Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A particularly Poor Way to Examine Religion
Message-ID: <1179@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 11:02:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1179
Posted: Mon Oct  6 11:02:32 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:31:25 EDT
References: <1165@cybvax0.UUCP> <3662@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 48
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:433 net.religion.christian:4841

In article <3662@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> Let us be more accurate: the external signs of religion are, by and large,
> evidenced by the behavior of its adherents.  (Even we admit that obvious
> mirales are exceedingly rare to the point where their existence can never be
> assented to scientifically.)

We can be more accurate still by a slight reordering.  Religion is an
abstraction derived from the real actions (and perhaps thoughts) we call
behavior.  We are concerned with how well our abstraction conforms to
reality, especially the parts we can't observe directly.  (Perhaps we
shouldn't trivially assume conformation to the aspects of reality that
we CAN observe directly.... :-)

> ... there are three essentially indistinguishable possibilities:
> 
>   1)  That all of these things are purely psychological in origin.
>   2)  That some are and some aren't.
>   3)  That none of them are.

"Indistinguishable" is the key word.  From the scientific viewpoint, you are
adding unnecessary invisible agents that Occam suggests we ignore.  Even if
psychology in its current state can't explain all the events (and I'm first
in line to criticize most psychology as pseudoscience), adding an untestable
invisible agent is not the scientific solution.

> >It's amazing the lengths people will go to fantasize that somebody important
> >has taken an interest in them.
> 
> Uh, Mike, I hate to break it to you, but there is no way on earth you can
> demonstrate that this is in fact a real motivating factor-- and Auden, for
> one, argues against it, so I have to conclude that it is, at best, an
> explanation for only part of christianity.  Which means that you'll have to
> concoct some other rationalization for the rest.

I think quite a few Christians want to believe that their important God has
taken an interest in them, to the point that they will construe all sorts of
normal things to have divine significance.  Anybody who has been in love
ought to understand that sort of bizarre behavior.  I agree that it is a
factor for only some Christians: there are large numbers of motivations for
belief, including the perennial favorite: hellfire.
--

"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot
face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths."
	Bertrand Russell in "Human Society in Ethics and Politics".
-- 

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