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