Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sjuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!sjuvax!tmoody From: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: a cross-posting request Message-ID: <1245@sjuvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 15:08:59 EDT Article-I.D.: sjuvax.1245 Posted: Mon Aug 12 15:08:59 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 14:47:49 EDT References: <258@frog.UUCP> Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA. Lines: 58 > > 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 . > > 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. [] I'm not Charley, but it seems to me that proposition (5) is wrong, if not silly. It all depends upon what you mean by "religious." If you mean "pertaining to religion," then you are certainly wrong. If you mean "supportive of religion," then you are certainly wrong. Perhaps you mean that there are no valid arguments that support "religious" conclusions that do not depend crucially upon faith. Perhaps. But that is itself a philosophical thesis that pertains to religion. At any rate, if you are claiming that all arguments for, say, the existence of God are based on faith, then you are simply wrong. If, as I suspect, you want to say that all non-fideistic arguments were long ago demonstrated to be invalid, then you should have said that, and not something else. Todd Moody {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody Philosophy Department St. Joseph's U. Philadelphia, PA 19131