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: <728@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 22:01:14 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.728
Posted: Tue Mar 19 22:01:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 05:23:39 EST
References: <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <304@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <702@pyuxd.UUCP> <5265@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 63

> Wait a second. You started out saying that we should use a definition of
> religion that everybody uses, and then claimed that the notion of
> external creating deity was implied by the word religion as people
> used it. *Now* you claim that even if people think that Buddhism is
> a religion they should be taught otherwise, even if it is misfiled
> in universities. Make up your mind!

I did.  Despite the fact that religions (or vegetables) are fairly well
defined, certain other belief systems (and non-vegetables) are LABELLED with
the wrong label.  Thus you have a contradiction---but one that manifests
itself in they way people use words.  Being a Buddhist I'd think you could
appreciate such contradictions...  (I've already made up my mind.  Now it's
your turn.)

> People are very capable of believing 2 contradictory things at the
> same time. Usually this means that the contradictions are not
> apparant, but sometimes this means that the person has chosen not
> to resolve contradictions -- for a variety of reasons.

(Like lack of knowledge about the subject, or not caring to take the time
to do so.)  This is exactly what I said above.

> Okay. So perhaps we have established that lots of people don't know
> very much about Buddhism. Perhaps they need education. On the
> other hand, perhaps they are happy unknowing, much as they are
> happy unknowing that tomatoes are fruit and that computers do not
> run amok and try to kill their programmers in the great hollywood
> tradition. But are you seriously suggesting that because lots of people
> are ignorant we should humour them and rearrange all the universities?

Just the opposite.  Rather than reclassifying the tomato as a vegetable, we'll
still classify it as a fruit, even though it's probably in the vegetable
section in the supermarket.  And rather than reclassifying non-religious
belief systems as religions, we'll find some other useful word for them,
even though they'll continue to be studied in university religion department.
(Perhaps the departments should be renamed "Religion and Smegnotzisms Dept.",
where Smegnotzism is the new word...  All right, it's a horrible word.
So?  Find a better one!!!!!)

> I have a definition of religion that I think is more accurate than the
> ones found in either of your dictionaries. But I am not going to try to
> get the universities restructured to suit my definition. Why is this
> definition so important to you?

That's projection, Laura.  It wasn't "important" to me until you made it so.

> I cannot be certain, but I suspect that
> it is because you really want to argue with the people who are religious (by
> your definition) and leave out those who are not (again by your definition)..

I wouldn't use the word "argue" ("present opinions" is more accurate), but
that is essentially correct WITH REGARD TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

> and you expect that those who are not (abyd) will find that
> what you are arguing for is of such importance that we will rush to
> disassociate ourselves from the name ``religion''.

Hardly.  I'd expect that you'd dissociate yourselves with the name "religion"
simply because it's not the best word to describe your beliefs as distinct
from the others.  But apparently you don't want to.  You WANT to be lumped
together.  God only knows why.  :-)
-- 
"It's a lot like life..."			 Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr