From: mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Unbe Awakens
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:10:29 GMT

In article <1gon3eINN2cl@gap.caltech.edu> lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.045406.27625@midway.uchicago.edu>, mss2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
>=	"Of course religion has nothing to do with morality to a
>=nonreligious person-- fiction cannot provide a basis for morals, and
>=if the person believed a religion's view of the world to be fact he
>=wouldn't be nonreligious.  But equally obviously the adherents of a
>=religion disagree with the premise that the religion is fiction-- and
>=_that_ is the question on which the relevance of religion to morality
>=hangs.  And unless the Pessimist has a new proof up his sleeve, that
>=controversy is likely to remain right where it stands now.  Either a
>=given religion is true and its claims (if any) with regard to morality
>=are extremely relevant, or it is false and its claims with regard to
>=morality are relevant only insofar as they coincide with whatever
>=really _is_ true about the universe.

>Which implies that, at best, all but one of the religions out there are
>irrelevent to morality.  At worst, all of them.

	"Basically true, with the proviso that given overlap and
similarity between various religions, if one religion is true others
can be partially correct insofar as they approximate it.  Thus, if
Islam is correct, Christianity's prescriptions regarding submitting
one's will to God are reasonably close to the mark, but its dietary
rules (or lack of same) are extremely wide of it.  Some religions give
reason to believe that humans have a natural tendency to have some
idea what's right (though not necessarily to follow it), which would
make it more likely than not that the majority of religions (and
nonreligious ethical precepts) would have at least something in common
with the universe's inherent morality.  Others suggest the opposite.

	"Obviously, the question is rarely relevant, except insofar as
one wishes to come to a conclusion about others' beliefs.  The fact
that Religion A suggests that the followers of Religion B almost got
it right will be important neither to the followers of Religion A (who
naturally think they know better than the Bs anyway) nor to the
followers of Religion B (who aren't directly concerned with what A
says about anything).  (It might be _practically_ relevant-- say in an
A-directed theocracy-- but it's unlikely to be relevant to anyone's
moral beliefs.)

	"However, my point was that stating that religion was
irrelevant to morality expresses a truth only given the implied
presumption that the religion in question is entirely false.  It does
follow from that premise, certainly.  But I wanted to make that
premise explicit, is all.  (Granted, it wasn't really necessary, since
his moniker does so already, in a nonspecific sort of way.)"

>=Since bowls of Alpha-Bits rarely
>=provide reasons for people to do what they do, the comparison doesn't
>=seem apt.  A person may guide her actions because she wishes to escape
>=the wheel of karma, or because she wishes to draw near to God, or
>=because she wishes to become a god, or because she wishes to achieve
>=the maximum amount of happiness before she dies, or for some other
>=reason-- very few people will base their actions on the advice of a
>=bowl of Alpha-Bits, however learned a cereal that may be.  :-)"

>Perhaps not on Alpha-Bits per se, but lots of people DO base their actions on
>the results of divinations, be they horoscopes, tarot, or what have you.  How
>is looking for a message in a bowl of Alpha-Bits any more nonsensical than
>looking for one from a Ouija board?  And some people do, indeed, base their
>actions on such things.

	"Fair enough.  A minor quibble might lie in the fact that even
there, people don't really think they're getting a message from the
cards or the stars or the Alpha-Bits themselves, but from something
else which communicates through them.  But, granting the premise that
all religions (and nonreligious beliefs in a supernatural) are wholly
false, it is correct to view them as equivalent to searching through
randomness for meaning.  I don't question the logic, any more than I
questioned the Unbeliever's right to wish for religion to cease to be.
But I just wanted to clarify that all of his statements had that
implicit premise.  Maybe it's much ado about nothing and no such
clarification was necessary.  In which case, I've frivolously cost the
net "hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars".  May the net.gods
forgive me for such a waste of resources.  :-)

	"Hmm... given that the same magnitude has been used since time
immemorial (read: since before _I_ came on the net) I wonder if
anyone's tried to figure out the average costs, per article per
system, of a Usenet article, and what the average total cost of such
an article is to "the net" insofar as the question is meaningful.  At
best, such a number would be a rough guesstimate as costs probably
vary pretty widely, and I don't know to what extent articles have
_any_ marginal costs to some systems (e.g. a system with a dedicated
line and a fixed amount of disk space devoted to news) while other
systems probably pay (in phone costs, if nothing else) for every byte
transmitted.  A pretty problem, anyway."  Having distracted his
listeners with irrelevancies, Michael opens the top of the soapbox
he's standing on, pulls out a personal flight harness (after all this
time, _someone's_ going to think of trick soapboxes-- sort of stacking
the deck, in a manner of speaking...) and glides down to the bar for a
Diet Coke refill.

Michael

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu	    Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans