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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Response to Laura - what is a religion? (off the topic) Message-ID: <706@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 21:11:53 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.706 Posted: Fri Mar 15 21:11:53 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 00:10:29 EST References: <5199@utzoo.UUCP> <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <4012@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 92 >>> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of >>> it now. [LAURA CREIGHTON] > >>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.) [ROSEN] > Christianity? [I told you not to say it!] :-) Ahem. *YOU* said it yourself. > Rich has edited out precisely the part of Laura's original article in which > she presents the authority for her claim: >> 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. As I've repeated several times in several places (which is why this part was excised, not, as "charley" the kettle-calling pot says, in an effort to "cut out the heart of an article", but rather in an effort not to repeat points made elsewhere). Anyway, as I've repeated several times in several places: if 50 million people say that a tomato is a vegetable, must we change the botany books or alter the definition of vegetable? Not at all. The people who say that the tomato is a vegetable have simply mislabelled it. Lots of things get mislabelled, and get stuck with the erroneous classification for all eternity. That doesn't make the tomato a vegetable. > 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. I can't imagine how you'd "know" that... > Belief in the supernatural in no way implies belief in a single God. Belief in and worship of a superior so-called supernatural entity (-ies) = ... (Fill in the "...") > The fact that your dictionary definition demands belief in a single god... It doesn't, and what's more I never claimed that it did or that such a limitation was part of the definition of religion. > ... indicates that it > is so heavily popularized that as a TECHNICAL definition it is worthless. Since it doesn't, I'd say the definition is still worthwhile. And I'd say that another, more accurate word, perhaps a new one (that happens, you know--- new words...), would be more suitable to describe belief systems like Buddhism. But let's say I gather 50 million people together and we all agree to claim, for the rest of our lives, that Buddhism is not only a religion, it is a sect of Christianity. By "our" definition. We don't wish to be limited by usage of the language or definitions of "christian". In fifty years time, will it be so? Because we say it's so? If we convince the rest of the world that Buddhism is a sect of Christianity, still retaining the definition of Christianity being belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the son of god, would THAT make it so? Or would we have mislabelled Buddhism? Once it's so, and Buddhism is taught as a form of Christianity (whatever that means), is it likely to get "unlabelled"? Does THAT make it so? > [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.] I'm glad you find it amusing. The reason the "heart" was cut out was because all the points I've made, which answered Laura's comments, had been redundantly addressed elsewhere. Why is it, though, that I "invariably" have to accuse you of same? -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr