mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/18/85)
In article <706@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: > Anyway, as I've repeated several times in several >places: if 50 million people say that a tomato is a vegetable, must we >change the botany books or alter the definition of vegetable? Not at all. >The people who say that the tomato is a vegetable have simply mislabelled it. >Lots of things get mislabelled, and get stuck with the erroneous >classification for all eternity. That doesn't make the tomato a vegetable. Neither does repeating "All religions have Gods" 50 million times. The problem is, you want to make American Heritage the expert on theology and philosophy, instead of the true experts: the philosophers, mystics, and theologians. >> Belief in the supernatural in no way implies belief in a single God. > >Belief in and worship of a superior so-called supernatural entity (-ies) = > ... >(Fill in the "...") What if you don't worship ANY supernatural entities? This is the case in both Buddhism and Taoism. >Since it doesn't, I'd say the definition is still worthwhile. And I'd say >that another, more accurate word, perhaps a new one (that happens, you >know--- new words...), would be more suitable to describe belief systems like >Buddhism. Well, we USED to call religions which believe in gods (be they mono- or poly- ) as THEISTIC religions. You could lay claim to that phrase instead-- but then your arguments all break down on Buddhism and Taoism, which was what I believe Laura's point was at the beginning of all this. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/20/85)
>> Anyway, as I've repeated several times in several >>places: if 50 million people say that a tomato is a vegetable, must we >>change the botany books or alter the definition of vegetable? Not at all. >>The people who say that the tomato is a vegetable have simply mislabelled it. >>Lots of things get mislabelled, and get stuck with the erroneous >>classification for all eternity. That doesn't make the tomato a vegetable. >> [ROSEN] > Neither does repeating "All religions have Gods" 50 million times. You've got the cart before the horse there. Shouldn't you be saying: "Neither does saying "X is a religion" 50 million times. > The problem is, you want to make American Heritage the expert on theology and > philosophy, instead of the true experts: the philosophers, mystics, and > theologians. More cart-horse misarrangement. Theologians study "man's relationship to god" (from the greek root of the word!!), thus movements such as Buddhism wouldn't have "theologians". Mystics and philosophers can call their beliefs anything they want (e.g., shoe polish---anyone who remembers the relationship this has to Ubizmo wins a prize), but real meaning of words is determined by how they're used, despite any subsequent misapplications of the word. >>>Belief in the supernatural in no way implies belief in a single God. >>Belief in and worship of a superior so-called _s_u_p_e_r_n_a_t_u_r_a_l _e_n_t_i_t_y (-ies) = >> ... (Fill in the "...") > What if you don't worship ANY supernatural entities? This is the case in > both Buddhism and Taoism. Then you have SOMETHING ELSE!!! For which another, better word would apply. >>Since it doesn't, I'd say the definition is still worthwhile. And I'd say >>that another, more accurate word, perhaps a new one (that happens, you >>know--- new words...), would be more suitable to describe belief systems like >>Buddhism. > Well, we USED to call religions which believe in gods (be they mono- or > poly- ) as THEISTIC religions. You could lay claim to that phrase instead-- > but then your arguments all break down on Buddhism and Taoism, which was > what I believe Laura's point was at the beginning of all this. Given that the misusage of the word refuses to die, and given that no one seems to WANT to be distinguished from believers in completely different notions, go ahead and use the pleonasm. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr