Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: a cross-posting request Message-ID: <258@frog.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 21:00:51 EDT Article-I.D.: frog.258 Posted: Tue Aug 6 21:00:51 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 23:07:59 EDT Reply-To: frog!tdh Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA Lines: 79 > From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > Message-ID: <1047@umcp-cs.UUCP> >> I would appreciate avoiding cross-posting to religious >> newgroups from net.philosophy . Insofar as those who have >> succumbed to the idiocy of religion are willing to employ >> the arguments from faith that are the essence of religion, >> the level of activity in this newsgroup will tend to rise >> and the quality of argument will degenerate. Insofar as >> they do not argue from faith, they are not being religious. >> Let those who are interested in philosophy get it other than >> from net.religion . > This is a really silly argument, but I agree with the > conclusion. Let's keep arguments and discussions about > philosophy out of the religion groups, while we're at it > (e.g. the current morality/survival argument). >> Philosophy climbed back out of the religious abyss centuries >> ago. I'd hate to see it shoved back in, here or elsewhere. > It almost doesn't seem necessary to comment that the author of the above is > evidently ignorant of anything that happened in theology since 1549. But I > will anyway. Nothing could have been sillier than the emptiness of Wingate's reply. I wouldn't have bothered further with it, but I am in need of recreation at the moment. His response boils down (ignoring the implicit) to asserting: 1) There was something erroneous in the argument I presented. 2) Something worthy of being considered philosophy has happened within (a practice called, in brazen self-contradiction,) theology. (How about theoalchemy? Theoclairvoyance? Theorabbitfootsies?) Evidently, even! 3) Some unspecified criterion dictates agreement with my main contention. (Holy conclusions, Batman!) My argument, put to cruder form, and with parenthetical explanation, said: 1) Religion is partly idiocy. 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming truth without evidence. I am not concerned with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) 3) Arguments from faith are destructive of net.philosophy . 4) Therefore it is important to exclude religious arguments from net.philosophy . 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in net.philosophy (although some religious people might have an interest). 7) Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting between net.philosophy and net.religion . 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That domination was disastrous. 9) Religion stopped dominating philosophy centuries ago. 10) It is still possible for philosophy to be crushed by the religious boot, if people don't take preventive care. So, Charley, pray tell me specificly what is silly about any of the above. Rosen raises an interesting point: Should philosophy be used to evangelize (sorry!) the religious? Good luck. May the force (or is it mass?) be with you. Benedictus qui exit in nomine domini. "Philosophy of religion" is not an oxymoron. It does not meet the ancient criterion of smartness. David Hudson