Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!sm From: sm@cadre.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Sean McLinden on authority and brainwashing Message-ID: <254@cadre.ARPA> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 12:07:35 EST Article-I.D.: cadre.254 Posted: Fri Feb 8 12:07:35 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 06:52:25 EST References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> <398@pyuxd.UUCP> <237@cadre.ARPA> <241@cadre.ARPA> <467@pyuxd.UUCP> <249@cadre.ARPA> <251@cadre.ARPA> Reply-To: sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden) Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh. Lines: 121 Xref: watmath net.religion:5576 net.flame:8298 Summary: In article <251@cadre.ARPA> jay@cadre.ARPA (Jayaram Ramanathan) writes: >... But mind you, if a new theory comes up in Physics that can >disprove an extant theory, it replaces the old one. AND THIS IS EXACTLY >WHAT DOES NOT OCCUR IN RELIGION. One has to believe in miracles, visions >and the like that have been recorded, without rhyme or reason, only because >"it is a good thing to do", I guess. >One can counter what I've stated above by saying, "So, how do you say the >process that goes in science is right and/or it should be adopted in >religion, which is a different ball game altogether?" To this, I've only >this to say: I was all along under the impression that to inquire and >question something that has been laid out -- in whatever field our >intellect has exposure to -- is a useful exercise and one that would >make us more aware of the things around us and our relationships with them. >If the domain of discussion has axioms, rules of inference, and thereby >all possible results already worked out, and if our only job is to marvel >at the domain, then it doesn't interest me. (The domain I'm referring >to is, yes you're right, RELIGION). To state this is demonstrate one's ignorance of the truth. Since your comments seem to be centered around Chrsitian religions, let me use them as an example. The central Christian document is the Bible, which is an anthology of the written and oral history of the Hebrews and the early Christians. The Bible is not so much a textbook as it is a ~2000 year transcript of man's arguments about his origins and his place in the world. Anyone with any familiarity of the text can take something like the Book of Job (which deals with the question of why a good man should suffer), and recognize that the story was probably written by two separate authors, living in different times, who had DIFFERENT ideas about the answer to that question. The whole history of the Christian religions, from their heritage in Judaism to the present, is one of continued discussion and conflict about the nature of mankind. This dicsourse continues into the present (try reading H.T. Kung, Karl Rahner, or C.S. Lewis, if you want your theology made a little more palatable). These people demonstrate the continued conflict of ideas which exists within Christianity. To suggest that religion represents a blind trust in stagnant ideas is to be ignorant of religious history, itself. > (2) Science is an offshoot of religion. > >H'm, that IS interesting (and enlightening). Wasn't it a religious >institution (in this case, the Christian church) that ruled that the >poor guy who said the earth is round should be done away with, since >he was saying things it didn't want to hear? Religion arose as a result of man's inquiry into his nature and origin. It satisfied his desire to be able to explain everything in terms of some reproducible (deterministic), order. As men learned that certain of these concepts could be verified or disproved via example, experimentation, and reason, science was established. The domain of science is that which is verifiable. To religion (and philosophy) is left those aspects of existence with which science offers no explanation. > (3) Don't mix up religion with the practice of it. > >This is like saying, "The meaning of a word is given under null context". First you paraphrase me, then you comment on your paraphrase. Bad technique. What I said was that you don't condemn a religion because of the actions of its members (i.e., Christianity because of the Crusdades, Judaism be- cause of the invasion of Lebanon, etc.) no more than you would condemn all Americans because of the invasion of Cambodia. There will always be people who CLAIM to have a certain belief and, in fact, act in another fashion. This does not impune the belief, just the person. Simply because some people who are affiliated with a religion act in a manner which you find distasteful, does not implicate the tenets of that religion. You must first show that their actions were directed by that religion. To do that you must demonstrate that you truly understand the religion which you are deriding (you haven't demonstrated that you know ANYTHING about any religion, yet). >Even the original people who, say, proclaimed "This is a new religion, >its principles are such-and-such", had their own viewpoints tagged on >to whatever they said. Of course. The nature of most philosophy/religion is that it represents man's INTERPRETATION of some principle. As I stated in my original message, the difference between some religions and others is that certain religions remove this limitation by having some AUTHORITY (i.e., Jesus Christ who was God,accordian to certain Christain faiths), who served to state the priciples of that religion devoid of human interpretation. >Eventhough the basic idea of any religion is to advise people to be >good (whatever that is), it is in the rituals and religious rites >that the religions differ and hence are distinct. Back to Comparitive Religions 101. Many relisions (albeit less common than the major religions), make NO STATEMENT about what is good. Religion relates to faith, not right or wrong. SOME religions deal with these issues, but this is not a requirement. > (4) If you believe in the books and authority, life would be >so simple. As I never said this, I don't feel the need to comment on it. I don't believe it, though. >At this stage, let me clarify a few things. My original intent in posting >the article was to lament at the religious differences that we all have, >and how it is causing avoidable tension. Part of it is results from people making uninformed statements about members of another religion (or those who have a religion). >Just imagine, we go thru life without knowing anything about the other >person's religion, all the time bickering about non-essentials like >comparative plus and minus points of our own religion. You appear to have done it. >They would have us believe even that. "They". Is that big brother, cosmic muffin, who? >As Rich Rosen writes: why do we need an external "authority" to guide >us all the time? Better an external authority than Rich Rosen! Sean McLinden