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 (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Response to Laura - what is a religion? (off the topic) Message-ID: <657@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 19:20:11 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.657 Posted: Mon Mar 11 19:20:11 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 10:14:54 EST References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <5135@utzoo.UUCP>, <617@pyuxd.UUCP> <5176@utzoo.UUCP>, <641@pyuxd.UUCP> <5199@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 32 > Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of > it now. Because you say so? Sorry, Laura, I'm talking about religion as defined in the dictionary, meaning a system involving beliefs in "supernatural" or non-physical entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will. If you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with me. I'm not debating the merits or non-merits of such systems (at this time). Can't you please stick to the topic? Go back three or four iterations and witness the numerous points in my earlier articles that have gone unanswered because of this straying from the original topic!!! Your avoidance of the original questions almost made me think that maybe you had converted to ... (No, I won't say it.) > There is one school of thought that says that physics, biology and > chemistry (with astronomy) are the only scientists, and ``computer > scientists'' aren't. Yet I know a lot of computer professionals who > really think that they are doing science. Is the opinion of the > ``physics, biology and chemistry only'' crowd to be taken over the > word of the computer scientists? I suspect not. What we need is > a definiton of science and then we can figure out if computer > scientists are doing it. I've heard it said that any "science" that must include the word "science" in its name (as if to justify it being called a science), such as "computer science" or "creation science", is by it very name NOT a science. Maybe this is one step in producing such a definition. :-? -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr