In a message dated March 13, 1998, AirwaveBoy writes:

Thanks, AirwaveBoy, for the correction! All I have to say is that either I'm living in the wrong place, or AirwaveBoy is, because the weathermen here don't seem to get it sometimes. San Francisco is noted for its 'microclimates': every few blocks there's a whole different weather pattern going on, and you dare not leave home without a heavy raincoat… or a pair of shorts and a tank top… on the same afternoon. It will be warm out when you walk into a store, and then freezing when you come back out 15 minutes later. It's got to be one of the meteorologist's biggest challenges to forecast weather in the Bay Area.

So, AirwaveBoy, get your degree and come help these guys get it right! Besides, I bet you'll like the City by the Bay just as much as Lincoln… even when there's lousy weather like we've been having for the last few months (February is usually gorgeous here!), it's still a beautiful place to live.

As for your point about 'science… has outdone religion by such a devastating margin…" I must concede on the side of science on that one as well. Touché!

I'm glad someone's at least reading some of my stuff!

I think AirwaveBoy got it right on the button here, too. And like him, I would readily cite the Christian's own doctrine, which - as AirwaveBoy points out - indeed forbids man to 'have other gods before [God]' (Exodus 20:3). Again, this is the doctrine as the Bible puts it forth. This commandment is endorsed by Jesus (Matthew 19:19; 22:37). The Book of Acts cites several examples - if I remember correctly - where Paul, a model Christian - encounters competing religions. I remember particularly the account of Paul's work in regard to the Temple of Diana at Ephesus (one of the original Seven Wonders of the World, I believe, incidentally), where the citizens of Ephesus were concerned for their craft (making idols in the image of Diana - a rival god, er, goddess). Chapter 19 of the Book of Acts should make it quite clear that Christian doctrine is opposed to other religions.

By the term the Christian, I merely wish to illustrate the example of what a model Christian's position/approach would be, according to the basic Christian doctrines. I certainly meant no offense to anyone in particular, as I addressed this to no individual in particular. It is a stereotype, for sure, and, for the purposes of the points I would like to make (as in the Christian as opposed to the atheist), I think it is well warranted and justified.

As for DavidTietz's personal beliefs, I do not know what they are any more than what I have gathered from his posts. I defend his right, and anyone else's right, to hold whatever he believes as truth, no matter what they are, and no matter how atypical or unique. However, the fact that you do not fit the stereotype of the model Christian (I really don't expect anyone is really a stereotype in the first place) is irrelevant to the points I am making.

I do not see this as a 'you' versus 'me' type of affair anyway, merely a debate between ideas. I hope we all (including myself) can stick to this ideal paradigm. I do not mean to criticize the argue of a point when I criticize his arguments, just as I would hope be the case for any of you.

Well stated. Reason testifies on its own behalf far better than some of its chief advocates. However, DavidTietz does have a point here, even if he does not realize it, and I must give him credit. I have indicated in my mailer titled "The Real Nazism" (March 6, 1998) the basic scheme of philosophy. The various disciplines and doctrines of a philosophy are divided into major philosophical provinces, or branches. Those branches are:

These are the five major branches which every philosophy will inform explicitly, by specific doctrines, or implicitly, by inferences or consequences of related doctrines. (Of course, this is a very general description, and I hope it generates questions.)

The point that DavidTietz brings to light is basically that morality is not a primary (I don't know if he intended to make this point). Morality is based on both metaphysics and epistemology. The metaphysical basis of the morality of rational self-interest is the metaphysics of objective reality (as opposed to some form of subjectivism).

The epistemology that serves as a foundation for the morality of rational self-interest, just as objective metaphysics serves as the basis of epistemology, is the epistemology of Reason. This system of philosophy is an explicitly integrated philosophy, the only one fit for man, for it is the only one geared to his nature (metaphysics) as a rational being (epistemology) who faces the problem of survival (morality), who has the ability to cooperate with others (politics) and project his greatest, most selfish metaphysical value-judgments in concrete form (aesthetics).

I have touched on some of the major points of objective metaphysics and rational epistemology - in their relation to the morality of rational self-interest in the e-mail I titled "The Morality of Rational Self-Interest" of March 11, 1998, but by no means thoroughly. For this, I would direct the reader to a fine book which deals with these very topics in great, readable detail. That book is: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. I would also recommend any book by Ayn Rand, both her novels (The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged which illustrate her philosophy by her own example) and her expository philosophical works [which incidentally I prefer over her novels].

Basically,if I can take the liberty to interpret his statements, what I think DavidTietz is saying, is: If I don't accept the epistemology of reason, then I can't very well accept the morality of rational self-interest. He is correct on this point (if that is his point). Rational self interest is based exclusively on the foundation of rational epistemology (as opposed to some other form of epistemology). Without first acknowledging the primacy of epistemology in relation to morality, one will not be able to grasp the concepts and principles of rational self-interest. They are reality-driven, and therefore reason-driven.

The fullness of this discipline is far too vast for me to develop fully in these e-mail debates. However, I would like to emphasize the fact that in addition to my objections to god-beliefs and religious philosophy in general, I do offer an alternative, integrated and comprehensive view of life in return. It's well and good to dismiss god-beliefs (I'm all for that, to be sure), but even more important than what one does not accept about religion is what one does accept as truth, and why. The consequences of philosophy in the life of every individual are far too grave to take them for granted, or leave unexamined.

All I know, in the case with cheese whiz (and other items found in the same supermarket aisle), is that I cannot pronounce most of the words on the ingredients label - and I have a degree in Russian, a language with some very complicated consonantal combinations! In the case of the list of ingredients of cheese whiz, I'm lost with words of twelve or more syllables.

I know I tend to be longwinded, but I'm glad that at least some of you are reading my stuff.

May we all get what we deserve,

Tindrbox

_________________________________