Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax:cmh
From: CSvax:cmh@pur-ee.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Religious Intolerance
Message-ID: <564@purdue.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Aug-83 22:10:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: purdue.564
Posted: Sun Aug 14 22:10:35 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Aug-83 04:25:38 EDT
References: <296@ihuxb.UUCP> ulysses.542
Lines: 33

There is a different view of the commodity exchanged on this network,
so let me change the heading here from "Religious Intolerance" to
"Exchange of opinions":
 
If a debate on a subject is carried out between X and Y, with X
starting with the assumption that his cherished book B(X) is literally
true, and Y assuming that such is impossible, then X "proving" his
views by quotes will not convince Y, and Y's view that B(X) is rubbish
will not convince X.  So they will argue forever along the same pattern
and never get anywhere.

There is the prevalent view that a book such as the bible is literally
true.  This is funny, because every preacher spends a good deal of his
activities interpreting the book.  Funnier yet is that people trying
to shoot down the literalists are literalists themselves and cannot
see beyond the surface.  The examples abound on this network, but if
I were to name some now we would get sidetracked by the reactions of
the parties singled out.  Nobody seems to consider that there is a
psychological use to religion which remains effective to some degree.

If net.religion is too close to home, you might like to look at
net.philosophy for examples how unproductive an exchange of opinion
can be when both parties cannot agree on the definition of terms.
In contrast, net.space has a commonly agreed topic and unfailingly
produces information.

In the interest of everyone who reads this stuff not for mental spar
and parry but for obtaining information, I should like to raise the
question of why all of you good people argue about here?  Do we want
to learn something?  Do we want to convince others that we are right?
Do we want to become toast-masters doing mental gymnastics?

Chris Hoffmann