Xref: utzoo soc.singles:12469 talk.religion.misc:3992 alt.flame:1153
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.religion.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Christmas parties
Message-ID: <513@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 88 07:34:52 GMT
References: <8712231623.AA24882@decwrl.dec.com> <1340@vaxwaller.UUCP> <14173@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <207@sp7040.UUCP> <1393@uoregon.UUCP>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 23

In article <1393@uoregon.UUCP> markv@drizzle.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering) writes:
>	If one adopts a religion, one is forced to accept the
>	fact that there are things which cannot be explained or proved.
>	It makes for a much simpler lifestyle, and for some, one that is
>	potentially more rich.

'Forced'?  I know of at least two religions whose tenets demand that
their believers NOT accept things which cannot be proved.  This does
not necessarily mean that they can be explained - part of the assumptions
one must make when thinking in language, as we do, is that there are
going to be phenomena which cannot be explained in that language.

Let me assure you that my whole religious philosophy, in which I believe
deeply and with as much assurance as any born-again Christian I've ever
met, is one to which I have come as a result of direct and personal
experience, NOT one which I take on faith.  To be sure, it isn't a
Christian religion, but why should it have to be?  

-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame