From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 02:19:35 GMT

kellmeyer steven l (kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
:
: >In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeye
r steven l) writes:
: >>
: >>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning?
:
: >    Not all secular reasoning is.  Some of it is simply
: >anti-religious reasoning masquerading as secular.  In the general
: >case, though, secular reasoning will have a foundation in
: >fact that religious reasoning never can.
:
: Beg pardon, but the deconstructionists here are laughing uncontrollably.
: What, pray tell, is a "fact"?  You simply show that you are a follower of
: a very popular Western religion, called "science".  Godel demonstrated
: the impossibility of logically verifying the validity of *ANY* logical
: system, and empirical evidence from physics is supporting that demonstration.
: 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.

Sorry, Kurt Godel demonstrated that "All consistent axiomatic formulations of
number theory include undecidable propositions" (from "Godel, Escher, Bach" by
Douglas R. Hofstadter).
Logical systems that are not as complex as number theoretic systems may be both
consistent and complete.  When the system is not well defined, like social
systems and philosophy, then Godels undecidability theorem does not apply.

:
: >>Let's take a clear look at a couple of examples of *secular* reasoning:
: >>
: >>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
: >>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
: >>right to divorce their parents.
:
: >    Can you document this?  I haven't heard anything of the sort.
:
: The case of the 11-year old in Florida divorcing his parents within the last
: two months comes to mind.  Hillary pulbished an article in a law journal
: at the beginnning of the last decade advocating precisely this use of the
: law.  It was in all the papers.  I have no idea how you could have missed it.

As I recall, the child wanted to stay with his foster parents rather than being
forced to live with his biological parents.
[snip]

: >>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?  With so many diverse forms of
: >>birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
: >>biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
: >>parties agree, where's the harm?
:
: >    Where is the harm?  Can you demonstrate that there is any harm
: >at all if both parties agree?
:
: Thank you.  I thought you'd bite.

So, what's your point?

[huge snip]

: >> and
: >>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out
: >>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic
: >>future.
:
: >    I'm tending to agree with you on this one.  Paternity laws
: >need revamping badly.
:
: He bites again.

So, again, what's your point?

[snippity, snip, snip]

: >>Do you think this reasoning is crazy?  It's coming to court in New York
: >>this very month.  And Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW, is on
: >>record as supporting this reasoning.
:
: >    Supporting which reasoning?  What you've written above is
: >muddled enough as to be almost unfollowable.
:
: Ah, you are still trapped in religiously-based cultural concepts about
: sex and children.  You must free yourself of these old icons, and move
: forward to accept the new secular reasoning on sex, children, and family.

You still haven't specified the "reasoning".

[binary chainsaw]

:
: >>  So, Evelyn, when
: >>are you going to support they jailing of AIDS-infected sexually active
: >>individuals?
:
: >      Sigh.  No logic involved here.  It all involves consent.
:
: And after you said there was.  Damn.  You'll jail alcoholics and people
: with influenza, but not people with AIDS.  Where's your secular logic?

Actually, I don't think Phil said that he would jail flu sufferers, and he
agreed that jailing AIDS infected individuals who were sexually active without
warning their partners ahead of time should be prosecuted.

:
: >>  How about ANYONE with VD?  Follow your thrice-blessed
: >>secular logic.
:
: >     Let me suggest that you don't understand logic - it requires
: >more than projecting your own delusions onto the ideas of others.
:
: Indeed.
:
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality