From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:29:51 GMT

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. 

>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.  

>						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.

>						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.

>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.

>	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.

>>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. :-)

>>> [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'.

>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.  


>			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.

Hitler convinced millions that they were the chosen master race, a
very similar idea can be found in many religions. (The "Saved", etc.)

What were you trying to say in that sentence?  Some how God chose to
Smite those leaders down?  How come He missed Hussein, then?

-Howard

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper?
He sold his soul to Santa.				-Herb Caen
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality