Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: a cross-posting request Message-ID: <1097@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 23:15:54 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1097 Posted: Sun Aug 4 23:15:54 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 02:20:26 EDT References: <1047@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1385@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 40 In article <1385@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> 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). >> [WINGATE] >Why? The morality/survival is PARAMOUNT to the issue of religion in >society today, since we live in a time in which religious impositional >morality is perhaps one of three or four of the most dangerous things facing >our world today. Keep it where it should indeed be discussed, especially >with those on the religious side who see such morality as no problem. But we are talking about morality in a way which precisely EXCLUDES talking about religion (unless Rich is finally going to break down and admit that his beliefs constitute a religion :-) . And besides, discussions of morality in general are not discussions of religion, whether or not morality is important to religion. >>>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. >When? Oh, was that the comment? Adds new meaning to the word >"content-free", Charley. Can you say "assertion"? :-) Well, I could point out for starters that the whole consciousness of existentialism originated within Christianity. Theology and philosophy have been in dialogue continuously. RIch apparently thinks that all you have to know about philosophy is logical positivism. Apparently the editors of the _Journal of Metaphysics_ don't think so, since their March issue had a lengthy article concerning God and the possible modes of theology. I say apparently because I can't figure out just exactly what name Rich is calling me here. Charley Wingate