Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Laura - what is a religion? (off the topic)
Message-ID: <873@ames.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 16:35:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.873
Posted: Fri Mar 15 16:35:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 21:34:40 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <5135@utzoo.UUCP>, <617@pyuxd.UUCP> <5176@utzoo.UUCP>, <641@pyuxd.UUCP> <5199@utzoo.UUCP> <657@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 48

From pyuxd!rlr (Rich Rosen):
>> 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!!!

	Well, if you can't appeal to God as an ultimate authority, there's
always the dictionary :-). Seriously, though, I would be at least a little
curious what dictionary it is that contains the rather restrictive
definition of religion cited above, and no others. Others submitting
articles on this question have already quoted dictionaries showing that
the term "religion" is much broader than Rich wants it to be. Rich, aren't
you at *all* bothered that the definition you give above excludes many
branches of Buddhism and Taoism (no God), Deism (no controlling power),
pantheism, and probably others that I'm overlooking?
	In any case, the question of what constitutes "religion" is a
side-issue. You and the Christian apologists have been discussing the
"whys" (or lack of them) of existence, and Laura has offered ideas that
don't fit with either side's point of view. You can call them "speculative
philosophy" if you don't want to call them religious, but they *are*
responsive to the questions being addressed; this is hardly "straying
from the original topic".  If Laura's points are of interest to you, I
think you should respond to them with something more substantial than quibbles
over whether they are religious by your definition. And if they are not
of interest, there is no need to respond at all. You are free to continue
your debates with the proponents of anthropomorphic ideas of deity, and
ignore the rest.
	But however you subdivide the territory, it remains a fact that
there are opinions about the ultimate nature of reality (there's a grandiose
phrase!) that are not atheistic, but also do not require a belief in
supernatural manlike creatures with long beards who work miracles at
will, and keep track of any and all sparrows that fly by. And neither
you nor the Christian apologists have a special charter guaranteeing
that only your viewpoints are appropriate to this discussion.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry