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!jay
From: jay@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: Sean McLinden on authority and brainwashing
Message-ID: <251@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 01:57:49 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.251
Posted: Fri Feb 8 01:57:49 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 06:51:43 EST
References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> <398@pyuxd.UUCP> <237@cadre.ARPA> <241@cadre.ARPA> <467@pyuxd.UUCP> <249@cadre.ARPA>
Reply-To: jay@cadre.ARPA (Jayaram Ramanathan)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 119
Xref: watmath net.religion:5575 net.flame:8297
Summary:
I've been reading with great interest Sean McLinden's <241@cadre.ARPA>,
<249@cadre.ARPA> and Rich Rosen's <467@pyuxd.UUCP> views on
religion, science, brainwashing, indoctrination, etc.
I have abstracted away some of the ideas put forth by Sean, using my
own interpretation of what he must have meant. (I hope I've preserved
the original intended thoughts). The interested reader is referred to
the above articles.
Sean's views:
(1) Looks like we have to resort to believing in people in authority
or books if we have to move on in science or religion.
I quote here:
>...The point is: Have you taken the time to rigorously verify everything
>in which you believe? Does gravity exist? Does it exist EVERYWHERE on
>earth? Prove it.... (McLinden, <249@cadre.ARPA>)
When I read this, I realized that the line of argument Sean is using much
too powerful. One has to agree that it's simply impossible to go around
all over the earth and measure the force of gravity (that is, "if it ever
exists"). The only reason we believe it exists all over the earth is, I
guess, because people have found its presence in different labs of the
world (I can see an objection from Sean to this: How can you believe the
reports that you receive?, but I let it pass), and hence by the process of
inductive inference have concluded it must exist in the places they haven't
measured also. 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).
By the way, Sean, how are you sure what you see on the screen as you read
this article is coming from any person at all?
(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? (Wait, how are we sure
the earth IS round? I don't believe the photographs the astronauts
took, etc. can again be a line of argument that is absolutely water-tight
to refute. In fact, extending it, how do we know Reagan exists? Or
someone whom we see today and again tomorrow really existed in the
interim period? Or Sean McLinden or Rich Rosen or Jay Ramanathan?)
Similarly, another guy suffered because he proposed our earth was just
a part of the solar system instead of being the center of the universe
as the religious instituion had believed till then.
(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".
Fact is, context always exists. Any religion is firmly intertwined with
its practice. 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. 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.
If religion was a merely abstract concept, then why so many religions?
Religion X's follower goes to his place of worship religiously (!) every
Sunday, religion Y's follower does it every Saturday, religion Z's
follwer does it every Friday, and so on. And mind you, every one of them
belongs to that species called Homo Sapiens (Or do we? Prove it to me,
says Sean). Each has been doing this for centuries. Have they gone mad?
asks Sean. Who knows? says I. After all, madness is a relative term.
(4) If you believe in the books and authority, life would be
so simple.
As pointed out in <467@pyuxd.UUCP>, our aim is not necessarily "to make
life easy". In fact, we need not have done all the things that we have
done so far in science, if our only aim was to have a simple life.
Strange that, while in science we question even the fundamental theories
off and on, in religion we are told to abide by that one (or two, or three,
anyway a finite number!) "holy" book(s) without question. You might say,
"That's the greatness of religion, everything that needs to be known
has been recorded once and for all". Good, if the same had been done in,
say, following a political ideology, you call it "getting indoctrinated".
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. My main target of attack were
those people who want to perpetuate these differences, often saying the
other man's religion is to be looked down upon. This, according to me,
is a very dangerous approach. (Am I being vehement about it? You bet).
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. Mind you, you
can even be "converted" from one religion to another. Until one day
you go to your place of worship on Day X; from the day of conversion
you switch to Day Y! Are you a different person? They would have us
believe even that.
As Rich Rosen writes: why do we need an external "authority" to guide
us all the time? How about at least trying to make an attempt to
stand on our own two feet?
Jay Ramanathan
"You're all different!"
"No", shouts the crowd,
"Yes", says that lonely creature.