Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Religious Language and Science
Message-ID: <568@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 10:40:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.568
Posted: Wed Jun  5 10:40:36 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 04:06:58 EDT
References: <6114@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1009@pyuxd.UUCP> <6261@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:1875 net.religion:7054

In article <6261@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> 
> There would be no need for religious language if the things could be
> talked about directly...

"There would be no need for jabberwocky if Wonderland could be talked
about directly."

In other words (less sarcasm) you still retain the problem of whether
the language conceals that its subject is nonexistent.  You still have no
non-circular reason for assuming the things exist and that the language
is necessary.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh