Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: personality/consciousness, naturalism/materialism
Message-ID: <703@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 18:57:23 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.703
Posted: Fri Mar 15 18:57:23 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 05:28:35 EST
References: <1027@decwrl.UUCP>, <678@pyuxd.UUCP> <5225@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.religion:6068 net.origins:857

> In saying ``the supernatural does not exist, for if it did it
> would be natural, and not supernatural'' you are begging the
> question, Rich. If elements of teh set of things which are
> commonly called ``the supernatural'' exist, then perhaps they
> should be called natural --        [LAURA]

My point exactly.

> but ``do they exist'' is a question
> that must take precidence over ``what shall we call them'' and
> ``must we keep calling them what we have always called them''. [LAURA]

The way they are categorized, as being "outside of the sphere of natural
things" is itself a bogus notion.  The notion that such things, things
that at this point cannot be observed (and thus judgments about them are
wishful thinking at best), are somehow "different" in any way other than
that WE, the glorious anthropocentric humans, cannot see them, is
presumptuous in the extreme.
-- 
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr