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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:25:27 GMT

rogerb@agora.rain.com (Roger Bonzer) writes:

>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>> [...]
>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 

>    Secular reasoning questions _all_ of its assumptions.  When
>an axiom is discredited, it is tossed.  Secular reasoning gives
>you a "good guess," with the proviso that it might give you a
>different "better guess" later.

Those particular beliefs about science are 20 years out of date.
Read Thomas Kuhn "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".  The only people
who hold the particularly touching faith in science that you have 
demonstrated in your reply are, perhaps, grade school teachers.

>    Religious reasoning _cannot_ question any of its assumptions
>because they are the articles of faith.  When an axiom/tenet is
>questioned, the querent is labeled a heretic.  Religious reasoning
>gives you "infallibility" and a devoted corps of supporters.
>    Which is best depends on which you prefer.  Empirical confirmation
>or proof by fiat.   Being as right as possible, or being as righteous
>as possible.

The basis of science is faith.  Assume I identified a set containing
6 million elements.  I gave you the last *100* elements and asked you
to identify the characteristics of all 6 million based upon just the
100 element block which I admit to have simply sliced off from the
very end of the set.  That is, you didn't even get a random sample.
That's what we do with all of nature.  We make assumptions based on
characteristics we've only studied for perhaps a century at best.
How do we know the decay rate of radionucleides hasn't changed?  We don't.
We have faith that it did not.  _Science_ magazine has published numerous
articles and reviews which point out that science is as much a faith-based
activity as an other.

>> [...]
>>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.  If this is true, why is everyone so 
>>upset about the young girls left alone in Chicago?  Perhaps the parents
>>merely found secular reasons for believing the 9-year old was mature
>>enough to care for the 4-year old.

>    I have never seen Ms Clinton state beliefs to the effect that _all_
>minors should be assumed competent to bear _all_ rights, responsibilities,
>and privileges accorded to legal adults -- for either secular or religious
>reasons.  The beliefs of the Right that I have seen posted here seem to
>imply that children are property of the parents in all things.  In the
>"child divorce" case, the parents were shown to be incompetent, and the
>child was given to people who were competent.  In the Chicago abandonment
>case, the children were not demonstrated to be competent.

Incomplete.  The child was represented by his own attorney, which means
the court granted the child *legal* competency - a remarkable precedent.

>>
>>Similarly, if a 9,10,11,or 12-year old can divorce hs/her parents because
>>of their maturity, then why can't those same mature individuals move in
>>with a 30-year old same sex lover?  If they're mature enough to unchoose
>>parents, they are certainly mature enough to choose who they want to live
>>with.  The National Man-Boy Love Association would certainly support that
>>reasoning.  Why can anyone, secularly, object to pedophilia if the child
>>doesn't object?  Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
>>child has been ruled an adult by the courts?

>    Being mature enough to demonstrate the incompetence of one's parents
>is not the same as being a competent adult.  Apparently you don't object,
>though, to a 9 year old living with a 30-year old opposite-sex lover.
>It's difficult to tell if you're arguing for homosexual age-of-consent
>laws or arguing against children adopting competent parents.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  The court, by granting the child his own
legal representation, recognized the child as a competent adult - something
unheard of in a civil case.  That's why it was in all the papers.  The
scenario described above is eminently possible, given that precedent.

>>
>>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?

>    "Incest" covers a lot of ground.  I object to parents molesting
>their children.  I don't object to marrying someone who turns out to be
>your third cousin.  I admit it seems awkward and weird (to me) to be
>sexually involved with someone you are related to, but that isn't
>sufficient cause for a verdict of "wrong."

Why stop at third cousin?  Why not sister/brother/mother/father/twin?

>>
>>Secular reasoning has found that no human being exists at conception, that
>>women have the right to do with that non-viable tissue what they want,
>>unilaterally, because men have no right to interfere.  Fine.  Then secular
>>reasoning also makes it clear that men are not and can never be parents,
>>since they never create children.  At most, men supply only raw material -
>>it is the woman who chooses to manufacture a child.  If a woman can decide
>>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
>>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons, and
>                 ^^^^^^^^^might                               in this case^^
>>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.
>>
>>  According to secular reasoning, genetic comparisons are pointless,
>>since a man's twin bears the same genetic relationship to the child, yet
>>isn't legally bound to support the child manufactured via the use of his
>>brother's sperm.  Currently, anonymous sperm donors can NEVER be legally
>>held for child support - what difference does knowing the sperm donor's 
>>name make?  It's not like he gets any more choice, or makes a child.
>>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.

>    I didn't get the twins thing at all.  Are you saying that
>genetic equivalency should imply legal equivalency?  Are you pointing
>out the limitations of genetic tests to determine paternity and
>maternity?  Are you confusing the distinction between spawning
>offspring and caring for them?  Are you pointing out _apparent_
>absurdities in determining financial responsibility for offspring?
>Your argument here is too rarefied for me to follow.

No, I'm saying that where there can be no paternity the test for paternity
is pointless.  No man can be a father because no man creates a child.
The most a man can do is supply raw material.  He may supply it as an
anonymous sperm donor or he may supply it as a named sperm donor making
a personal delivery, but in neither case is he creating a child, according
to secular logic.  He merely delivers raw materials.  The woman decides
whether or not to use those raw materials.  Once she decides to use them,
*she* manufactures a child.  He is legally forbidden to be part of the
process - he is merely a supplier of raw materials.

>>
>>What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
>>that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to 
>>condemn another culture's practices.  As long as their society finds 
>>it acceptable, how can we western Europeans dare to impose OUR moral
>>inhibitions on a functioning society?

>    If all men, all women, and all children of that society, find it
>acceptable, how dare we indeed?  Our own society has its own set of
>preferred mutilations.  We accept tattoos and circumcisions; we frown
>on pierced noses; we heartily approve of tans, pierced ears, electrolysis,
>and cosmetic surgery.  The specific status of each of the various
>mutilations is arbitrary at best.  He who lives in glass houses...


>>
>>That's what secular reasoning gets you.  Sorry, but I don't see how
>>secular reasoning is superior to religiously based reasoning.
>>
>>You know, this society complains to high heaven about drunk drivers.
>>We say they are suffering from an illness (alcoholism) but we punish
>>them if they dare to be ill in the wrong place.  How many people have
>>gone to jail for having the flu while driving?  What if they vomited
>>and hit someone, whay aren't they jailed for DWI (driving while 
>>influenzaed)?  Then why don't we jail the AIDS infected for condemning other
>>people to death by being ill in the wrong place (while have sex)? 
>>Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
>>by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
>>and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.  So, Evelyn, when
>>are you going to support they jailing of AIDS-infected sexually active
>>individuals?  How about ANYONE with VD?  Follow your thrice-blessed
>>secular logic.   

>    A drunk driver does not (a) inform others that he is drunk, or
>(b) get the consent of all people who might be endangered.  By such
>actions he is acting irresponsibly and should be punished.  A person
>with AIDS might well (a) inform her partners that she has AIDS, and
>(b) get her partners' consent.  This is acting responsible and should
>not be punished.  Whether her partners are wise to consent is moot.

Nor does a vomitous influenzaed person perform either action.  And the 
drunk can be arrested simply for being drunk, even if no harm has been
caused, yet he is simply an ill person on the highway in the same way
someone with influenza might be ill on the highway.  What if the AIDS
person does NOT inform their partner.  According to the CDC, 80% don't.

>>  [...]
>>
>>Steve Kellmeyer
>>-- 
>>
>>Steve Kellmeyer 
>>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu


>    The legal system is based on secular, religious, and, at times,
>_no_ reasoning.  It is inconsistent.  But it should not be laid all
>at the doorstep of secular reasoning.  To be snide, inconsistencies
>only show up under secular reasoning: it is an act of heresy to
>question religious reasoning.

Roger, that's plain wrong.  It is not an act of heresy to question 
religious reasoning.  It is an act of heresy to question truth, just
as much as it is an act of scientific/secular heresy to question
scientific/secular truth.

>Roger Bonzer
>rogerb@agora.rain.com

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13307 alt.politics.clinton:19854