Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand From: jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: a cross-posting request Message-ID: <1063@ihlpg.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 03:16:50 EDT Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1063 Posted: Mon Aug 12 03:16:50 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 08:24:09 EDT References: <258@frog.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 82 > >> 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. [DAVID HUDSON] > > > 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). [CHARLEY WINGATE] > > 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. > ... > My argument, put to cruder form, and with parenthetical > explanation, said: > > 1) Religion is partly idiocy. Assertion. > 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".) By your definition, then, Christianity is not a religion. (I'm using Christianity for the sake of sticking to what I know.) Evidence for my assertion internal to the system: in I Corinthians, Paul talks about the resurrection of Jesus, because some people were going into the church and claiming that there was no resurrection of the dead, and not even Jesus rose from the dead. Paul didn't say, believe because I said so. He didn't say, it's written on the sky, and if you can't read it, it's because you don't have enough of this mythical 'faith'. He gave what, in your definition, is a completely NON-religious answer: "There are nearly 500 living witnesses to the public death and equally public post-resurrection appearances of Jesus; go and ask *them* what *they* saw!" > 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. Invalid, for reasons given above. > 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in > net.philosophy (although some religious people > might have an interest). Here I disagree, with yet another reason. I see philosophy and religion as having much the same goals--explanations of the "big questions" of life--why are we here? who are we? what is the meaning of all this? I see their effects as being similar as well--they develop in the person who holds them, a particular worldview, the philosophic base that they filter their perceptions through. So why do we have a difference at all? I dunno. net.philosophy has pretensions of intellectuality? :-) I think it's good to try to keep the cross-posting down, if only for reasons of net-neatness. I'm not sure that we will ever completely succeed. Look at this post. ;-] > 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That > domination was disastrous. Also assertion. (Or do I mean opinion?) > So, Charley, pray tell me specificly what is silly about any > of the above. Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in, then. ;-} AMBAR {ANYTHING|ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand}<--only until Aug. 16 In the old days, only poet, prophets, and mystics heard voices in the air.......now everybody's got a Walkman!