crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (03/21/85)
OKAY, Rich, we've seen clearly that you firmly believe that ``religion'' only refers to deistic systems. We've seen that your authority is the American Heritage Dictionary, and you seem not to be interested in the definitions of other dictionaries. (Even though the AmHer is not all *that* authoritative...) But when I looked up Buddhism (a non-theistic whateverthehellitis) in *my* copy of AmHer (1979), it states: Buddhism: 1. The doctrine atrributed to.... 2. The *religion* of eastern and central asia... (Emphasis is mine.) And when I looked up Taoism in the same book Taoism: A principle philosophy and *religion* of China based on the teachings of Lao Tzu... So, your own authority states that Buddhism and Taoism are ``religions'', and we already know that Buddhism and Taoism are non- theistic, it follows that they must also be religions in the ``eyes'' of the American Heritage dictionaries, and that religions do not then involve a deity. You know, Houghton-Mifflin has a department which handles errors; you really ought to write them a letter about the bad definition of religion. Alternatively, you must argue now that Buddhism and Taoism *do* have a deity; you must have a considerably better authority than a dictionary for that to convince me, as I have been a Buddhist for some years, have taught both Buddhist and Taoist religions at college level, and have yeears of sutra-study. Or, you can dredge up a definition from some other source that does not class Buddhism as a religion. But first, a challenge: look up and type in unedited the definition of Buddhism from *your* copy of the dictionary that you are using. This sort of thing is why I stopped reading net.religion... -- Opinions stated here. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/22/85)
> OKAY, Rich, we've seen clearly that you firmly believe that ``religion'' > only refers to deistic systems. > We've seen that your authority is the American Heritage Dictionary, and > you seem not to be interested in the definitions of other dictionaries. > (Even though the AmHer is not all *that* authoritative...) As I mentioned, compare the way AmHer (vs. Webster's) defines terms like "scientism". Webster's definition is clearly a biased judgmental one, in which it is called "an exaggerated trust", something Wingate, who is clearly biased against "scientism" might agree, but hardly qualifying as unbiased. Compare that to AmHer. Also, compare the two dictionaries' definitions of "miracle". > But when I looked up Buddhism (a non-theistic whateverthehellitis) in > *my* copy of AmHer (1979), it states: > Buddhism: 1. The doctrine atrributed to.... 2. The *religion* of > eastern and central asia... (Emphasis is mine.) > And when I looked up Taoism in the same book > Taoism: A principle philosophy and *religion* of China based on > the teachings of Lao Tzu... Thus, you've shown that the mislabelling I've referred to does exist. If a dictionary defined purple and mistakenly called turquoise a shade of purple, would that make it so? > You know, Houghton-Mifflin has a department which handles errors; > you really ought to write them a letter about the bad definition of > religion. I'm not the one who thinks the definition of religion, either in the dictionary or in common usage, is "bad". Who is any of us to claim that a common usage *definition* is "bad"? > Alternatively, you must argue now that Buddhism and Taoism *do* > have a deity; you must have a considerably better authority than > a dictionary for that to convince me, as I have been a Buddhist > for some years, have taught both Buddhist and Taoist religions at > college level, and have yeears of sutra-study. 1) I make statements about religion in an article. 2) Laura says: "Why did you make those comments when they don't apply to my religion, which doesn't have a god?" 3) I say: "I didn't make comments about your beliefs. I was referring to religions, those belief systems which have worship/concepts of a supernatural deity." 4) Laura: "How dare you make those comments about my religion. They're false. What's more my religion doesn't have a god!" 5) I go back to definitions. 6) You [Charlie Martin] and others: but you're wrong in telling Laura that her belief system is not a religion. In fact, it would seem that it fits the definition in the broad sense anyway." 7) Me: "Fine. If that's true, can we get back to the original discussion???" > This sort of thing is why I stopped reading net.religion... How do you stop reading it yet continue writing to it? And in response to something you haven't read (??) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (03/25/85)
In article <742@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: >> But when I looked up Buddhism (a non-theistic whateverthehellitis) in >> *my* copy of AmHer (1979), it states: >> Buddhism: 1. The doctrine atrributed to.... 2. The *religion* of >> eastern and central asia... (Emphasis is mine.) >> And when I looked up Taoism in the same book >> Taoism: A principle philosophy and *religion* of China based on >> the teachings of Lao Tzu... > >Thus, you've shown that the mislabelling I've referred to does exist. If >a dictionary defined purple and mistakenly called turquoise a shade of purple, >would that make it so? > You're chasing your own tail here, Rich. The only authority that I've seen from you for claiming that ``religion'' implies theism have been: 1) the dictionary definition, which we see clearly is inconsistent; 2) you speaking ex cathedra from your bellybutton. .(f trivia question: what is that a quotation from? .)f Clearly your dictionary has some mislabelling -- but the external evidence strongly suggests that it is in the single definition of ``religion'' *not* in the word as it is defined everywhere else! >> You know, Houghton-Mifflin has a department which handles errors; >> you really ought to write them a letter about the bad definition of >> religion. > >I'm not the one who thinks the definition of religion, either in the >dictionary or in common usage, is "bad". Who is any of us to claim that >a common usage *definition* is "bad"? The common usage defintion is that Buddhism is a religion, as is Taoism, as is Christianity. ... I admit my choice of ``bad'' was incorrect; make that ``incorrect''. > >> Alternatively, you must argue now that Buddhism and Taoism *do* >> have a deity; you must have a considerably better authority than >> a dictionary for that to convince me, as I have been a Buddhist >> for some years, have taught both Buddhist and Taoist religions at >> college level, and have yeears of sutra-study. > >1) I make statements about religion in an article. >2) Laura says: "Why did you make those comments when they don't apply to my > religion, which doesn't have a god?" >3) I say: "I didn't make comments about your beliefs. I was referring to > religions, those belief systems which have worship/concepts of a supernatural > deity." You made global statements about religion which are not correct about Buddhism in particular; we believe Buddhism is a religion and we see that the word religion does indeed include Buddhism; maybe your statements are true about *theistic* religions? >4) Laura: "How dare you make those comments about my religion. They're false. > What's more my religion doesn't have a god!" >5) I go back to definitions. Falsely. >6) You [Charlie Martin] and others: but you're wrong in telling Laura that > her belief system is not a religion. In fact, it would seem that it fits > the definition in the broad sense anyway." >7) Me: "Fine. If that's true, can we get back to the original discussion???" It's OK by me. But how about we do so in definition that the rest of us agree on? > >> This sort of thing is why I stopped reading net.religion... > >How do you stop reading it yet continue writing to it? And in response to >something you haven't read (??) Well, no, I started reading again when Laura asked me to look back into it. And I did read your message, just don't think I'm interested in the other points. -- Opinions stated here. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)