Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Science as Religion (other objections to Wingate's article)
Message-ID: <247@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 20:27:47 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.247
Posted: Tue Nov  6 20:27:47 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:56:03 EST
References: <369@umcp-cs.UUCP> <209@pyuxd.UUCP> <223@pyuxd.UUCP> <704@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 38

>>>Scientism appears to claim that only its methods produce valid knowledge.
>>>   [CHARLIE WINGATE]

>>I'm getting sick of having my ideas labelled with newly invented or re-used
>>"-isms".  [RICH ROSEN]

> O.K., Rich, YOU give it a name-- which is not "science", since what you
> advocate is not what I recognize as science. [WINGATE]

No, I won't give it a name!  If you wish to pigeonhole and classify *yourself*
with labels, adhering to the tenets of the label rather than to tenets you've
developed and decided for yourself, then YOU do so.  But don't pin such
labels on me.  Call yourself a "christian" if you like.  I've learned the hard
way that movements, philosophies, and the labels that go with them mean
nothing in light of one's own evaluation independent of the labels.

> Religion is not who you pray to; Taoism has no Gods, and neither does Rich's
> nameless religion.  I do not contest science when it is applied to scientific
> studies; I do not accept its improper use as a bludgeon against religion.

Improper?  Why?  Because it shows your religious beliefs for what they are?
Thank you for defining the "proper" use of science:  it's OK as long as it
doesn't tear down something *YOU* believe in.  How bogus can you get!!!!
[Note that once again Mr. Wingate seeks to box my beliefs into a category he
calls religion, when he has still failed to show any reason for doing so.]

> There simply cannot be objective data for an event which took place 2000
> years ago and left no particular physical evidence; neither can their be
> evidence against it, other than the presupposition that it could not have
> happened.  Therefore, by Rich's logic, we should draw no conclusion; 
> instead, he chooses to reject the event.  I cannot see this as objectivity;
> it is out and out subjective evaluation of the data.

Thank you again.  By logic like this, you have admitted that you have NO
basis for your own religious beliefs.  Which is the point I've been making all
along.  Those beliefs are rooted in preconception and assumption, nothing more.
-- 
"If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!"     Rich Rosen  pyuxd!rlr