Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Definitions
Message-ID: <180@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 17:01:14 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.180
Posted: Thu Mar 14 17:01:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 00:24:14 EST
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 105


>> Your definitional quibles remind me of the people trying to prove that
>> blacks are inferior. When a clearly superior black is pointed out they
>> say "Oh he's not a real black, He clearly has a lot of 'white blood'".
>> If you realy want to attack religion why don't you define religion to
>> mean "Belief that the Bible is completely and literaly correct"? It
>> would make your argment easier.  [HARTLEY]
>
> First off, what a manipulative and base crock of shit!!!  Comparing an
> attempt to use clear definitions with racism.  The relationship is less
> than tenuous, it's non-existent:  I'm defining what the notion of religion
> is, and I'm labelling non-religions (i.e., life philosophies or belief
> systems or whatever OTHER appropriate terms might be chosen) as such.
> ...
> but if you want to compare correct use of language with racism, please find
> another home.

I must appologize for implying that you have anything in common with
racists. If it gives you any comfort, I would not bother to argue with
you if I thought you were one of those worms (appologies also to worms).

That was just the first example of that fallacy that came to my mind.
Let me give another.

You have noted often on the net that christians have historically
commited large numbers of atrocities of various kinds.  Some Chritians
have replied that these acts were not commited by Christians but only
by "christians".  The argument is that a Christian is defined to be a
follower of Christ and that Christ advocated tolerance, therefore
anyone who commits an attrocity is by definition not a Christian.

These Christians are trying to make their point (that christians are by
and large a moral bunch) by using a definition of christian that
differs substantally from common usage.

You are trying to make your point (that religious thought differs from
other thought principly in assuming the existance of God) by using an
artificially restricted definition of "religious".

> *I* don't define religion:  English language usage does.  And I'm not
> using the term to particularly mean one particular religion or set of
> religions.

But you are TRYING to define religion in a way that DIFFERS from
English language usage.

> Religion
> 1 The service and worship of God OR THE SUPERNATURAL [emphasis added]
> 2 A personal set or institutionalized system of religiuos attitudes
>   beliefs, and practices [definition of "Religious" included in this
>   postiong]

Definition 2 is the one that is being discussed for the most part on
the net. This definition depends completely on the definition of
"religious"

> Religious
> 1 Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledegd
>   ULTIMATE REALITY OR deity [emphasis added]

Note the word "OR". I shall not post a definition of "or" even though
it seems that you are ignorant of it's meaning.

>	Webster's New Collegate Dictionary

Also, while we are arguing definitions, you might look up the word
"Budhism". If the definition you find does not call it a reigion, go
buy yourself a new dictionary.

> Is Hartley saying that he lives by his subjective evidence rather than his
> objective evidence?  I tend to doubt it.

What objective evidence? My (clearly fallable) senses? My (considerably
more fallable) memory? All evidence is subjective in the final analysis.
This does not mean that I weigh all evidence equally. I have criteria
which determine what evidence I will trust when there is a
contradiction. My criteria are probably much like yours (yech). The
difference is that I recognize my criteria as arbitrary. How would I go
about verifying my criteria? From evidence? How would I weigh the
evidence? Using my criteria would be circular reasoning and (by my
criteria) cheating. By reason alone? Reason is just one criterion for
judging evidence. I usualy give it a high weight, but I cannot use it
now because it is one of the criteria I am trying to judge.

> This is actually a case of trying to show that the system with the
> fewest axioms/assumptions is more grounded in reality:  if the system
> with more axioms were correct, it would be discoverable and verifiable
> through the one with fewer ones, because the basis of the additional
> axioms would evidence themselves in analysis.

Not always.  Take for instance the parallel postulate of Geometry.  It
can be shown that it cannot be derived from the other axioms.  You are
free to use it or to use one of it's converses (there are at least 2)
depending on your taste or on any application you might have in mind.

You have a criterion for judging world views that says that systems
with fewer axioms are better.  I share this view, as long as it is used
in MODERATION.  Not everyone else does.  As I said before, a world view
can only be verified by circular reasoning.  Remember that ocams' razor
is only a huristic; the simplest explination is not ALWAYS correct.
(This, by the way, is what the "screwdriver" debate is about.
"Argument from design" has nothing to do with it.)

				Ralph Hartley
				rlh@cvl