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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Anthropocentricism Message-ID: <1419@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 18:53:32 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1419 Posted: Sat Aug 3 18:53:32 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 10:14:59 EDT References: <855@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1226@pyuxd.UUCP> <942@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1298@pyuxd.UUCP> <592@psivax.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 91 >>>>>Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized >>>>>benefits? [WINGATE] > >>>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. [ROSEN] > This does not answer his question. [FRIESEN] He didn't ASK a question. He made a statement. I merely proposed some of those principles he was speaking of. The answer to his question in '>>>>>' was contained in my response that would have been labelled '>>>>' had it been included here for examination. > What was asked is: > When survival or maximal freedom of two people are in direct conflict > how do *you* decide who's survival or freedom to honor? What > principles do you propose for resolving conflicts generated by your > primary principles? As I said, the principles I suggested are at least a start in the direction mentioned. The question originally asked had nothing to do with such conflicts, it merely asked why we valued survival. And I answered that. Why don't you give some specific, even hypothetical examples and we'll see what principles we can come up with. Nothing can be said in the absence of such specifics. Except, as I suggested, the ignoring of arbitrary whim as a means of doing such deciding. >>> 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? > Again, since it is written *for* humans, it quite naturally > concentrates on them! Physics texts are written FOR humans, yet they would seem to offer a much more objective and certainly less anthropocentric view of things. > It does *not* actually claim any ultimately central position for humanity. I humbly suggest that you haven't read Genesis too recently. > Also, if the Bible is read as talking > about *spritual* matters then trying to read it *literally* becomes > *invalid* and any arguments based on the "falsity" of such a "literal" > interpretation are also invalid. Fine, tell that to those who would use its "literal" interpretation to justify impositional morality. Furthermore, it seems that some people have very different dividing lines between what's "spiritual" and what's "literal". >>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. > Again, you seem to miss the point, if you do not *expect* > literalism then violations of "literal" "truth" are *irrelevent*. > How about looking at the creation story as an *allegory* about the > relationship btween God and the Universe! In order to make his point > the (human) author took the then current story of the origin of the > world(the Babylonian creation myth) and shifted its emphasis to the > single God of his faith, rather than the original pantheon. Now what > you see is a story emphasizing God's *responsibility* for the state of > the Universe that really has nothing to say about *how* He shaped it. First, thank you for pointing out that the authorship of the Bible is clearly in the hands of a wishful thinker who took existing myths to fit them to hie new world view about HIS god. Second, see above (regarding those who do take it literally and those who use it to justify impositional morality). -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr