Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Laura - what is a religion? (off the topic)
Message-ID: <4012@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 13:05:22 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4012
Posted: Wed Mar 13 13:05:22 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 15:36:46 EST
References: <5199@utzoo.UUCP> <657@pyuxd.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 53

In article <657@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen in disguise) writes:

[quoting Laura Creighton]
>> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of
>> it now.
>
>Because you say so?  Sorry, Laura, I'm talking about religion as defined
>in the dictionary, meaning a system involving beliefs in "supernatural"
>or non-physical entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate
>controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will.  If
>you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with me.  I'm not
>debating the merits or non-merits of such systems (at this time).  Can't
>you please stick to the topic?  Go back three or four iterations and witness
>the numerous points in my earlier articles that have gone unanswered because
>of this straying from the original topic!!!  Your avoidance of the
>original questions almost made me think that maybe you had converted to ...
>(No, I won't say it.)

Christianity? [I told you not to say it!] :-)

Rich has edited out precisely the part of Laura's original article in which
she presents the authority for her claim:

> Message-ID: <5199@utzoo.UUCP>

> Rich, there isn't a university in the world that I know of which
> will give you a degree in comparative religions which will let you
> ignore Buddhism, Hinduism and various shamanistic religions simply
> because they do not believe in the sort of God that is believed in
> by Jews, Moslems and Christians. Ask around -- do people consider
> Hinduism a religion? Do people consider Buddhism a religion?
> What about Taoism?

> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of
> it now. Too many of the world's great religions do not fit. It may
> be that most North Americans that you have come across would accept
> your defintion, (though I actually doubt this -- I think that they would
> accept that Hinduism is a religion as is Buddhism) but a simple
> plebiscite is not enough -- or astrology is a science, again. You
> must deal with the experts in the field - and I don't think that
> you will find any religion student or professor who will be happy
> with your definition.

The problem is, Rich, that Buddhism, for instance, has a radically different
view of the cosmos from the one you espouse; yet it has no deities.  Belief
in the supernatural in no way implies belief in a single God.  The fact that
your dictionary definition demands belief in a single god indicates that it
is so heavily popularized that as a TECHNICAL definition it is worthless.

[By the way, Rich, I find it amusing that you have cut the heart out of an
 article you quote, in precisely the way that you invariably accuse me of.]

Charley Wingate