[net.religion] Response to Tim - what is a religion?

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/16/85)

> I've got a fun idea.  Is there a university near where you live?  If so, how
> about going down to the admissions office and telling the person there that
> you want to study Buddhism but you aren't sure what department such classes
> would be in.  After the laughter subsides, go down to the university library
> and see what classification books on Buddhism are filed under.  [TIM]

Will they laugh if I ask where the courses on advanced relational calculus
might be taught?  Math department?  Computer science department?  Electrical
engineering department?  Imagine that!  Things get put in different categories,
and sometimes things even get put in the wrong categories (based on the actual
definition of that category).  And they're stuck there.  Mislabelled, but tarred
with the name for all eternity.  That doesn't magically make the definition
suddenly apply to it.

> Then I suggest contacting Chogyam Trungpa and asking him how he got tax-exempt
> status for his organization.  When you're done with all this, buy any book
> on the "World's Great Religions" and see if Buddhism and Taoism are listed
> there.  After you do these things and report the results on net.religion,
> then I will be happy to continue this discussion with you.

I'd be more than happy if you didn't continue it.  If, with one mouth certain
people demand to have their beliefs given the label "religion", and with the
other mouth (on the other face?) they complain when associated with the
religions they've been lumped together with *at* *their* *request* (because
THEIR beliefs don't involve a deity), well, I'd say there's no pleasing such
people.  If you insist on a definition of religion that encompasses non-deity
oriented belief systems, fine.  Then note for your future reference that my
article (the original "Logic based on different sets of assumptions" article)
was about "religions", and when I refer to religions I refer to those belief
systems that fit the criteria contained in the primary definitions found in
the dictionary as already expressed endless times--meaning those belief systems
that make reference (and reverence) to "supernatural" or non-physical entities
of some higher (or ultimate) controlling power with a will and the means to
exercise that will.  If your belief system doesn't fit that description, then
you are still, of course, welcome to respond to that article (as Laura did).
Unfortunately, Laura decided to ignore most of the important points that she
herself brought up in her original reply, casting all my rebuttal to those
points aside in favor of harping on the definition of religion issue.  But I
think that's been beaten to death, and my other points have gone unanswered.
(LAURA:  I have a complete list of those unanswered points if you'd care to
see it.)

> But language is based on consensus, and if you flout the conventions, you
> can't expect much communication to happen.

Exactly.  Returning to Laura's poll, rather than simply asking "Is xxx a
religion?", why not include as a first question "How would you define
religion?".  Then, as a last question, why not ask "Is a tomato a vegetable?".
I know this is redundant, but the point is that despite the consensus on a
definition, many things may be placed into categories in which, by the
definition, they do not belong.  And I contend that this may apply to certain
"religions".  And, quite frankly, I'm appalled that you would WANT those
belief systems to be lumped in with those other belief systems in any case.
Wouldn't another, more accurate word be better and more precise?  It's sort of
like Newspeak:  if you limit the number of words people know and use, you
limit their individual expressiveness, in speaking to others and in thinking to
themselves.  If you are free to use words that best describe what you are
talking about, not limited to certain strict categories into which your ideas
might not fit, then you are better able to express yourself and to be
understood.  By limiting description to the word "religion", you are not
expressing what it really is, which is something quite different.  And
something to be proud of.  And something which should be acknowledged.
-- 
Otology recapitulates phonology.
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/17/85)

Wait a second. You started out saying that we should use a definition of
religion that everybody uses, and then claimed that the notion of
external creating deity was implied by the word religion as people
used it. *Now* you claim that even if people think that Buddhism is
a religion they should be taught otherwise, even if it is misfiled
in universities. Make up your mind!

People are very capable of believing 2 contradictory things at the
same time. Usually this means that the contradictions are not
apparant, but sometimes this means that the person has chosen not
to resolve contradictions -- for a variety of reasons. I meet lots
of people who think that Buddhists think that Siddhartha Gautama 
Sakayama is God. Excuse me. I meet people who think that Buddhists
think that ``Buddha'' or ``the Buddha'' is God. Anyone who knows
those three names already knows enough about Buddhism to know that
``buddha'' is a title, and in knowing what the title means know
that the Buddha is not God. You see, the whole title came about
because people kept asking Gautama ``are you a God?'' ``a Saint?''
``an Angel?''. No he kept answering. ``Then what are you?'' they
asked. ``I am awake.'' he answered. ``Buddha'' means ``The Awakened
One'' or ``The Enlightened One.''

Okay. So perhaps we have established that lots of people don't know
very much about Buddhism. Perhaps they need education. On the
other hand, perhaps they are happy unknowing, much as they are
happy unknowing that tomatoes are fruit and that computers do not
run amok and try to kill their programmers in the great hollywood
tradition. But are you seriously suggesting that because lots of people
are ignorant we should humour them and rearrange all the universities?

I don't think so. What I think you want to do is to focus precisely on
those religious believers who do not have a mystic tradition (this
is the esoteric/exoteric division again, Rich) and then nail them for
the lack of evidence for their beliefs. Too bad you weren't around
when Thomas Aquinas was -- the two of you would have had great times.
But, and this is the point, all of the mystics would conclude that
both the materialists and the theologians missed the whole point --
all you are doing is thinking, analysing and extrapolating...small
wonder mystics of different faiths get along better than some mystics
get along with some members of their own faith!

I have a definition of religion that I think is more accurate than the
ones found in either of your dictionaries. But I am not going to try to
get the universities restructured to suit my definition. Why is this
definition so important to you? I cannot be certain, but I suspect that
it is because you really want to argue with the people who are religious
(by your definition) and leave out those who are not (again by your
definition) and you expect that those who are not (abyd) will find that
what you are arguing for is of such importance that we will rush to
disassociate ourselves from the name ``religion''. Alas for you, it
is not going to work that way. I simply think that what you are
arguing about is irrelevant to what I consider essential to religion.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/19/85)

This is a response to a message from Rich.  He claimed to respond to me
while failing to quote my best points....

> From rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Fri Mar 15 18:47:40 1985

> > I've got a fun idea.  Is there a university near where you live?  If
> > so, how about going down to the admissions office and telling the
> > person there that you want to study Buddhism but you aren't sure what
> > department such classes would be in.  After the laughter subsides, go
> > down to the university library and see what classification books on
> > Buddhism are filed under.  [TIM]

> Will they laugh if I ask where the courses on advanced relational
> calculus might be taught?  Math department?  Computer science
> department?  Electrical engineering department?  Imagine that!  Things
> get put in different categories, and sometimes things even get put in
> the wrong categories (based on the actual definition of that
> category).  And they're stuck there.  Mislabelled, but tarred with the
> name for all eternity.  That doesn't magically make the definition
> suddenly apply to it. [Waggie]

That's a good example of faulty analogy (C. S. Lewis' favorite tactic).  I
am quite sure that more than 95% of all colleges teach Buddhism in the
religion department if they teach it at all, and that at least the same
percentage of religion scholars would hold this to be obviously correct.  If
there were significant disagreement on the subject, as in the situation you
claim is analogous, you would have a point.

> > Then I suggest contacting Chogyam Trungpa and asking him how he got
> > tax-exempt status for his organization.  When you're done with all
> > this, buy any book on the "World's Great Religions" and see if Buddhism
> > and Taoism are listed there.  After you do these things and report the
> > results on net.religion, then I will be happy to continue this
> > discussion with you.

> I'd be more than happy if you didn't continue it.  If, with one mouth
> certain people demand to have their beliefs given the label "religion",
> and with the other mouth (on the other face?) they complain when
> associated with the religions they've been lumped together with *at*
> *their* *request* (because THEIR beliefs don't involve a deity), well,
> I'd say there's no pleasing such people.

Should I conclude, then, that you are unwilling to undertake these
experiments?  Is it too obvious that they would not come out as you would
like them to?

What is this "certain people" nonsense?  That's kindergarten level.  If you
are accusing specific people of something specific, name them and the
offense.  If not, be silent and suspend judgment.  The fact is that
Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., ARE religions, and have always been considered to
be religions by scholars.  When you make blanket condemnations of "religion"
that do not bear on things that are religions, you are speaking falsehood.

All net posters are imbeciles.  But Laura is not a net poster, at least
under the definition I'm using.  This is the only sensible definition -- it
only includes people whose last name does not begin with a "C".  You say no
one but me (and Laura, of course) would go along with that definition?
Everyone else is wrong.  Things do get mis-classified, you know.

If Laura insists on being considered a net poster, because she uses an
inaccurate definition by which anyone posting articles to the net is a net
poster; well, if she wants to be called an imbecile, that's her fault.  You
just can't please some people.

> If you insist on a definition
> of religion that encompasses non-deity oriented belief systems, fine.

Once again you ignore the fact that it is not just ME saying this.  It is
virtually every religious scholar in existence, most universities, all
publishers, the U.S. government, and most dictionaries.  The only person
claiming that Buddhism is NOT a religion is a man with an axe to grind.  His
name is Mr. Rosen.

> Then note for your future reference that my article (the original
> "Logic based on different sets of assumptions" article) was about
> "religions", and when I refer to religions I refer to those belief
> systems that fit the criteria contained in the primary definitions
> found in the dictionary as already expressed endless times--meaning
> those belief systems that make reference (and reverence) to
> "supernatural" or non-physical entities of some higher (or ultimate)
> controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will.

As has been pointed out innumerable times, the dictionary definitions DO NOT
mandate belief in non-physically-based sentients of any sort.  Here's a
representative one, from Webster's Unabridged: "One of the systems of faith
and worship: a religious faith."  Under "religious" we find "relating to
that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality: manifesting devotion to and
reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of
ultimate importance".  Please explain exactly how these definitions exclude
Buddhism.  In fact, the "ultimate reality" criterion applies significantly
better to Zen than to Protestantism....  As I said before, which you edited
out of your reply, you have shown only that no definition excludes theistic
systems, as well they should not.  You have NOT shown that the definitions
exclude non-theistic systems.  All you have done is evaded the point time
and again.

You should also realize that anyone who believes in emergent properties
believes in non-physical entities, but this is not what you would call a
religion.  More like a paradigm.  That's why I said "non-physically-based
sentients" rather than "non-physical entities".

> If your belief system doesn't fit that description, then you are still, of
> course, welcome to respond to that article (as Laura did).
> Unfortunately, Laura decided to ignore most of the important points
> that she herself brought up in her original reply, casting all my
> rebuttal to those points aside in favor of harping on the definition of
> religion issue.  But I think that's been beaten to death, and my other
> points have gone unanswered.  (LAURA:  I have a complete list of those
> unanswered points if you'd care to see it.)

Your definition of religion was the major fallacy in your message, and so
that is what Laura chose to answer.  That is how skilled people argue, by
cutting directly to the primary flaws.  I am sure you would prefer that she
engage in endless quibbles over less important points, but neither Laura nor
myself is quite that green.  (I've met her; she's the regular orangish
shade most Canadians have.)

> > But language is based on consensus, and if you flout the conventions,
> > you can't expect much communication to happen.

> Exactly.  Returning to Laura's poll, rather than simply asking "Is xxx
> a religion?", why not include as a first question "How would you define
> religion?".  Then, as a last question, why not ask "Is a tomato a
> vegetable?".  I know this is redundant, but the point is that despite
> the consensus on a definition, many things may be placed into
> categories in which, by the definition, they do not belong.  And I
> contend that this may apply to certain "religions".

Mostly you are just repeating yourself in paraphrase here, without giving
any reasons to agree with you, but I will respond to the second sentence,
even though it really has nothing to do with the main point.  (A break would
be refreshing, don't you think?)  The human mind is not a system of regular
expressions or even an LL(1) grammar.  It is a vast sprawling informal
complex.  Words such as "religion" are labels we apply to things.  We apply
them to things because when the things are labelled in that way our minds
work more efficiently.  Definitions as people use them are not rules but
categories into which things naturally seem to fall, for reasons that are
often beyond our knowledge.  There is an intrinsic mental connecting
principle called "similarity" (I recommend you read Hume's "Treatise of
Human Nature" if you haven't already -- it's quite readable, enjoyable, and
illuminating) from which labelling derives.  If labels do not coincide with
intrinsic similarity, they are not useful to humans.  In brief, meanings are
built on examples, not on rules, and any rules made up to approximate the
meaning of a word are always liable to change when something similar or
dissimilar to things already labelled comes into the universe.

This digression has been brought to you as a public service by the Roxxon
Corporation.  Serving wombats the world over for 81 years.

> And, quite
> frankly, I'm appalled that you would WANT those belief systems to be
> lumped in with those other belief systems in any case.

Now we come to the crux of the matter.  In this sentence, you make it clear
that the word "religion" is heavily laden with negative connotations for
you.  (Why else would you be "appalled" that we choose that appellation?)
You are STARTING with a negative judgment on anything called "religion" and
working from there.  You have grounds on which to criticize some religions,
so in order to keep your connotations intact, you restrict the word to
religions you can criticize.  Your motivation is emotional.  You are as
attached to your dislike for "religion" as a mainstream Christian is to
Paul's flames against atheists in Romans.  And it is easier to force logic
into that mold than it is to force your emotions to be sensible.  That's
the way human beings are....

> Wouldn't
> another, more accurate word be better and more precise?  It's sort of
> like Newspeak:  if you limit the number of words people know and use,
> you limit their individual expressiveness, in speaking to others and in
> thinking to themselves.  If you are free to use words that best
> describe what you are talking about, not limited to certain strict
> categories into which your ideas might not fit, then you are better
> able to express yourself and to be understood.  By limiting description
> to the word "religion", you are not expressing what it really is, which
> is something quite different.  And something to be proud of.  And
> something which should be acknowledged.

If that's a compliment, my thanks, Rich; but I am not swayed on the main
point.  Buddhism and Christianity continue to exist by stimulating the same
inchoate longings for improvement.  Buddhism plays the same role in a
Buddhist's life as Christianity does in a Christian's.  Buddhists defend
their doctrines with the same fervency Christians do theirs (and if you
don't believe me, try to convince a Buddhist that "Existence is sorrow" is
only half the picture!  Hoo boy!  Their pacifism usually disintegrates
pretty rapidly....)  Buddhism and Christianity are both based around sacred
texts and have historically been maintained by priesthoods.  They both
attempt to achieve the salvation of the individual, albeit through different
methods.  Anyone without an axe to grind would classify them together.  To
try to pretend that the different views of divinity in them make them
fundamentally unalike is a far better example of "Newspeak" and
"doublethink" than the contrary.

PS.  I have used Buddhism throughout rather than my primary religion,
Thelema, because Buddhism is a far better known example.  You may consider
Thelema too if you wish.  Should I assume that you would also consider
Thelema, which is inherently eclectic and non-literalist, to be something
other than a religion?  Consider this then: Thelema is relative monotheism.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/20/85)

> Wait a second. You started out saying that we should use a definition of
> religion that everybody uses, and then claimed that the notion of
> external creating deity was implied by the word religion as people
> used it. *Now* you claim that even if people think that Buddhism is
> a religion they should be taught otherwise, even if it is misfiled
> in universities. Make up your mind!

I did.  Despite the fact that religions (or vegetables) are fairly well
defined, certain other belief systems (and non-vegetables) are LABELLED with
the wrong label.  Thus you have a contradiction---but one that manifests
itself in they way people use words.  Being a Buddhist I'd think you could
appreciate such contradictions...  (I've already made up my mind.  Now it's
your turn.)

> People are very capable of believing 2 contradictory things at the
> same time. Usually this means that the contradictions are not
> apparant, but sometimes this means that the person has chosen not
> to resolve contradictions -- for a variety of reasons.

(Like lack of knowledge about the subject, or not caring to take the time
to do so.)  This is exactly what I said above.

> Okay. So perhaps we have established that lots of people don't know
> very much about Buddhism. Perhaps they need education. On the
> other hand, perhaps they are happy unknowing, much as they are
> happy unknowing that tomatoes are fruit and that computers do not
> run amok and try to kill their programmers in the great hollywood
> tradition. But are you seriously suggesting that because lots of people
> are ignorant we should humour them and rearrange all the universities?

Just the opposite.  Rather than reclassifying the tomato as a vegetable, we'll
still classify it as a fruit, even though it's probably in the vegetable
section in the supermarket.  And rather than reclassifying non-religious
belief systems as religions, we'll find some other useful word for them,
even though they'll continue to be studied in university religion department.
(Perhaps the departments should be renamed "Religion and Smegnotzisms Dept.",
where Smegnotzism is the new word...  All right, it's a horrible word.
So?  Find a better one!!!!!)

> I have a definition of religion that I think is more accurate than the
> ones found in either of your dictionaries. But I am not going to try to
> get the universities restructured to suit my definition. Why is this
> definition so important to you?

That's projection, Laura.  It wasn't "important" to me until you made it so.

> I cannot be certain, but I suspect that
> it is because you really want to argue with the people who are religious (by
> your definition) and leave out those who are not (again by your definition)..

I wouldn't use the word "argue" ("present opinions" is more accurate), but
that is essentially correct WITH REGARD TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

> and you expect that those who are not (abyd) will find that
> what you are arguing for is of such importance that we will rush to
> disassociate ourselves from the name ``religion''.

Hardly.  I'd expect that you'd dissociate yourselves with the name "religion"
simply because it's not the best word to describe your beliefs as distinct
from the others.  But apparently you don't want to.  You WANT to be lumped
together.  God only knows why.  :-)
-- 
"It's a lot like life..."			 Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/20/85)

No, no, God isn't the only onw who knows why. I think that I have a lot
more in common with the Christian and Muslim mystics than with the
logical positivists, and with the philosophical linguists, or the
Kantian deontelogists -- I think that the word is fine. When I want to
disassociate myself from them I can do this as well. Nobody else wants
to redefine the word ``religion'' Rich. Strange as it may seem to you,
I have lot more important things to discuss with religious people before
worrying whether they believe in God or not. Why should you think that
this distinction should be an important one, wheras ``whether my tradition
can claim the right to Apostolic Succession'' is an unimportant one?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/21/85)

>>> I've got a fun idea.  Is there a university near where you live?  If
>>> so, how about going down to the admissions office and telling the
>>> person there that you want to study Buddhism but you aren't sure what
>>> department such classes would be in.  After the laughter subsides, go
>>> down to the university library and see what classification books on
>>> Buddhism are filed under.  [TIM]

>>Will they laugh if I ask where the courses on advanced relational
>>calculus might be taught?  Math department?  Computer science
>>department?  Electrical engineering department?  Imagine that!  Things
>>get put in different categories, and sometimes things even get put in
>>the wrong categories (based on the actual definition of that
>>category).  And they're stuck there.  Mislabelled, but tarred with the
>>name for all eternity.  That doesn't magically make the definition
>>suddenly apply to it. [Waggie]

> That's a good example of faulty analogy (C. S. Lewis' favorite tactic).  I
> am quite sure that more than 95% of all colleges teach Buddhism in the
> religion department if they teach it at all, and that at least the same
> percentage of religion scholars would hold this to be obviously correct.  If
> there were significant disagreement on the subject, as in the situation you
> claim is analogous, you would have a point.

Ah, but does the fact that one group readily admits confusion over labelling
(where DOES this go?) supercede the fact that others simply refuse to consider
what they've labelled?  Where it might ACTUALLY belong without regard to
where people have mistakenly put it?  Back to tomatoes again.

>>> Then I suggest contacting Chogyam Trungpa and asking him how he got
>>> tax-exempt status for his organization.  When you're done with all
>>> this, buy any book on the "World's Great Religions" and see if Buddhism
>>> and Taoism are listed there.  After you do these things and report the
>>> results on net.religion, then I will be happy to continue this
>>> discussion with you.

>>I'd be more than happy if you didn't continue it.  If, with one mouth
>>certain people demand to have their beliefs given the label "religion",
>>and with the other mouth (on the other face?) they complain when
>>associated with the religions they've been lumped together with *at*
>>*their* *request* (because THEIR beliefs don't involve a deity), well,
>>I'd say there's no pleasing such people.

> Should I conclude, then, that you are unwilling to undertake these
> experiments?  Is it too obvious that they would not come out as you would
> like them to?

The reason for not "undertaking" these experiments is that they are STILL
ulimately irrelevant to explaining why religion has one definition and why
other beliefs get labelled as religions.  Frankly, from a legal point of
view, I'm glad that the legal system classifies non-religions like humanism
and even atheism as religions---because otherwise, because of the strict
wording of our own constitution, such beliefs would NOT be granted rights!!!!
It's a good thing that such belief systems are not excluded from any freedoms
of religion concepts.  (Tax-exempt status?  That's another can of worms.
I hardly think that the way something is defined (and redefined) for tax
purposes has any bearing on this discussion.)

> What is this "certain people" nonsense?  That's kindergarten level.  If you
> are accusing specific people of something specific, name them and the
> offense.  If not, be silent and suspend judgment.  The fact is that
> Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., ARE religions, and have always been considered to
> be religions by scholars.  When you make blanket condemnations of "religion"
> that do not bear on things that are religions, you are speaking falsehood.

You and Laura.  I hope this satisfies your requirement for specificity.  I
would have thought it was quite obvious, but I thought it was actually more
courteous not to mention specific names.  So be it.  That's what you wanted.
Your assertions and re-assertions above are contradicted by all the evidence
I've put forth in the past.  If you feel that religious believers can be
taken to task for making assertions without substantiation, well, what's good
for the goose...

> All net posters are imbeciles.  But Laura is not a net poster, at least
> under the definition I'm using.  This is the only sensible definition -- it
> only includes people whose last name does not begin with a "C".  You say no
> one but me (and Laura, of course) would go along with that definition?
> Everyone else is wrong.  Things do get mis-classified, you know.

I thought the body of English language users get to define the English language
rather than two people.  Even when they define "vegetable" one way and still
call a tomato a vegetable.  I would have thought such intense contradictions
could be zenned into oblivion by Laura et al.  The fact that things above have
been mis-classified by you is a *real* example of a faulty analogy, Tim.

> If Laura insists on being considered a net poster, because she uses an
> inaccurate definition by which anyone posting articles to the net is a net
> poster; well, if she wants to be called an imbecile, that's her fault.  You
> just can't please some people.

Right.  Fortunately, you don't define what a net poster is.  The same way you
can't (alone) redefine what religion is.  WHY THE F*** DON'T YOU WANT TO
BE REFERRED TO BY A SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS WORD!!!!!!!  Do you feel more secure
(e.g., legally, as described above) if your beliefs are labelled a religion?
Like I said before, it's just like Newspeak:  by limiting the choices of
words one has available to express thought, one in effect limits the expression
of thought, and limits thought itself.  IFF one is not free to use a more
accurate specific word that better fits rather than the strictly rigid
Newspeak word.  (You readdres this point later.)

>>If you insist on a definition
>>of religion that encompasses non-deity oriented belief systems, fine.

> Once again you ignore the fact that it is not just ME saying this.  It is
> virtually every religious scholar in existence, most universities, all
> publishers, the U.S. government, and most dictionaries.  The only person
> claiming that Buddhism is NOT a religion is a man with an axe to grind.  His
> name is Mr. Rosen.

I'm sorry for preferring use of the correct word, instead of words that
offer unnecessary ambiguity when better words would greatly improve the
communication process.  Deeply sorry.  

> As has been pointed out innumerable times, the dictionary definitions DO NOT
> mandate belief in non-physically-based sentients of any sort.  Here's a
> representative one, from Webster's Unabridged: "One of the systems of faith
> and worship: a religious faith."  Under "religious" we find "relating to
> that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality: manifesting devotion to and
> reflecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of
> ultimate importance".

I'd say "divine" certain implies a deity.  Worship certainly implies that
which I've talked about.  As does devotion.  (One might ask:  worshipping
what?  devoted to what?)

> Please explain exactly how these definitions exclude Buddhism.

What I've been saying is that belief systems that do not propose the existence
of some superior ultimate entity with some sort of will (not just what we've
described as a natural flow) are not religions.  Laura is the one (and let's
remember this) who jumped in and complained "How dare you exclude Buddhism!",
meaning that she herself believes that Buddhism does not fit those criteria.
Since I'd say she's more of an expert on it than I am, I thus accepted that
which she implied---that Buddhism does not account for such an entity (my
current understanding is still that that is the case).  So, *I* never
(especially not in my original article, ... ... ... ) said "this applies to
religions and not Buddhism", LAURA jumped in and said "But what about
Buddhism?"  And as I said, there's no pleasing some people...

> You have NOT shown that the definitions exclude non-theistic systems.  All you
> have done is evaded the point time and again.

But thank you very much for helping me show that above.  :-)

>>If your belief system doesn't fit that description, then you are still, of
>>course, welcome to respond to that article (as Laura did).
>>Unfortunately, Laura decided to ignore most of the important points
>>that she herself brought up in her original reply, casting all my
>>rebuttal to those points aside in favor of harping on the definition of
>>religion issue.  But I think that's been beaten to death, and my other
>>points have gone unanswered.  (LAURA:  I have a complete list of those
>>unanswered points if you'd care to see it.)

> Your definition of religion was the major fallacy in your message, and so
> that is what Laura chose to answer.  That is how skilled people argue, by
> cutting directly to the primary flaws.  I am sure you would prefer that she
> engage in endless quibbles over less important points, but neither Laura nor
> myself is quite that green.  (I've met her; she's the regular orangish
> shade most Canadians have.)

On the other hand, one might just as easily (and perhaps more accurately) say
the following:  My definition of religion was hardly a fallacy, and certainly
not the major point brought out in the message.  That is how evasive people
argue:  by avoiding the primary issues to engage in endless quibbles over less
(un-)important points.  I contend that, especially with regard to the real
important points in the original article (which by now have been smothered
out of relevancy such that Dubuc, the ONLY Christian to respond to it in a
direct way, seems to have lulled off, unless his articles or mine are lost),
we have witnessed serious evasion.  The points in there apply to ANY
religion who engages in making the kinds of assumptions I spoke of.  Yours
too, Tim.  Being a non-Christian doesn't make you automatically immune from
being wrong.

>>> But language is based on consensus, and if you flout the conventions,
>>> you can't expect much communication to happen.

>>Exactly.  Returning to Laura's poll, rather than simply asking "Is xxx
>>a religion?", why not include as a first question "How would you define
>>religion?".  Then, as a last question, why not ask "Is a tomato a
>>vegetable?".  I know this is redundant, but the point is that despite
>>the consensus on a definition, many things may be placed into
>>categories in which, by the definition, they do not belong.  And I
>>contend that this may apply to certain "religions".

> Mostly you are just repeating yourself in paraphrase here, without giving
> any reasons to agree with you, ...

I would think the evidence (esp. regarding the "tomato" poll) would provide
reasons.

> The human mind is not a system of regular
> expressions or even an LL(1) grammar.  It is a vast sprawling informal
> complex.  Words such as "religion" are labels we apply to things.  We apply
> them to things because when the things are labelled in that way our minds
> work more efficiently.

Words are just sounds and/or scrawls on pieces of paper.  Words REPRESENT
concepts, often ambiguous concepts.  They may represent categories into
which human beings CHOOSE (for convenience) to classify things and/or ideas.
Things that belong together may be lumped together and given the same label.
Often enough things are placed in the wrong pile.  That does not change the
definition ascribed to the pile.  Something has simply been misplaced.  For
convenience, or consistency, or based on tradition, we may LEAVE it in that
pile.  But that doesn't magically change the definition ascribed to the pile.

>>And, quite
>>frankly, I'm appalled that you would WANT those belief systems to be
>>lumped in with those other belief systems in any case.

> Now we come to the crux of the matter.  In this sentence, you make it clear
> that the word "religion" is heavily laden with negative connotations for
> you.  (Why else would you be "appalled" that we choose that appellation?)

Because it simply, according to you, doesn't apply.  It's sort of like
inventing a new beautiful shade of aquamarine/turquoise/blue-green and
insisting that it be called a shade of purple!  Am I claiming that
purpleness has negative connotations?

> You are STARTING with a negative judgment on anything called "religion" and
> working from there.  You have grounds on which to criticize some religions,
> so in order to keep your connotations intact, you restrict the word to
> religions you can criticize.  Your motivation is emotional.  You are as
> attached to your dislike for "religion" as a mainstream Christian is to
> Paul's flames against atheists in Romans.  And it is easier to force logic
> into that mold than it is to force your emotions to be sensible.  That's
> the way human beings are....

Read my above paragraph again.  You're way off base.

>>Wouldn't another, more accurate word be better and more precise?  It's sort
>>of like Newspeak:  if you limit the number of words people know and use,
>>you limit their individual expressiveness, in speaking to others and in
>>thinking to themselves.  If you are free to use words that best
>>describe what you are talking about, not limited to certain strict
>>categories into which your ideas might not fit, then you are better
>>able to express yourself and to be understood.  By limiting description
>>to the word "religion", you are not expressing what it really is, which
>>is something quite different.  And something to be proud of.  And
>>something which should be acknowledged.

> If that's a compliment, my thanks, Rich; but I am not swayed on the main
> point.

Now you're reversing the negative connotations yourself into positive ones.
It's a compliment, yes, but only in the sense that each belief system is
unique and deserves distinguishment from others through accurate naming.
Pity though about your failure to be swayed...

> Buddhism and Christianity continue to exist by stimulating the same
> inchoate longings for improvement.  Buddhism plays the same role in a
> Buddhist's life as Christianity does in a Christian's.

Athletic activity plays the same role in some people's lives as sex does
(or as hacking does) in other people's lives.

> Buddhists defend their doctrines with the same fervency Christians do theirs

And those into athletic activity will defend their activity as fervently as
those into sex (or hacking---anyone who says "What's the difference?" may
be in need of assistance :-).  So, must we classify them together. 
Philosophers also make pitches such as you've described, and believe in THEIR
doctrines (and defend them) with equal fervency.  Since philosophy is "more
general", should we lump the religions in with philosophy?  After all,
they're talking about the same things.  Ah, you say, but in different ways.
Based on different concepts.  Now we can form a basis of "classification".

> PS.  I have used Buddhism throughout rather than my primary religion,
> Thelema, because Buddhism is a far better known example.  You may consider
> Thelema too if you wish.  Should I assume that you would also consider
> Thelema, which is inherently eclectic and non-literalist, to be something
> other than a religion?  Consider this then: Thelema is relative monotheism.

I think in earlier descriptions of your religion, you've claimed to be
worshipping humanity itself (I'm flagrantly oversimplifying).  But based
on what you've said you might seem to have the criteria for being called a
religion.  But since I don't have all the facts and since my job is not
to perform such classification, I won't do so.
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/22/85)

> Nobody else wants to redefine the word ``religion'' Rich. Strange as it may
> seem to you, I have lot more important things to discuss with religious people
> before worrying whether they believe in God or not.  [LAURA]

Nobody "else"?  Who's the first person doing redefining that requires the use
of the word "else" to describe some other person(s)?
-- 
"Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if
 I get enough money I can make it into a concept."       Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr