From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:02:56 GMT
Organization: UNC Charlotte

IN RE: Evaluation of Andrew Jackson's presidency.
 
Given that I have Cherokee blood--not much, but it is there--A.J. is not
my most beloved President.
In article <C0B5vL.14I@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
 
>
>howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>
>>In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>>>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>>>>live their life without persecution.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>>>>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>>>>largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
>>>>an oxymoron.
>>>
>>>Not everyone gives a damn about secularism either, but it appears to
>
>>Define secularism.  If you mean Secular Humanism, I'd agree.  If you
>>mean 'all secular activities' as it appears, I'd like to see someone
>>take a fourth derivative or find the roots of equations by religious
>>means.
>
>Point taken.  Secular reasoning, in the context I discuss it, refers
>to reasoning which is about social issues and which specifically ignores
>any religious references.
>
>>>be forced on the great majority of the population whether they will it
>>>or no.  Furthermore, anyone who has spent any amount of time studying
>>>the history of science would find your last statement to be absolutely
>>>absurd.  The entire concept of a university was founded around advancing
>>>theological study.  Indeed, the term "professor" began as a reference to
>>>one who was a "professor of the faith" and who studied it regularly.
>>>
>
>>It was a bad quip, but not absurd.  Maybe I should've said 'modern
>>religious reasoning', for as you point out, a lot of learning was
>>preserved under the auspices of the church.
>
>>>Historians agree that western science was defined and structured by
>>>Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes.
>
>>Actually, the foundation of modern mathematics came from the Greeks
>>and the Arabs.
>
>True.  The Arabs preserved nearly everything we know about Greek
>learning in the somewhat mis-named "Dark Ages".
>
>>>                                              Without Christianity, western
>>>science, as such, would simply not exist.
>
>>A lot would have been lost during the Dark Ages, I agree.  However,
>>almost all modern advances have been due to secular thought.  By
>>modern I mean after 1650 or so, after the reformation.  That basically
>>was the start of the decline of the church's influence.
>
>Ummmm, yes and no.  Certainly the church's influence declined after the
>Reformation, but even as late as the mid-1800's, a natural philosopher
>was seen as doing "hands-on" theological work, i.e. he was discovering
>the nature of God's universe.  Darwin very nearly became a preacher - he
>went on the Beagle voyage with the intent of joining the seminary on
>his return.  Gregor Mendel was a Benedictine monk, and the monastery
>where he worked was *the* center of scientific study in Central Europe.
>
>It was only after the publication of Darwin's work, combined with Marx's
>"Das Kapital" that society began differentiating scientific knowledge
>from religious knowledge.  Before the 1850, there was arguably no
>difference between the two in terms of cultural perceptions.
>
>>>                                              It is only in the last
>>>100 years that science has developed this peculiar aversion to
>>religion.
>
>>Bzzt.  Go to a library and look up the 'Age of Reason'.  Hint: 16th
>>and 17th century.  Well before 1776.
>
>Again, the rise of the 'Age of Reason' was and wasn't effective in
>differentiating scientific knowledge from religious knowledge.
>Certainly some individuals made this distinction (e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau)
>but it also was certainly not a distinction that was necessarily
>general.  It was arguably only after the French revolution, and the
>destruction of the French Roman Catholic church which that revolution
>attempted, that secularism as such could be said to exist.  Even then,
>this "secularism" was at least Deist in nature.  The creation of true
>atheism is a *very* late construct.
>
>>>Certainly, one can point to instances in which religious authority
>>>fought certain concepts and ideas that later turned out to be correct.
>>>However, they performed no better or worse than did (or does) the established
>>>scientific community today in terms of accepting radically new, correct,
>>>ideas.
>
>>Galileo would have loved to hear that.
>>The scientific community has embraced more change in the last
>>300 years (since it became largely secularized) than in the previous
>>1700.  Please justify your comment.
>
>Depends on how you define change.  Thomas Kuhn would argue that
>while we have seen a great many more discoveries made in the last 100
>years than in the previous 2000, these discoveries were only "puzzle-piece
>fitting" i.e. there was no massive shift in the grand conception of
>how the universe works.  Kuhn and others  would argue that there have
>been only two major perceptual shifts in the physical sciences:
>the transition from a Ptolemaic to a Copernican view of the solar system
>and the transition from Newtonian to quantum dynamics physics.
>
>Considering the persecutions scientists have visited upon one another
>(e.g. Newton against damn near anyone he disagreed with) and the
>number of times scientists' biographies end with "he died penniless
>and in disrepute among his peers" (Cantor, I believe, committed suicide
>due to the pressures of his peers' ridicule and Lister died in a
> poorhouse) you can hardly assert that the Church was unusual in its
>treatment of those with dissonent views of the universe's structure.
>
>>>      To say that religous reasoning is an oxymoron, or that secular
>>>reasoning is somehow superior, is to profess an ignorance so profound that
>>>it boggles the mind.
>>>
>
>>I disagree about modern religious reasoning.  See my above comment.
>
>I don't know which religions you are talking about.  In terms of the
>Roman Catholic church, I think you'll find them remarkably accomodating
>to both the spirit and the facts of scientific study.  They simply
>believe that both the inquiry and the facts derived should be understood
>within the context of a God-centered universe.  According to the alleged
>spirit of scientific inquiry, no scientist should have any quarrel with
>such contextualizations, since scientists are ostensibly only concerned
>with the mining the facts from the storehouse of the universe, and are
>unconcerned with wider implications.
>
>>>>Andrew Jackson had a lot to say about avoiding religious arguments
>>>>pertaining to legislation.
>>>
>>>What makes Andy an authority?
>>>
>
>>Jeez, I know you guys don't like democrats, but I would think that the
>>President whose motto was 'Less Govt. is Good Govt.' or something
>>similar should at least be credible to you. :-)
>
>I've always been a little equivocal on Andy.  I still haven't decided
>if I like his presidency or not.
>
>>>>> [loads of opinionated attacks on secular reasoning deleted]
>>>
>>>>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>>>>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>>>>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
>>>>at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.
>>>
>>>>-Howard
>>>
>>>
>>>Certainly, many deaths have been done in the name of religion.  I will
>>>merely point out that more people have died in "secular" wars than in
>>>any combination of religious wars you care to name.
>
>>Thanks for conceding my point.  I wasn't trying to start a death toll
>>contest;  I was pointing out that religions didn't have that clean of
>>a slate either.  Not by a long shot.  And alost all wars in modern
>>history have had religious justifications on both sides. Like Napoleon
>>said, 'God is always on the side with the biggest guns'.
>
>Napolean was hardly a churchman :)  I tend to think that people will kill
>each other no matter what, and they'll use whatever is the most
>convenient acceptable cultural reason to do so.  In an age in which
>atheism was literally unthinkable, all action was justified through
>religion.  Now that atheism is thinkable, action tends to be justified
>via economics, or biology or some other damn fool thing.  Whatever the
>genocidal maniac thinks will sell to the masses.
>
>>>I would furthermore argue that this violence is much harder to justify
>>>and continue using Christianity as the foundation than it is using
>>>secular reasoning.
>
>>Really?  Define Secular Reasoning.  If you mean "all non-religious
>>philosophy", then you are totally wrong.  Read Peter Singer or other
>>modern utilitarian philosophers if you don't believe me.
>
>>Note that they don't exclude religion, but rather provide an ethical
>>framework where a religious crutch isn't necessary.
>
>I'm not a huge fan of utilitarianism.  Seems like another crutch to me.
>
>>>                      Genocide is much simpler to reason away to your
>>>fellow man than it is to the unwinking eye of God, as Hitler, Stalin,
>>>Hussein, and Pol Pot have already shown.
>
>>Actually, Hussein is alive and well.  Probably happy as a pig in shit.
>>It's only those he religiously duped into following him who have
>>suffered.  He is far from a Secular leader in any sense of the word.
>
>That's very definitional. Certainly he paints himself as a follower of
>Mohammed - hard to get troops in that part of the world otherwise - but
>does he honest-to-Allah believe?  I would bet no money on that.
>From the people's point of view, he may not be secular - from his....
>that's another story.
>
>>Hitler convinced millions that they were the chosen master race, a
>>very similar idea can be found in many religions. (The "Saved", etc.)
>
>Or Darwin.  The very idea of a biologically superior race is purely
>secular.  One of the problems with secularism is that it damns so
>thoroughly.  One can convert and become saved, but how does one dispose
>of a genetic inferiority?  You might argue that the savages Columbus
>found were thought to be inferior by many.  I would point out that the
>Church did not agree.  Furthermore, the argument was whether they were
>animals or men whereas Hitler et.al. admitted the humanity, but claimed
>it was inferior.
>
>>What were you trying to say in that sentence?  Some how God chose to
>>Smite those leaders down?  How come He missed Hussein, then?
>
>Not at all.  I was pointing out that genocidal maniacs today don't
>justify their slaughters to themselves by arguing that they are doing
>God's work.  I seriously doubt that Hussein believes he is doing
>Allah's work by wiping out the Kurds or invading Kuwait.  Certainly
>Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and our Chinese friends don't (didn't)
>justify their actions that way.  IN these terms, secularism has provided
>not only the ideology (utilitarianism and self-interest) but the
>techniques (de-contextualized scientific mass-slaughter methods)
>which permit the horrors we see today.
>
>>-Howard
>
>>--
>>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>Howard Berkey                                             howard@netcom.com
>>Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper?
>>He sold his soul to Santa.                             -Herb Caen
>>... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
>
>Steve Kellmeyer
>--
>
>Steve Kellmeyer
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality