Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Definitions
Message-ID: <127@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 11:21:13 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.127
Posted: Tue Mar  5 11:21:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 06:32:24 EST
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 89


>> Okay Rich, this article got here. Here goes. I have tried to tell you
>> in the past that a religion does not imply a belief in God. I am going
>> to try again, but again I think that you are barking up the wrong tree
>> with respect to every mystical tradition I know of. But here goes anyway....
>
> And I've repeatedly stated that the understood definition of the word
> religion implies (as all the definitions in my dictionary do) a "belief
> in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator ...
> of the universe".  Other life-philosophies and/or belief systems (like
> Ubizmatism) get *labelled* as religions, but they are not.  (Just as
> certain disciplines get called sciences when they hardly qualify for
> the term.)  We've been through this before.

Religion
1 The service and worship of God OR THE SUPERNATURAL [emphasis added]
2 A personal set or institutionalized system of religiuos attitudes
  beliefs, and practices [definition of "Religious" included in this
  postiong]

Religious

1 Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledegd
  ULTIMATE REALITY OR deity [emphasis added]

	Webster's New Collegate Dictionary

Note that by this definition you are a verry religious person (no
matter what you say)

Your definitional quibles remind me of the people trying to prove that
blacks are inferior. When a clearly superior black is pointed out they
say "Oh he's not a real black, He clearly has a lot of 'white blood'".
If you realy want to attack religion why don't you define religion to
mean "Belief that the Bible is completely and literaly correct"? It
would make your argment easier.

> But, as I mentioned before, that doesn't qualify as a "religion" by
> the definition put forth.  So I'm not sure what point you were trying
> to make.  If you're saying "See?  A religion said this.", well, it's
> not quite a "religion" by definitional standards---which is not to
> belittle it, it simply doesn't qualify for THAT label, which is
> probably something (from my perspective) to be proud of.  I'm not all
> that familiar with Buddhism, but it's intriguing that it posits what
> I've described above, in contrast to religions.

See what I mean?

>> Bingo. Now we hit the point where I think that both you and the
>> Christians are wrong. You are thinking in your concepts. they are
>> thinking in their concepts. Both of you mistake your concepts for
>> reality *which* *is* *something* *else* *altogether*.
>
> No, Laura, we've missed the point entirely.  I am making statements
> about the nature of reality, and about the nature of one's subjective
> experience of reality, and how one's perceptions based on that
> subjectivity are subject to error.

Laura is exactly correct. You are making statements about YOUR CONCEPT
OF the nature of reality. How can you make satements about the nature
of reality? (If you are actualy omnicient ignore this posting:-)

> The only "concept" I am putting
> forth here is the erroneousness of assuming subjective experience as
> equivalent to reality.  It is by its very nature MORE tainted than
> efforts towards objective experience.

You have "shown" by rational argument that subjective experience is
unreliable. It is also possible to prove by subjective experience that
rational argument is unreliable. How can you KNOW that one is more
"tainted" than the other without some (nessicarily subjective)
information about the "very nature" of things.

> My "concepts" don't adequately "describe" reality, because 1) any set
> of concepts described in words in inadequate to describe reality
> completely, and 2) the observational tools don't exist to make such a
> complete description.  My warnings about the unreliability of the basis
> of certain "concepts" are not a description of reality, but rather a
> set of precepts for determining (at least in part) what is a viable
> means of determining "reality".

Ok, fine. But why should anyone be interested in your "precepts" if
they don't describe reality? This is a case of the common misconception
that a "Meta axiom" (a rule of inference) is in some since "better"
than an "ordinary" axiom and requires less justification. Don't try to
prove your beliefs you are wasting your time. (as I am wasting mine :-)

				Ralph Hartley
				rlh@cvl