garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (12/15/83)
To John Crane:
I realize you do not need me to defend you against attacks
by the likes of Tim Maroney, but I dislike seeing anybody
treated the way he likes to treat people. Also, I thought
you should know something about Mr. Maroney's professed
attitudes, so that you might understand him better.
I don't think you need trouble yourself about Mr. Maroney's
criticism. You may not have been reading this group at the
time, but a few months ago he did post an article on his
religion, Thelemism. It turns out that Thelemism is based
on as fanciful a story as can be found in some (not all) comic
books. It further turns out that Mr. Maroney doesn't feel
that it is important whether the story on which his religion
is based is true. Not only so, but he stated in another
article that even if he were to be convinced that another
religion (Christianity) were true, he wouldn't change. So
much for being 'open-minded' and 'rational'. In fact, he
stated that religion was a personal thing, and therefore
not subject to proof. Well, he is certainly welcome to that
opinion, but if that is his real opinion, I don't think he
ought to criticize anybody else's religion (or philosophy or
any other beliefs or opinions).
I, for one, understood that you were not advocating all of the
beliefs you mentioned, but merely pointing out a common theme.
I found it to be an interesting comparison.
Mr. Maroney is quite adept at using terms which carry strong
negative connotations. He is also fairly adept at spotting
faulty logic and inconsistencies in other people's arguments.
One could wish that he would use that adeptness on his own
arguments, or to discover or disseminate truth or enlightened
opinion. Ah well.
I do, however, disagree with one of your major statements:
What's true for a person is what that person actually
believes is true and nothing else.
I think what's true is what's true, whether or not anybody believes
it. I.e., there is an absolute reality, which people are trying to
discover. Topic for future discussion, perhaps? (in net.philosophy,
not net.religion).
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garystim@unc.UUCP (12/18/83)
[ prologue -- It is perhaps inappropriate to respond to vicious insults and lies, because of the danger of sinking to that level yourself, and the fact that anyone who believes them is too far gone to be reached by reason. However, it is also very difficult simply to ignore them, and there is certainly no moral obligation to be kind to the person who spreads them. I have chosen to respond to Mr. Samuelson's idiocy; if you feel that this is unseemly, no one is forcing you to read this. ] Before you go thanking Mr. Samuelson for leaping to your defense, there is something that you should know about him. He lies, or else is so uncritical of his own beliefs that the effect is the same. In his first article on net.religion, he said that Christians were discriminated against in the job market if they don't lie and cheat "like everyone else". He later said that he had not said and did not believe that all non-Christians were immoral. "Everyone" means "everyone", guy, and claiming not to be prejudiced, when you have made it clear that you are, is foolish. This sort of lying denial that one is advocating something hateful to someone else is characteristic of a lot of Christian preachers, especially (but not limited to) Falwell. There is Mr. Samuelson's form, in which one flatly denies it post facto, and there is another popular form in which one says "I wouldn't say that <put insult here>, but ..." where the rest is composed of statements that try to support the insult. If you watch much Christian TV, you've no doubt seen a lot of this. I am not such a hypocrite. If I have something critical to say, I do not cover it with that sort of deceit. He also lied in the article to which I am responding. Check out this quote: I don't think you need trouble yourself about Mr. Maroney's criticism. You may not have been reading this group at the time, but a few months ago he did post an article on his religion, Thelemism. It turns out that Thelemism is based on as fanciful a story as can be found in some (not all) comic books. I have never said that Thelemism was based on any story. It is based on the model of experience as the union of Nuit and Hadit, and on the Will-based moral system, as expressed in Liber AL. I honestly do not know to what statements of mine Mr. Samuelson is referring, but I do wish he would get his facts straight before spreading accusations. It further turns out that Mr. Maroney doesn't feel that it is important whether the story on which his religion is based is true. Not only so, but he stated in another article that even if he were to be convinced that another religion (Christianity) were true, he wouldn't change. So much for being 'open-minded' and 'rational'. Once again, no, I never said that. In fact, I don't understand what you mean by a religion being "true". What I said was that if the Bible were shown to be accurate, I would certainly not become a Jew or Christian, because the god depicted in that book is less moral than a Nazi. It is simply not within my personal moral standards to follow any leader that orders torture and wanton slaughter, and it doesn't matter to me whether that leader is human or divine. If this seems somehow close-minded or irrational to you, I am at a loss to understand how. In fact, he stated that religion was a personal thing, and therefore not subject to proof. Well, he is certainly welcome to that opinion, but if that is his real opinion, I don't think he ought to criticize anybody else's religion (or philosophy or any other beliefs or opinions). Bosh. The fact that a belief cannot be proven or disproven does not mean that nothing meaningful can be said about it. A person's opinions are subject to reasonable scrutiny even if they are not things which can be proven. For instance, suppose I were to espouse the belief that large orange men from Saturn are tapping my consciousness and forcing me to kill people. That assertion could be neither proven nor disproven, but it would most certainly NOT be a healthy belief. Also, the reason that I feel proof is not particularly relevant to religion is not because it is a "personal thing", but because religion serves to put forth models, not assertions. Obviously, some religions do not hold to this principle, but that is off the point. Here is probably the most amusing thing that Mr. Samuelson said: Mr. Maroney is quite adept at using terms which carry strong negative connotations. Uh-huh. Of course, Mr. Samuelson would never dream of using such terms. Here is a sample of his presumably non-negative connotations, from this article: I realize you do not need me to defend you against attacks by the likes of Tim Maroney, but I dislike seeing anybody treated the way he likes to treat people. I am glad to hear that, Gary, because otherwise I would have thought that your article was much more hostile than mine. Now that you assure me that your rabid insulting is not treating me poorly, I realize what a compassionate, kind, and gentle person you truly are. One final point, and then I'll hang it up. Mr. Samuelson goes on to say: He is also fairly adept at spotting faulty logic and inconsistencies in other people's arguments. One could wish that he would use that adeptness on his own arguments, or to discover or disseminate truth or enlightened opinion. Ah well. That really hurts, because I make every effort to do just what you claim I do not. I have many times gone through a process of re-evaluation of my own beliefs and feelings. The first major one was at 12, when I was forced to abandon Christianity (a very painful process) due to lack of evidence for its many absolutist assertions. I have since revised my own beliefs many times due to perceived flaws in them, most lately on gun control. My current feelings on psychic powers are not my original feelings, but I saw the fallacy there and was forced to give up those dreams. This is not an easy thing to do, but it has to be done for the sake of honesty to self. I suggest that instead of insinuating that my arguments are flawed, you attempt to show how. I would be interested in hearing Mr. Samuelson's definition of "truth and enlightened opinion", although I am willing to bet money that it has something to do with compatibility with a certain book of religious and historical writings.... -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/20/83)
[Jumping in -- hoping, maybe, to shed light rather than heat...] Obviously Gary Samulson and Tim Maroney don't agree... They can't even agree on what religion is. This is evidenced in Tim's paragraph: Also, the reason that I feel proof is not particularly relevant to religion is not because it is a "personal thing", but because religion serves to put forth models, not assertions. Obviously, some religions do not hold to this principle, but that is off the point. Now to me (and I think Gary as well), religion is not just a model or set of principles to live by. A model is included, but along with it there are assertions -- in Christianity there are quite a few assertions made in the Bible about the state of the world, about man and about God. This is an important part of Christianity because it teaches that you cannot make yourself right (Gal 2:21ff), but that you need to believe in Jesus agreeing with him that you are not right already (I John 1:9) and responding to his love by following what he teaches. So, a belief in Jesus as a living being is central to Christianity, and proofs or disproofs are relevant as to whether or not he exists (or existed) and whether or not he rose from the dead. Now, Tim does not seem to need anything other than a model according to which he will try to live his life (at least as far his religious beliefs go -- correct me if I'm wrong). The only thing you can ask Tim is if his model is consistent with the world and if his model works. The first is minimal in that you really want to know is whether it is correct or true, but how can you phrase that since your common ground is so minimal? The only thing I can think of here is that it has to be morally right, but since this requires a value judgement, we won't get too far here either. I could say it's not right because I don't think a particular thing is morally right, but Tim will just disagree. The second part is whether or not Tim's model works. That is also subjective -- Tim might think he's doing fine and that he's happy. If he doesn't, then he should know there is a weakness in his religion or his ability to live according to his religion (even the latter is probably a weakness in his religion). If he does think he's doing fine, then the most I could say is that something he is doing seems ok for now, but will later become destructive or unhealthy to himself or to others. Tim does agree that there are unhealthy beliefs: A person's opinions are subject to reasonable scrutiny even if they are not things which can be proven. For instance, suppose I were to espouse the belief that large orange men from Saturn are tapping my consciousness and forcing me to kill people. That assertion could be neither proven nor disproven, but it would most certainly NOT be a healthy belief. I am expanding a little in saying that a belief can be unhealthy for the believer as well. One way to check this would be to look at other people who believed and see if you think they had healthy productive lives. Tim, for instance, could give us biographies of people who lived and died believing in Thelemism and to demonstrate that they did lead healthy and productive lives. Or, someone else could look up biographies of such people and demonstrate that some did not do well at all. For them, Tim could say that they didn't apply it correctly or that he had modified points and so it would work better for him. I guess the last few paragraphs sum up to this. Christianity asserts a lot more than Thelemism, and thus has a lot more that is subject to proof or disproof. All the things that can be discussed about Thelemism that I mentioned above can be debated about Christianity, but since Christianity makes assertions about a lot of other things, they are also subject to discussion. (Christianity is unique in that it not only gives you a model, but the promise of the power to follow that model; if you find that promise true, it becomes proof of Christianity -- but you sort of have to believe in order to test this or else become convinced by looking at other people's lives.) About the flavor of Tim and Gary's articles: What is this? Don't both of your religions teach love? Gary, your article carried the implication that net.religion readers had generally agreed that: ... Thelemism is based on as fanciful a story as can be found in some (not all) comic books. I'm not sure what net readers had agreed upon. I don't think anyone was overly impressed with Thelemism, but since Tim didn't seem to care where the ideas had come from, anyway, any such story probably isn't that important. I think you do have a point in saying that Tim isn't consistent in expecting greater rigor in what others believe than in what he believes, but (besides what I said above in the beginning paragraphs) I don't think there is any real consensus on this. I can understand why Tim wants to flame back to you about this. Tim, I think you're making way to much of Gary's "everyone else" phrase in concluding he is a liar. In common usage, "everyone else" means something like "most everyone else" -- he's just emphasizing or (at worst) exagerating in order to make a point. Even if you did show that he lied once, that's not quite the same as saying categorically that he is a liar. You spent two paragraphs flaming on this; that's a little much. It set the stage so well, that I had a hard time seeing anything but flame in the rest of your article; now that I look back, there are some points there, but... I don't know; maybe I shouldn't jump in and say those things, but, isn't this net etiquette? I think net.religion can be a forum for discussing different religions in a sane way; I don't think such flaming is necessary. If you flame at someone, people will generally see the flames and that your tactics will be distasteful enough that they probably won't want to listen to you. If you're flamed at, it hurts and you want to flame back. I can understand that, but I think you're better responding calmly to any real points that might be buried in the flame and allowing other people to defend you from the flaming part. Sigh! -Liz Allen -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (12/20/83)
From: liz@umcp-cs.UUCP Subject: Re: Open Letter to John Crane Message-ID: <4494@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Dec-83 02:52:47 EST References: <269@bunkerb.UUCP> <6433@unc.UUCP> I don't know; maybe I shouldn't jump in and say those things, but, isn't this net etiquette? I think net.religion can be a forum for discussing different religions in a sane way; I don't think such flaming is necessary. If you flame at someone, people will generally see the flames and that your tactics will be distasteful enough that they probably won't want to listen to you. If you're flamed at, it hurts and you want to flame back. I can understand that, but I think you're better responding calmly to any real points that might be buried in the flame and allowing other people to defend you from the flaming part. Sigh! -Liz Allen -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay The only part of this paragraph I disagree with is the first sentence; *of course* you should say it! It would be nice to have a calmer atmosphere here, though I realize I don't follow that invariably myself. Well said, Liz. --Steve
crane@fortune.UUCP (John Crane) (12/21/83)
I got and read both letters. I am working on a response for tomorrow.
tim@unc.UUCP (12/22/83)
Good article, Liz. I'd like to respond to a few points in it. About the flavor of Tim and Gary's articles: What is this? Don't both of your religions teach love? Yes and no. Both religions teach that love is a greatly desirable and wonderful thing. Thelemism, however, does not have any teachings of the nature of "turn the other cheek". Gary attacked me viciously and without basis; I responded in kind, but with some more basis. I see nothing immoral in this. On the other hand, I do see something hypocritical in Jesus preaching that we should love our enemies, when the god of that religion does nothing of the sort. (If your concept of love includes imprisonment in lakes of fire, remind me never to go out on a date with you...) Furthermore, turning the other cheek in the late 1930's and early 1940's would have meant we'd all be goose-stepping to work every day. Christians do not practice their teachings about unconditional love, which is good from a moral point of view, but is still hypocritical. The main thrust of your article was about the role of assertions in religion. I'd like to back off a bit on my statement that "religion serves to put forth models, not assertions". In fact, even the putting forth of a model as worthwhile is an assertion. (This is what comes of trying to force essay-length concepts into a single phrase -- sorry.) In fact, what I want in a religion is as few possibly false assertions as possible, given the other duties of religion. I'm more than willing to leave history to the historians, biology to the biologists, and so on. I am unwilling to accept statements as true if there is no evidence for them and they could later cause conflicts with other verifiable facts. For instance, the belief that the creation of the physical universe happened as mandated by some religion could bring me into conflict with physical evidence. A belief that Jesus was the Son of God could bring me into conflict if it is false and some other religion's claims can be verified, which I do not know not to be the case. I have accepted Thelemism for a number of reasons; one is that it does not force me to believe many things that could be false, unlike Christianity and almost any other religion you'd care to name. As I mentioned, I left Christianity at 12 because there was just too much in it that might well be false, and which I had no way of verifying. Even an apparent direct contact with YHVH could be an illusion created by the devil; if humans are really as corrupt as Christianity holds, there is no way for us to tell. That is not my current reason for not being a Christian, but it still holds water. As to the validity of the assertions that Thelemism forces on the Thelemite, Liz has some interesting things to say, but she misses the point. Her proposed tests all assume that the assertion "Thelemism is the best religion for everyone" is part of it. No doubt there are some hard-liners who would say this, but I am not among their number. I am a Thelemite because it works for me; to put it another way, my only assertion is "Thelemism is the best religion for me". I have never proselytized -- my article on Thelemism was just so that I could answer a large number of queries all at once -- and I have never said that someone's belief was bad just because it wasn't Thelemite. (This last is meant to stand in contrast to most of the Christian postings on the group.) I might be able to prove that it works for me, but I've never given any thought to this issue. (If you're really thirsty for it, I am in love with a wonderful woman, I make enough money to live comfortably, I am not subject to uncontrollable negative emotion, and I graduated from college at 20.) There are a few little things from Liz's article I'd like to clarify as well. First, as Liz points out, I do believe that there are such things as unhealthy beliefs. However, she goes on to say: I am expanding a little in saying that a belief can be unhealthy for the believer as well. That's not an expansion -- the example I gave was meant to be of one that was unhealthy for the believer as well as those around him. I think you do have a point in saying that Tim isn't consistent in expecting greater rigor in what others believe than in what he believes, but (besides what I said above in the beginning paragraphs) I don't think there is any real consensus on this. I am not aware that I am guilty of this. If you are going to say "It is a fact that such-and-such happened", then I am perfectly within my rights in asking for some sort of evidence. Thelemism does not make assertions of that form (in any way that is important to the religion), so I am not subject to that sort of questioning. This hearkens back to the choice of a religion that does not force you to believe the possibly false. Tim, I think you're making way to much of Gary's "everyone else" phrase in concluding he is a liar. In common usage, "everyone else" means something like "most everyone else" -- he's just emphasizing or (at worst) exagerating in order to make a point. Even if you did show that he lied once, that's not quite the same as saying categorically that he is a liar. Even if he did mean "almost everyone else", this still betrays a prejudice against non-Christians. Nothing is changed in what I said by this slight change. As to calling him a liar, that means simply "one who lies", and so your last sentence is false. Overall, Liz, your peace-making efforts are, I'm sure, appreciated by all members of this news group. However, responding to attacks with attacks will probably continue to be part of my behavioral repertoire. All I can say is that my attacks will always be supported by evidence. -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)