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: <730@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 20:09:31 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.730 Posted: Wed Mar 20 20:09:31 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 04:14:13 EST References: <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <304@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <702@pyuxd.UUCP> <327@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 279 >>> 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. Ah, but does the fact that one group readily admits confusion over labelling (where DOES this go?) supercede the fact that others simply refuse to consider what they've labelled? Where it might ACTUALLY belong without regard to where people have mistakenly put it? Back to tomatoes again. >>> 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? The reason for not "undertaking" these experiments is that they are STILL ulimately irrelevant to explaining why religion has one definition and why other beliefs get labelled as religions. Frankly, from a legal point of view, I'm glad that the legal system classifies non-religions like humanism and even atheism as religions---because otherwise, because of the strict wording of our own constitution, such beliefs would NOT be granted rights!!!! It's a good thing that such belief systems are not excluded from any freedoms of religion concepts. (Tax-exempt status? That's another can of worms. I hardly think that the way something is defined (and redefined) for tax purposes has any bearing on this discussion.) > 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. You and Laura. I hope this satisfies your requirement for specificity. I would have thought it was quite obvious, but I thought it was actually more courteous not to mention specific names. So be it. That's what you wanted. Your assertions and re-assertions above are contradicted by all the evidence I've put forth in the past. If you feel that religious believers can be taken to task for making assertions without substantiation, well, what's good for the goose... > 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. I thought the body of English language users get to define the English language rather than two people. Even when they define "vegetable" one way and still call a tomato a vegetable. I would have thought such intense contradictions could be zenned into oblivion by Laura et al. The fact that things above have been mis-classified by you is a *real* example of a faulty analogy, Tim. > 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. Right. Fortunately, you don't define what a net poster is. The same way you can't (alone) redefine what religion is. WHY THE F*** DON'T YOU WANT TO BE REFERRED TO BY A SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS WORD!!!!!!! Do you feel more secure (e.g., legally, as described above) if your beliefs are labelled a religion? Like I said before, it's just like Newspeak: by limiting the choices of words one has available to express thought, one in effect limits the expression of thought, and limits thought itself. IFF one is not free to use a more accurate specific word that better fits rather than the strictly rigid Newspeak word. (You readdres this point later.) >>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. I'm sorry for preferring use of the correct word, instead of words that offer unnecessary ambiguity when better words would greatly improve the communication process. Deeply sorry. > 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". I'd say "divine" certain implies a deity. Worship certainly implies that which I've talked about. As does devotion. (One might ask: worshipping what? devoted to what?) > Please explain exactly how these definitions exclude Buddhism. What I've been saying is that belief systems that do not propose the existence of some superior ultimate entity with some sort of will (not just what we've described as a natural flow) are not religions. Laura is the one (and let's remember this) who jumped in and complained "How dare you exclude Buddhism!", meaning that she herself believes that Buddhism does not fit those criteria. Since I'd say she's more of an expert on it than I am, I thus accepted that which she implied---that Buddhism does not account for such an entity (my current understanding is still that that is the case). So, *I* never (especially not in my original article, ... ... ... ) said "this applies to religions and not Buddhism", LAURA jumped in and said "But what about Buddhism?" And as I said, there's no pleasing some people... > You have NOT shown that the definitions exclude non-theistic systems. All you > have done is evaded the point time and again. But thank you very much for helping me show that above. :-) >>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.) On the other hand, one might just as easily (and perhaps more accurately) say the following: My definition of religion was hardly a fallacy, and certainly not the major point brought out in the message. That is how evasive people argue: by avoiding the primary issues to engage in endless quibbles over less (un-)important points. I contend that, especially with regard to the real important points in the original article (which by now have been smothered out of relevancy such that Dubuc, the ONLY Christian to respond to it in a direct way, seems to have lulled off, unless his articles or mine are lost), we have witnessed serious evasion. The points in there apply to ANY religion who engages in making the kinds of assumptions I spoke of. Yours too, Tim. Being a non-Christian doesn't make you automatically immune from being wrong. >>> 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, ... I would think the evidence (esp. regarding the "tomato" poll) would provide reasons. > 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. Words are just sounds and/or scrawls on pieces of paper. Words REPRESENT concepts, often ambiguous concepts. They may represent categories into which human beings CHOOSE (for convenience) to classify things and/or ideas. Things that belong together may be lumped together and given the same label. Often enough things are placed in the wrong pile. That does not change the definition ascribed to the pile. Something has simply been misplaced. For convenience, or consistency, or based on tradition, we may LEAVE it in that pile. But that doesn't magically change the definition ascribed to the pile. >>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?) Because it simply, according to you, doesn't apply. It's sort of like inventing a new beautiful shade of aquamarine/turquoise/blue-green and insisting that it be called a shade of purple! Am I claiming that purpleness has negative connotations? > 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.... Read my above paragraph again. You're way off base. >>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. Now you're reversing the negative connotations yourself into positive ones. It's a compliment, yes, but only in the sense that each belief system is unique and deserves distinguishment from others through accurate naming. Pity though about your failure to be swayed... > 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. Athletic activity plays the same role in some people's lives as sex does (or as hacking does) in other people's lives. > Buddhists defend their doctrines with the same fervency Christians do theirs And those into athletic activity will defend their activity as fervently as those into sex (or hacking---anyone who says "What's the difference?" may be in need of assistance :-). So, must we classify them together. Philosophers also make pitches such as you've described, and believe in THEIR doctrines (and defend them) with equal fervency. Since philosophy is "more general", should we lump the religions in with philosophy? After all, they're talking about the same things. Ah, you say, but in different ways. Based on different concepts. Now we can form a basis of "classification". > 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. I think in earlier descriptions of your religion, you've claimed to be worshipping humanity itself (I'm flagrantly oversimplifying). But based on what you've said you might seem to have the criteria for being called a religion. But since I don't have all the facts and since my job is not to perform such classification, I won't do so. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr