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 (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Tim - what is a religion? (off the topic)
Message-ID: <702@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 18:47:40 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.702
Posted: Fri Mar 15 18:47:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 05:28:12 EST
References: <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <304@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 65

> I've got a fun idea.  Is there a university near where you live?  If so, how
> about going down to the admissions office and telling the person there that
> you want to study Buddhism but you aren't sure what department such classes
> would be in.  After the laughter subsides, go down to the university library
> and see what classification books on Buddhism are filed under.  [TIM]

Will they laugh if I ask where the courses on advanced relational calculus
might be taught?  Math department?  Computer science department?  Electrical
engineering department?  Imagine that!  Things get put in different categories,
and sometimes things even get put in the wrong categories (based on the actual
definition of that category).  And they're stuck there.  Mislabelled, but tarred
with the name for all eternity.  That doesn't magically make the definition
suddenly apply to it.

> Then I suggest contacting Chogyam Trungpa and asking him how he got tax-exempt
> status for his organization.  When you're done with all this, buy any book
> on the "World's Great Religions" and see if Buddhism and Taoism are listed
> there.  After you do these things and report the results on net.religion,
> then I will be happy to continue this discussion with you.

I'd be more than happy if you didn't continue it.  If, with one mouth certain
people demand to have their beliefs given the label "religion", and with the
other mouth (on the other face?) they complain when associated with the
religions they've been lumped together with *at* *their* *request* (because
THEIR beliefs don't involve a deity), well, I'd say there's no pleasing such
people.  If you insist on a definition of religion that encompasses non-deity
oriented belief systems, fine.  Then note for your future reference that my
article (the original "Logic based on different sets of assumptions" article)
was about "religions", and when I refer to religions I refer to those belief
systems that fit the criteria contained in the primary definitions found in
the dictionary as already expressed endless times--meaning those belief systems
that make reference (and reverence) to "supernatural" or non-physical entities
of some higher (or ultimate) controlling power with a will and the means to
exercise that will.  If your belief system doesn't fit that description, then
you are still, of course, welcome to respond to that article (as Laura did).
Unfortunately, Laura decided to ignore most of the important points that she
herself brought up in her original reply, casting all my rebuttal to those
points aside in favor of harping on the definition of religion issue.  But I
think that's been beaten to death, and my other points have gone unanswered.
(LAURA:  I have a complete list of those unanswered points if you'd care to
see it.)

> But language is based on consensus, and if you flout the conventions, you
> can't expect much communication to happen.

Exactly.  Returning to Laura's poll, rather than simply asking "Is xxx a
religion?", why not include as a first question "How would you define
religion?".  Then, as a last question, why not ask "Is a tomato a vegetable?".
I know this is redundant, but the point is that despite the consensus on a
definition, many things may be placed into categories in which, by the
definition, they do not belong.  And I contend that this may apply to certain
"religions".  And, quite frankly, I'm appalled that you would WANT those
belief systems to be lumped in with those other belief systems in any case.
Wouldn't another, more accurate word be better and more precise?  It's sort of
like Newspeak:  if you limit the number of words people know and use, you
limit their individual expressiveness, in speaking to others and in thinking to
themselves.  If you are free to use words that best describe what you are
talking about, not limited to certain strict categories into which your ideas
might not fit, then you are better able to express yourself and to be
understood.  By limiting description to the word "religion", you are not
expressing what it really is, which is something quite different.  And
something to be proud of.  And something which should be acknowledged.
-- 
Otology recapitulates phonology.
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr