Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Anthropocentricism Message-ID: <1298@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 12:00:56 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1298 Posted: Tue Jul 23 12:00:56 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:34:37 EDT References: <855@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1226@pyuxd.UUCP> <942@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 102 >>>Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized >>>benefits? [WINGATE] >>Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >>continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? [ROSEN] > I don't think this is a universal principle, Rich; the mere existence of > suicide is sufficient counter-evidence. [WINGATE] People commit suicide when, by delusion or otherwise, they feel there is no hope in their existence. People who commit suicide have a distorted sense of their place in the world, feeling that possibilities for them do not exist. The fact that so many are brought back from the ledge, not with bullshit about "God will send you to hell", but with a realization of what hope there is and what they CAN do in the world (realistically, not extended lies about what they can do or what they mean to a given person), is in fact an affirmation of life and survival as viable goals. > Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals. > It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count. Yes, indeed. Arbitrary criteria like "MY God says you can't do this, and thus this behavior 'hurts' me and should be eradicated" can be eliminated right off the top as candidates. >>>But that's only a problem if you are going to take that section of the >>>Bible in a very literal-minded fashion. Besides, it don't prove A.C.. >>>There is no solid evidence as to why that particular account was written; >>>Rich's claim is mere speculation without some independent evidence of >>>what the author was thinking. >>But so many do just that, take it in a very literal minded fashion, even >>though you may feel more enlightened than they. Either the author was >>"inspired by god", or he/she was speculating on the nature of the creation >>of the universe from a subjective perspective. Since so much of the story >>is clearly false, one can assume that the author wasn't getting the word >>straight from god's mouth, thus the latter is more likely true. > [flames ahead] > Rich, there is no logical connection that gets you from "Some christians > believe this" to "All christians believe this". You are talking to me, not > some fundamentalist. I do not believe in the literal truth of Genesis ch 1. > I do believe that it is inspired, and has some meaning. I do not take > inspired to mean that the author took dictation from God. Inspiration is a > stretchy word, and covers a lot more meaning then that. Note that I said "so many do just that". Did that imply that I was referring to you? Did a strike a nerve or something? > Besides, you simply are not in any position to judge why the words were > written. You are taking anthropocentricism in such a strong sense that by > your definition, anything written down is anthropocentric. Who are you to > say that, because it mentions only humans, a God who sees all the rest of > the universe could not have been the source? You have set up a standard > which no writing could ever possibly meet. YOU have set up that standard yourself by twisting what I said. The point was that the writings of the Bible claim a central point in the universe for humans above all (or most) others. Since we know this not to be true, since we know other things mentioned in those writings are not to be taken literally, can we thus look closely at the possibility that the reason behind statements about "man" as God's light of the world are rooted in anthropocentrism? >>How about the passages in which it is claimed that the earth was created >>before the sun, the moon, and the other planets (let alone the stars). >>That would seem to make the earth the focal point of the universe, would it >>not? I'll point out the specific passages if you like, but clearly we are >>not just talking about little individual passages, we are talking about the >>whole scope of the story! > Rich, on what basis do you make the claim that the Bible should refer to > alien races (or whatever)? I've already stated that I do not take the story > literally (although on a metaphorical level it is quite close to man's > current conception of the creation of the earth). Hanging your entire > argument on that one verse is rather weak, especially when you consider that > the Hebrew really doesn't say "In the beginning, God created the heavens and > the earth" but rather something more like > > "In the beginning when God *was beginning to create* the heavens and the > earth" It's not just one verse, it's the whole order of things listed which forms the basis of creationism! I don't care whether the Bible talks about people, aliens, or unicorns. But if it claims to be the story of the creation of the universe and contradicts the facts, then it can be assumed that an author writing about these things wrote not from fact but from his own view about humanity's place in the spectrum of the universe. Not a horrible thing: we like to think of ourselves as important. But to then attribute to a god that same line of thinking is preposterous. > Finally, I think Rich's argument makes about as much sense as the argument > that God deliberately left out the part about the aliens and about evolution > because he knew Rich Rosen wasn't going to believe it if he did. It's all > unbounded speculation uncontaminated by fact. There are a lot of arguments in this world that you don't think make much sense, I'm sure. If you just choose to ignore evidence in favor of such arguments whilst not providing any counterevidence of your own, let's just call it "your opinion" then. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr