Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Response to Tim - what is a religion? (off the topic) Message-ID: <327@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 05:03:56 EST Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.327 Posted: Tue Mar 19 05:03:56 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 02:46:09 EST References: <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <304@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <702@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Lines: 201 This is a response to a message from Rich. He claimed to respond to me while failing to quote my best points.... > From rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Fri Mar 15 18:47:40 1985 > > 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. [Waggie] That's a good example of faulty analogy (C. S. Lewis' favorite tactic). I am quite sure that more than 95% of all colleges teach Buddhism in the religion department if they teach it at all, and that at least the same percentage of religion scholars would hold this to be obviously correct. If there were significant disagreement on the subject, as in the situation you claim is analogous, you would have a point. > > 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. Should I conclude, then, that you are unwilling to undertake these experiments? Is it too obvious that they would not come out as you would like them to? What is this "certain people" nonsense? That's kindergarten level. If you are accusing specific people of something specific, name them and the offense. If not, be silent and suspend judgment. The fact is that Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., ARE religions, and have always been considered to be religions by scholars. When you make blanket condemnations of "religion" that do not bear on things that are religions, you are speaking falsehood. All net posters are imbeciles. But Laura is not a net poster, at least under the definition I'm using. This is the only sensible definition -- it only includes people whose last name does not begin with a "C". You say no one but me (and Laura, of course) would go along with that definition? Everyone else is wrong. Things do get mis-classified, you know. If Laura insists on being considered a net poster, because she uses an inaccurate definition by which anyone posting articles to the net is a net poster; well, if she wants to be called an imbecile, that's her fault. You just can't please some people. > If you insist on a definition > of religion that encompasses non-deity oriented belief systems, fine. Once again you ignore the fact that it is not just ME saying this. It is virtually every religious scholar in existence, most universities, all publishers, the U.S. government, and most dictionaries. The only person claiming that Buddhism is NOT a religion is a man with an axe to grind. His name is Mr. Rosen. > 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. As has been pointed out innumerable times, the dictionary definitions DO NOT mandate belief in non-physically-based sentients of any sort. Here's a representative one, from Webster's Unabridged: "One of the systems of faith and worship: a religious faith." Under "religious" we find "relating to that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality: manifesting devotion to and reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of ultimate importance". Please explain exactly how these definitions exclude Buddhism. In fact, the "ultimate reality" criterion applies significantly better to Zen than to Protestantism.... As I said before, which you edited out of your reply, you have shown only that no definition excludes theistic systems, as well they should not. You have NOT shown that the definitions exclude non-theistic systems. All you have done is evaded the point time and again. You should also realize that anyone who believes in emergent properties believes in non-physical entities, but this is not what you would call a religion. More like a paradigm. That's why I said "non-physically-based sentients" rather than "non-physical entities". > 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.) Your definition of religion was the major fallacy in your message, and so that is what Laura chose to answer. That is how skilled people argue, by cutting directly to the primary flaws. I am sure you would prefer that she engage in endless quibbles over less important points, but neither Laura nor myself is quite that green. (I've met her; she's the regular orangish shade most Canadians have.) > > 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". Mostly you are just repeating yourself in paraphrase here, without giving any reasons to agree with you, but I will respond to the second sentence, even though it really has nothing to do with the main point. (A break would be refreshing, don't you think?) The human mind is not a system of regular expressions or even an LL(1) grammar. It is a vast sprawling informal complex. Words such as "religion" are labels we apply to things. We apply them to things because when the things are labelled in that way our minds work more efficiently. Definitions as people use them are not rules but categories into which things naturally seem to fall, for reasons that are often beyond our knowledge. There is an intrinsic mental connecting principle called "similarity" (I recommend you read Hume's "Treatise of Human Nature" if you haven't already -- it's quite readable, enjoyable, and illuminating) from which labelling derives. If labels do not coincide with intrinsic similarity, they are not useful to humans. In brief, meanings are built on examples, not on rules, and any rules made up to approximate the meaning of a word are always liable to change when something similar or dissimilar to things already labelled comes into the universe. This digression has been brought to you as a public service by the Roxxon Corporation. Serving wombats the world over for 81 years. > 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. Now we come to the crux of the matter. In this sentence, you make it clear that the word "religion" is heavily laden with negative connotations for you. (Why else would you be "appalled" that we choose that appellation?) You are STARTING with a negative judgment on anything called "religion" and working from there. You have grounds on which to criticize some religions, so in order to keep your connotations intact, you restrict the word to religions you can criticize. Your motivation is emotional. You are as attached to your dislike for "religion" as a mainstream Christian is to Paul's flames against atheists in Romans. And it is easier to force logic into that mold than it is to force your emotions to be sensible. That's the way human beings are.... > 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. If that's a compliment, my thanks, Rich; but I am not swayed on the main point. Buddhism and Christianity continue to exist by stimulating the same inchoate longings for improvement. Buddhism plays the same role in a Buddhist's life as Christianity does in a Christian's. Buddhists defend their doctrines with the same fervency Christians do theirs (and if you don't believe me, try to convince a Buddhist that "Existence is sorrow" is only half the picture! Hoo boy! Their pacifism usually disintegrates pretty rapidly....) Buddhism and Christianity are both based around sacred texts and have historically been maintained by priesthoods. They both attempt to achieve the salvation of the individual, albeit through different methods. Anyone without an axe to grind would classify them together. To try to pretend that the different views of divinity in them make them fundamentally unalike is a far better example of "Newspeak" and "doublethink" than the contrary. PS. I have used Buddhism throughout rather than my primary religion, Thelema, because Buddhism is a far better known example. You may consider Thelema too if you wish. Should I assume that you would also consider Thelema, which is inherently eclectic and non-literalist, to be something other than a religion? Consider this then: Thelema is relative monotheism. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"