Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why believe in religion?
Message-ID: <3726@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 00:04:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3726
Posted: Tue Oct  7 00:04:19 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 04:18:56 EDT
References: <1174@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 22

In article <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:

[In response to Mike Andrews's remarks on religion as a tool]
>Having a tool doesn't guarantee that the tool is good for the claimed use.
>By your analogy, every religion is a tool.  And I strongly doubt that you
>would conceed the others are all good for their claimed uses.

This is true, but I hardly see it as weakening the argument.  Indeed, it
reinforces the point that the nature of religious belief is not necessarily
arbitrary.

>On the other hand, Karl Marx had a fair amount to say on religion as a tool.
>As a tool of ruling classes, oppressors, etc.

Karl Marx is hardly the deepest commentator or religion, and, after all,
"Marxism is the opiate of the Communists."  Almost any ideology can be made
to serve oppression.  Again I am puzzled as to the disagreement.  It seems
that all that's being said is that the exact nature of <your religion here>
belief is important.


C. Wingate