Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!liz From: liz@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Open Letter to John Crane Message-ID: <4495@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Dec-83 02:53:48 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4495 Posted: Tue Dec 20 02:53:48 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Dec-83 02:30:10 EST References: <269@bunkerb.UUCP> <6433@unc.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 123 [Jumping in -- hoping, maybe, to shed light rather than heat...] Obviously Gary Samulson and Tim Maroney don't agree... They can't even agree on what religion is. This is evidenced in Tim's paragraph: Also, the reason that I feel proof is not particularly relevant to religion is not because it is a "personal thing", but because religion serves to put forth models, not assertions. Obviously, some religions do not hold to this principle, but that is off the point. Now to me (and I think Gary as well), religion is not just a model or set of principles to live by. A model is included, but along with it there are assertions -- in Christianity there are quite a few assertions made in the Bible about the state of the world, about man and about God. This is an important part of Christianity because it teaches that you cannot make yourself right (Gal 2:21ff), but that you need to believe in Jesus agreeing with him that you are not right already (I John 1:9) and responding to his love by following what he teaches. So, a belief in Jesus as a living being is central to Christianity, and proofs or disproofs are relevant as to whether or not he exists (or existed) and whether or not he rose from the dead. Now, Tim does not seem to need anything other than a model according to which he will try to live his life (at least as far his religious beliefs go -- correct me if I'm wrong). The only thing you can ask Tim is if his model is consistent with the world and if his model works. The first is minimal in that you really want to know is whether it is correct or true, but how can you phrase that since your common ground is so minimal? The only thing I can think of here is that it has to be morally right, but since this requires a value judgement, we won't get too far here either. I could say it's not right because I don't think a particular thing is morally right, but Tim will just disagree. The second part is whether or not Tim's model works. That is also subjective -- Tim might think he's doing fine and that he's happy. If he doesn't, then he should know there is a weakness in his religion or his ability to live according to his religion (even the latter is probably a weakness in his religion). If he does think he's doing fine, then the most I could say is that something he is doing seems ok for now, but will later become destructive or unhealthy to himself or to others. Tim does agree that there are unhealthy beliefs: A person's opinions are subject to reasonable scrutiny even if they are not things which can be proven. For instance, suppose I were to espouse the belief that large orange men from Saturn are tapping my consciousness and forcing me to kill people. That assertion could be neither proven nor disproven, but it would most certainly NOT be a healthy belief. I am expanding a little in saying that a belief can be unhealthy for the believer as well. One way to check this would be to look at other people who believed and see if you think they had healthy productive lives. Tim, for instance, could give us biographies of people who lived and died believing in Thelemism and to demonstrate that they did lead healthy and productive lives. Or, someone else could look up biographies of such people and demonstrate that some did not do well at all. For them, Tim could say that they didn't apply it correctly or that he had modified points and so it would work better for him. I guess the last few paragraphs sum up to this. Christianity asserts a lot more than Thelemism, and thus has a lot more that is subject to proof or disproof. All the things that can be discussed about Thelemism that I mentioned above can be debated about Christianity, but since Christianity makes assertions about a lot of other things, they are also subject to discussion. (Christianity is unique in that it not only gives you a model, but the promise of the power to follow that model; if you find that promise true, it becomes proof of Christianity -- but you sort of have to believe in order to test this or else become convinced by looking at other people's lives.) About the flavor of Tim and Gary's articles: What is this? Don't both of your religions teach love? Gary, your article carried the implication that net.religion readers had generally agreed that: ... Thelemism is based on as fanciful a story as can be found in some (not all) comic books. I'm not sure what net readers had agreed upon. I don't think anyone was overly impressed with Thelemism, but since Tim didn't seem to care where the ideas had come from, anyway, any such story probably isn't that important. I think you do have a point in saying that Tim isn't consistent in expecting greater rigor in what others believe than in what he believes, but (besides what I said above in the beginning paragraphs) I don't think there is any real consensus on this. I can understand why Tim wants to flame back to you about this. Tim, I think you're making way to much of Gary's "everyone else" phrase in concluding he is a liar. In common usage, "everyone else" means something like "most everyone else" -- he's just emphasizing or (at worst) exagerating in order to make a point. Even if you did show that he lied once, that's not quite the same as saying categorically that he is a liar. You spent two paragraphs flaming on this; that's a little much. It set the stage so well, that I had a hard time seeing anything but flame in the rest of your article; now that I look back, there are some points there, but... I don't know; maybe I shouldn't jump in and say those things, but, isn't this net etiquette? I think net.religion can be a forum for discussing different religions in a sane way; I don't think such flaming is necessary. If you flame at someone, people will generally see the flames and that your tactics will be distasteful enough that they probably won't want to listen to you. If you're flamed at, it hurts and you want to flame back. I can understand that, but I think you're better responding calmly to any real points that might be buried in the flame and allowing other people to defend you from the flaming part. Sigh! -Liz Allen -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay