From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:33:59 EST 1992
Article 4150 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Determinism precludes truth?
References: <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb24.223140.28623@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb27.231536.14857@ida.liu.se>
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.004605.10151@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 92 00:46:05 GMT
Keywords: TRUTH truth
Lines: 84

In article <1992Feb27.231536.14857@ida.liu.se> c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:
>onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se> c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:
>
>>>[Omitted: Mr. Onstott's lengthy and somewhat incoherent irrationalist credo 
>>> defending religion and Milan Kundera(!), denouncing soullessness of science]
>>  Not denoucing science, but yes, defending religion and Milan Kundera(!)
>
>>>
>>>You are of course entitled to your opinions; however, this group is rather
>>>more inclined toward rational discussion (with the occasional vehement
>>>insult). I prefer rationalism (the critical variety) as it attempts to
>>>resolve questions by discussion and criticism; religion and other 
>>>irrationalist pastimes have no other ultimate recourse than violence,
>>>as history shows. Have you read Popper?
>
>>  This is not a necessarily true statement.  The more correct statement
>>is to say that when religion is attempted from a rationlist point of view
>>camps are formed(schools, dogmatics, doctrines, whatever) and these are the
>>creaters of wars using the tools created by the scientists using those rational
>>methods.  Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy!  The truth is hidden; I am tring to
>>reveal it.
>
>Come now! War is not part of the rationalist method. It is fundamentally
>the irrationalist recourse. When true rationalists disagree, they argue,
>trying to convince one another. When true religionists disagree, they
>hurl anathema at one another.
   Yeah, that anathema sometimes takes the form of bombs: after all,
aren't political ideologies sufficent for being considered a product
of rationalists?

>
>>>Although I surmise (being atheist, and (being young) a firm adherent of
>>>the ideals of the Enlightenment) that religion may induce noble sentiments;
>>>still, as a "method" for discerning truth, it is woefully lacking, and
>>>encourages unsound methods (I surely need not name them?).
>
>>  Since when has rationalism not encouraged unsound methods?  (I surely need
>>not name them either.)
>
>Yes, you do. How many people have been burned at the stake as a part
>of rationalist debate?
  Ok, how many people were killed at heroshima and nagasaki as a result
of the rational decision that "This will save more lives."  How about
WWI, WWII, any war the US has been involved in, how about the decision
that Indians had no rights because they had been "conquered" or that
they were barbaric.  Think of that famous statement "It would be
a very strange thing if these barabarians had a unified political system
while we(superior) eurpoeans do not."(Paraphrased)  MMM.. What were you   
saying about rationality?  Look, the point isn't that religion doesn't
create wars--the point is that rationality is just as well known for it.
DO you need more examples? I should hope not.  NOt to mention our 
"rational" political ideologies left two entire nations absolutely
petrified with each other(of course I am referring to the no longer
existing U.S.S.R and the U.S)--so much so that they built wonderful
weapons with "rational" methods to "rationally" wipe out the planet.

Time for a piece of wisdom and truth:

"How can you say to your brother, 'let me take the speck out of your
eye,' when there is a log in your own eye?"(mt 7:4)

Further, religion, just like rational methods, continues to reinterpret
itself, to gain better understandings, to find out why wars were started
or women were treated like dirt.  It is in continual self analysis 
trying to correct itself as it goes.  You must know this, or you
just saw the bad things about religions and were to afraid to go on.
But, how did you go on in the rational methods?

BCNya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu



"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


