agree
>with the conclusions.  The logic is perfectly sound, it's the premises
>that are completely silly.

Actually, I don't think the answer to that question either way addresses the
important issue.  The question that matters isn't "Is it alive?" or "Is it
human?" or "Is it 'child'?", but rather, does it have rights? (and thus deserves
the protection of the state).  Of course, before addressing that question,
you have to answer the question "What are rights?".  Are you up to it?

>>I'm opposed to it.  I'm opposed to circumsizing babies, too.

>What?  You oppose religious freedoms?  Nazi.

Have you ever heard of the idea of being opposed to something without 
also wanting to see it banned by the government?  Or is the idea foreign to
you?

>>>How about consensual cannibalism?  Should we free Jeffrey Dahmer if
>>>we could determine that his "victims" *WANTED* to be carved up and 
>>>eaten?

>>     Absolutely.  Can you make any justification that any
>>consensual act should be illegal?

>Damn, this boy bites at everything.

That's not much of an argument.  Try again.

>>>  I take it necrophilia is always acceptable?  

>>    Yup.  Just because something is icky doesn't mean it's immoral.

>Incredible.

That's two for two.  Are you implying that everything "icky" IS immoral?
Or that all immoral acts ought to also be illegal?

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc