From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:25:11 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:

>>>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
>be forced on the great majority of the population whether they will it
>or no.  

Reality has this way of intruding on even the minds of the religious, doesn't
it?

>Furthermore, anyone who has spent any amount of time studying
>the history of science would find your last statement to be absolutely
>absurd.  

I think you need to brush up on your history yourself.

>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.

Indeed!  Then what would you call the philosophical schools of Athens?
You remember, Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum?

Of course, when the dark ages (when christianity achieved it's most severe
reign over Europe) science and serious scientific and other learning 
essentially vanished from the scene.  At the time professing the faith was
the only thing the church would allow any intellectual to do.

>Historians agree that western science was defined and structured by
>Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes.  Without Christianity, western
>science, as such, would simply not exist.  

Gee, and all the while I thought it was Aristotle who died long before Jesus 
was born who got the ball rolling.  Perhaps you have heard of him?

Perhaps you would like to explain the high-minded pro-scientific treatment of
Galileo by the church?

Just what "Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes" do you claim are at
the foundation of science?  On the subject of knowledge, Christianity teaches
that religious authority is the means to knowledge rather than reason.  Don't
you think that this conflicts with the scientific method as a means to 
knowledge?  (Note, I am not (right now) asserting that there are or are not
different conclusions reached by these methods, but rather, that the methods
are not the same, or even similar.)

>It is only in the last
>100 years that science has developed this peculiar aversion to religion.

Science or scientists?  Up until the last hundred years or so, it was 
considered socially unacceptable to be an atheist.  Science has ALWAYS
been anti-religious in it's method, that has never changed.  What has changed 
is that social norms have allowed scientists to do science without the
guise of religion (without being threatened with being burned at the 
stake or tortured by the loving church).

>Certainly, one can point to instances in which religious authority 
>fought certain concepts and ideas that later turned out to be correct.

Gee, could that be because the religious method isn't scientific?

>However, they performed no better or worse than did (or does) the established
>scientific community today in terms of accepting radically new, correct,
>ideas.  

I can't think of any instances of scientific inquisitions, can you?

>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.

That's is quite an incredible statement.  Do you really think that observation
and reason are the same as or compatible with faith in tradition and
supposed revelation?  Just what is so ignorant about claiming that 
reason based on evidence superior to faith without proof?  Please enlighten
us all!  

>>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'.

>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.  

So, how many deaths were caused by the 1000 years of ignorance brought
about by the dominance of christianity on western thought during the
dark ages?

Perhaps you are refering to the supposedly "secular" deaths of WWII?
Are you aware of the nature of the Nazi and Imperial Japanese justifications
of their actions?  Are you really going to call them anything other than 
religious?

>If you wish to 
>compare infinities of violence, "secularity" will not come out the better.

Actually, I think the important distinction is not between religion and 
all secular beliefs lumped together, but rather, between reason and 
irrationality.  On that score, religion takes it's rightful place along
side of the various other ideologies similar to it, and that category
can share the blame of ALL of those wars and deaths.

>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.  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.

Hmmmm.  Do you think Hitler was not religious in his justifications?
Why lump those of us who believe in REASON with those irrational evil people
simply on the grounds that they are non-christian?

If you want to attack reason, you can't do it by blaming reason for the 
faults of irrationalism.

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality