Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.consciousness,alt.religion.christian,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!spcuna!news.columbia.edu!news.cs.columbia.edu!news.nyc.pipeline.com!psinntp!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: religion
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <D7EsAE.5q3@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <3mqq8c$5t6@mark.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:37:26 GMT
Lines: 141


}==========Phillip Geiger, 4/16/95==========
}Dave Weldon wrote:
}:				   Please note that the 
}20th century is
}: sometimes called the age of science, yet more people have 
}been murdered by
}
}Hmm, the age of science sounds a lot more appealing than the 
}dark ages.  If 
}I recall my history lessons correctly, religious superstition, as 
}opposed 
}to scientific questioning, characterized European culture during 
}that period.

Not to mention disease, pestulence, and short life expectancies.  But, at
least people didn't kill each other like they do now--maybe it stemmed from a
greater respect for life or maybe from a more primitive technology.  But then
more Americans died in our Civil War that have died in all the wars since
then.
}
}: individuals and goverments in this century than the total of all 
}people
}: murdered prior to the 20th century.
}
}It stands to reason that if more people are getting murdered, then 
}more 
}and more of the murderers are religiously motivated nuts.  

The really serious killers of the 20th Century were Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot,
Mao, and the rest of the communist materialists who happened to control a
country.

}Unfortunately, I 
}don't have statistics, but my guess is that the ever-increasing 
}population had as much to do with your observation as weapons 
}advancements.

Right!!!  Tell that to the 20 million Russians, 6 million Jews, 10 million
Cambodians, and the uncountable number of Chinese who were "re-educated" by
Mao.
}
}Overpopulation and poverty are the real problems here.  Funny 
}how 
}religious groups (Christianity and Islam in particular) promote the 
}breed-like-rabbits mentality and call it "respect and love for life."

You're absolutely right!  You don't have any statistics.  In U.N. studies of
65 countries, there was no relation between wealth and birth-rate.  In fact,
the single relation that emerged was that in times of famine or chronic
hunger, the birth rate drops dramatically.  It even happened in the US.  We
had the lowest birth rate ever during the depression and shortly thereafter
(1930-1943).  In fact, it was so low US economists and sociologists were
predicting disaster--until the baby boom started after the second world war
which, of course, was a time of great prosperity.
}
}Science may have made AK-47s and nuclear aircraft carriers 
}possible, but 
}you can't ignore the role religion has played in promoting their 
}*use*.
}Hitler played the Christians against the Jews;
No, Hitler gassed Christians as well.  Hitler was a National Socialist--As big
a materialist as Stalin.  Ever hear of Dedric Bonhoffer.
} Saddam led his 
}devout 
}nation against the Kuwaitis Kurds, and Jews; Operation Rescue 
}whackos 
}shoot abortion doctors; Christians went on crusades.  Some of 
}these 
}happened in the 20th century, when guns were around.  What's 
}your point?
}
See next sentence.
}
}: Evil people have always existed.  What Science has done, in 
}addition to the
}: "good" things, is magnifed a thousand-fold their ability to do 
}evil.
}
}And your point is?  Surely you're not saying we'd be better off 
}without 
}science and the advancements it has brought?
}
Absolutely not.  I am, by nature, a sceptic.  And I find myself reacting to
any dogmatic statement that asserts, without proof and usually from ignorance,
that their position or world view is somehow purer and more noble than
another's.
}
}If you aren't willing to accept and deal with the potential abuse of 
}knowledge, set an example and refuse to reap its benefits.  Don't 
}get 
}immunized, don't eat commercially grown/transported/sold food, 
}wear 
}animal skins, and go live in the woods.  And quit posting to 
}Usenet :).
}
}If you are merely noting that knowledge *can* be abused, I 
}agree...
}
On the contrary, I rejoice in the benefits of science and knowledge.  And I
defend the right of anyone to pursue scientific enquiry.  However, I do not
reason that because there are great benefits from technology that technology
is intrinsically good.  Technology is simply neutral.  People are good or
bad.

}....however, you are a fool if you believe science has done more 
}harm than 
}good.
}
}The 20th century has seen tremendous improvements in human 
}rights, life 
}expectancy, and quality of life.  Looks like these terrible, secular 
}modern governments have done more to improve quality of life in 
}50 years 
}than your religious ancestors did in 19+ centuries.
}
Which terrible, secular, modern governments are you speaking of?  The USSR,
People's Republic of China, the Khmer Rouge, Hitler's Germany?
}
}So tell me, why is science bad?  What can religious people do 
}that 
}non-theists can't?  Why do we *need* religion?  (And don't even 
}begin to 
}suggest that one must be Christian to be moral.)
}
Science is not bad.
How do you judge the worth of a human being?  Humans live to be 70-80 years
old, more or less.  The state exists for a much longer time.  When it comes to
a contest between a citizen and his/her goverment, how do you counter the
argument that the rights of the state take precedence over the rights of the
citizen since the state represents the many and has an obligation to preserve
itself at the expense of the citizen?  How do you claim that you are
intrinsically entitled to things like life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness?  I'm not asking these as rhetorical questions, I really want to
know how you can justify democracy or individual rights without first
asserting the special intrinsic worth of the individual over the state.
}
}Phil
}pggeiger@ucdavis.edu
}

