Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
Message-ID: <5348@unc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jun-83 21:44:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5348
Posted: Thu Jun  9 21:44:14 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jun-83 06:21:46 EDT
References: hp-pcd.1114
Lines: 32


                "So if someone wants to give the credit to some
                god, well, why not?  That's as good a description
                as any, and it is an honest and faithful state-
                ment of the experience."

        It is not as good a description as any.  It's a self-
        delusion.  The implication is that religion is a harmless
        thing, but I don't think it is.  People kill other people
        (Moslems & Jews, Christians & Heathens) in the name of
        religion.  It causes Falwells and Ayetollahs (sp?) and
        Crusades.

Is it a self-delusion to say that you have thoughts?  After all,
what is really happening is that neuro-transmitter emission pat-
terns at synaptic receptors in your central nervous system are
changing.  The use of the term "god" does not imply some vast
universe-model in which these odd gaseous humanoids have always
existed and shaped the course of history in unprovable ways.  It
could equally as well be a CNS phenomenon as a pre-existent entity.

Knee-jerk atheism, the sort where the person not only doesn't
want to have religious experience, but is terribly offended when
someone else claims to, is just another brand of dogmatism and
intolerance.  (Of course, not all atheists are this type.)

As to your final point, of course religion is not harmless.  Nei-
ther is love.  Nothing strong is harmless, or ever can be.  Does
that mean we should forego everything excellent, simply because
it has a potential for abuse?

Tim Maroney