Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: personality/consciousness, naturalism/materialism
Message-ID: <849@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 19:15:07 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.849
Posted: Fri Mar 22 19:15:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 04:27:33 EST
References: <1027@decwrl.UUCP> <678@pyuxd.UUCP> <5225@utzoo.UUCP> <703@pyuxd.UUCP> <5263@utzoo.UUCP> <727@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: pvt1047@wucec1
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 23
Keywords: communication
Xref: watmath net.religion:6249 net.origins:905
Summary: 

In article <727@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes:
>> Are all of these reasons invalid? [Laura Creighton]
>
>I think so.
>"It's a lot like life..."			 Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

The purpose of using language is (hopefully) to communicate.  The question
therefore is, does using the word "supernatural" help or hinder 
communication?  Laura's reasons for using it do hold some water, but
Rich is right in this respect, I think:  that it would probably be
most clear if the word were avoided, in favor of (perhaps lengthy)
explanations.  (Explanations like: "this is something which I do not
fully understand, and it is the type of thing which people often
refer to as supernatural, but ..." (you get the picture, I hope).)

And now, enough of this debate.
-- 
"When there's something wrong
with the popular views
who do you call?"
		ICONBUSTERS!
					--The developing iconoclast,
					Paul V. Torek  wucs!wucec1!pvt1047