NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/callahan/13761

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.7 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!jarthur.claremont.edu!dgreen
From: [e-mail] (David Green)
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The News System)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:36:43 GMT
Lines: 56

In some article [e-mail] (P'relan) writes:
->In some other article I wrote:
->> On the other hand, what sense does it make to go around saying, "Yeah, I
->> believe in God, but you know, it just doesn't do me much good--I'm just like
->> everyone else, and I'm not the better for it"?  What good would a faith like
->> *that* be?  ...And if I do consider myself to be "better" than other people,
->> it's in the sense relative to my own morals; I have a moral code and I try
->> to stick to it--this doesn't mean that I can't fail, sometimes badly, but
->> I never claimed to be perfect.
->
->Then again, why does believing in a deity or being a Christian, make you more
->moral than anyone else?  Especially when empirical evidence doesn't show a
->clear cut difference.

Because I happened to draw my moral code from the teachings of the Bible.  If
I didn't have the Bible, things might be different.

->>I happen to consider agnosticism (and athiesm) religions in their own rights.
->>Granted, I still think that Nightstalker's division was quite less than
->>accurate, but I don't think he was deliberately trying to be insulting with
->>it.
->
->If you consider agnosticism or weak atheism ("I don't believe in a god because
->I've never seen any evidence of one, but I recognize that's not a proof of
->non-existence; still, what choice do I have for where does believing in things
->that I have no evidence for stop?") a religion, then everything is a religion
->and religion becomes a less useful word because it can no longer be used to
->categorize in that manner.

I don't follow this point at all.  I consider atheism and agnosticism to be
religions in that they are a series of beliefs about God.  I suppose that
the way I use it is to a degree synonymous with 'philosophy,' though I don't
think that's exactly the word I want in this case.

->>Are you implying that there are people who believe exactly the same things
->>out there?  People are individuals, and, as such, are subject to difference
->>of opinion.  Nightstalker's piece was written from his own point of view,
->>with regard to his standpoint on Christianity.  There are enough different
->>'flavors' of Christianity--and 'subflavors,' if you will, within those--that
->>writing a piece summing the overall view of all Christians would be well-
->>nigh impossible.
->
->There might be, but probably not.  I think that you do need to recognize broad
->divisions though or why not lump Christianity in with Judaism and Islam and
->call it Westernism and then let's add all those other religions and throw in
->atheism, agnosticism and all the rest since those are religions too.

I didn't say that you couldn't pick out 'Christianity' and delineate it.
What I said was that writing a piece summing the overall view of all
Christians would be difficult.  Or, at least, general enough that it wouldn't
say a whole lot.
--
[e-mail]                       David "Mishael" Green
            Have you scritched your local Furry today?
************************Who ordered the muon? -- I. I. Rabi*********************
  I have not been appointed Judge, Jury, or Executioner by God.  Just witness.