From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 13 Nov 1992 01:49:58 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1duupoINN5bl@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
=It seems to me that the most natural mode of human behavior is to act in
=one's own self-interest, without particular concern for others.

There you go again.  What do you mean by "the most natural mode of human
behavior?"  Do you think human beings are some sort of automatons, so simple
that you can describe any part of their behavior as "the most natural mode?"
If so, I think you're very badly mistaken.  Humans exhibit different sorts of
behavior in different situations.  What might be a "natural" mode of behavior
in one situation may very well NOT be a natural mode of behavior in other
situations.

=If this is true, any philosophy that requires self-sacrifice for a greater
=good is useless to the extent that it requires self-sacrifice.

It's not true for the reasons mentioned above.  Any philosophy that requires
self-sacrifice in ALL situations is most likely going to be useless.  A
philosophy that requires self-sacrifice (at least in the short run) in SOME
situations might be quite workable.  Why is it that so many Christians seem to
think only in terms of absolutes, when evidence that absolutes are not
applicable in some situations stares them in the face every day?  Could it be
that their religion encourages such behavior?

=I don't like this (though I can't produce a plausible denial of it); I
=would prefer a world where everyone makes as great an effort as they can
=to help others before themselves.

There's a good reason why what you advocate can't work:  If there are *ANY*
people who don't act that way, you're going to find those who do starving to
death rather quickly.  I.e., they'd die out.  Any situation in which you have
the sort of behavior you advocate from some people and different behavior from
other people, the situation is not stable. because the behavior you advocate is
not a survival trait.  Or are you perhaps one of those Christians who denies
evolution?  Once again, your insistence on absolutes gets in the way of
reality.  Now, were you to relax your dogmatic position to the point where
you'd allow these selfless people to meet their own needs first, then perhaps
give up some luxuries in order to help others, that's CAN be stable and even
beneficial.  Of course, one need not be a Christian (nor, for that matter, even
human) to practice such behavior.

=If you consider this behavior
=desirable, then Christianity (as commonly interpreted today) has a lot
=going for it; it asks you to give till it hurts, but helps you not to be
=overwhelmed with guilt when you fall short.

The behavior you've described is NOT desirable, in my opinion.  A much less
dogmatic version would be desirable, but on the other hand, one need not be a
Christian to practice it.  Why do Christians always seem to assume that any
"good" aspects of their behavior are due entirely to Christianity?  Why won't
you guys opoen your eyes and see that the behavior you advocate is NOT unique
to Christianity, nor even to the species Homo Sapiens?  Oh, that's right.  I
forgot.  Man was created specially in God's image, and Christianiy is the
pinnacle of morality, so if you should happen to see anybody (or anything) else
practicing what you, in your colossal ignorance, refer to as the "Christian
virtues," it doesn't really count, right?

=One more thing:  Some people (I won't speak for others) would like their
=personal philosophy to be founded on rationality, and the only way they
=can be sure their philosophy is rational is to try to defend it.  Carl,
=for such people, and in particular for myself, you perform a valuable
=service, by trying to make us think hard about what we believe.  If, as
=you have claimed, talk.religion or talk.philosophy don't require grounding
=for yd's statements, yd could not get such a service there.

Well, in that case, I'd suggest that you take a look around and determine, BY
OBSERVATION RATHER THAN BY IDEOLOGY, which behaviors can be uniquely ascribe to
Christianity before you tout such behavior as one of the great aspects of
Christianity.  You might be surprised.  There are quite a few atheists,
agnostics, pagans, and other non-Christians out there who actually exhibit the
behavior you wish to ascribe to your religion.  And you'll find a great many of
your coreligionists who DON'T exhibit that sort of behavior.  Then you should
ask yourself, "Is there any evidence that Christianity makes people any better?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic