Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!ellen From: ellen@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: definition of religion - to Rich Message-ID: <4514@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 16:05:39 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.4514 Posted: Tue Mar 26 16:05:39 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 01:11:51 EST Reply-To: ellen@ucla-cs.UUCP (Ellen Perlman) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 93 [for all you do, this bugs for you] i do not take the dictionary as the ultimate source of information on meanings of words. it's a good place to start, but would you limit the totality of your knowledge of physics, buddhism, or art to what the DICTIONARY says ?!? besides, as i mentioned in a previous posting, dictionary writers are under cultural/religious/sexual/racial biases, as we all can be. HERE IS THE ONE IN MY OFFICE DICTIONARY. if rich insists... Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1984. re.lig.ion (re.lij'en) n. 1. The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man's relationship with the powers and principles of the universe, esp. with a deity or deities. 2. An object of conscientious devotion or scrupulous care: His work is a religion to him. obviously, what we are dealing with here is the 1st definition. while it includes deities, the powers & principles of the universe are not necessarily deities, even by this definition. it does sound, however, like the other side of physics to me - the "feeling" flip-side of the science/study of the powers & principles of the universe (actually, my dictionary defines "physics" as the science that treats of motion, matter, and energy, and of their interactions.) perhaps, rich is positing HIS DICTIONARY as the ONE TRUE BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE! move over BIBLE, here comes THE REAL THING! again, my dictionary says that Buddhism is A mystical and ascetic religious faith of eastern Asia, founded in northern India by Buddha in the sixth century B.C., and teaching that the ideal state of nirvana is reached by right living and believing, and peace of mind through meditation. of course, maybe rich's dictionary is the one that came about of divine- intellectual-rational inspiration, and mine is but a poor shadow of it. again, rich is as selective as he accuses others of being of their own GOOD BOOKS, that is, the definition of religion in his dictionary is THE WORD, but the definition of Buddhism is flawed (perhaps written by a false prophet). to continue beating the dead horse, my dictionary defines Hinduism as a religion (though this is one that indesputably has deities) (do note that Buddhism does not and still fits the definition of religion, Rich). again, Taoism (which has no deities, but does deal with the powers & principles of the universe: One of the principal religions or philosophies of China, founded by Lao-tse, who taught that happiness could be acquired through obedience to the requirements of man's nature in accordance with the Tao,, of Way, the basic principle of all nature. now, i know that rich is arguing that some of those systems which are called religions are not, but are, perhaps, philosophies (do you want this discussion to switch over to net.philosophy?). it seems to me that there is a parallel here between the relationship of religion to philosophy, just as there is between superstition & religion. other peoples's beliefs, if you have no respect for them, are superstitions; your own similar beliefs are religions. rich questions the validity of the religious experience. perhaps rich has a bit more respect for systems such as Buddhism & Taoism and doesn't want to tar them with the brush of "religion" (which seems to equal superstition in rich's book). these non-deistic systems can move over to philosophy...hang on while i check the definition... 1. The inquiry into the most comprehensive principles of reality in general, or of some sector of it, as human knowledge or human values. 2. The love of wisdom, and the search for it. (i confess i'm skipping defs. 3, 4, & 5, since i think they have no more bearing on this run around in intellectual circles.) i think that most religious people, whatever their particular persuasion, believe that their system deals in the principles of reality, but what determines reality is the subject of discussion. i cannot define it, for i am convinced that the perception of reality is quite subjective - scientists may be able to quantify & analyze small parts of it, but i do not believe that anyone will ever be able to see/define the whole thing, especially in a "rational" way. as humans are but a tiny part of the whole infinity what- ever, the perception of the larger whole can not be experienced in a totally rational way - someone was discussing a new theory in net.books, which posits (i think) 17 demensions, of which humans can only perceive/experience 3 or 4. this falls into the realms of both physics & philosophy. at certain points, the dividing lines are rather tenuous. rich, drop THE BOOK, you're beginning to sound like a dictionary-thumper, a holy-word roller. even my poor dictionary sees fit to define "religion" as dealing with matters beyond mere deities. you've narrowed the universe down into a very narrow & shallow corridor in which you are pacing like a caged animal. why are you clinging so desparately to the "rational?" are you afraid that maybe there really IS SOMETHING OUT THERE beyond logic?