my point is not that i can beat her definition (as you acknowledge). it's to recognize that people are rejecting something specific when they reject "religion", and instead of using that however we want whenever we want, we ought to come clean and be honest about what we're saying. that's all. is it so much that when you want to make claims about something, you explain what it is you think you're making claims about?
it seems to me that the burden of proof is on people who want to make (especially really broad, ambiguous) assertions like "real scientists reject religion" to explain what they mean, not on the rest of us to figure out what they mean (although i've been trying) or to show what's problematic about it before they have to commit to what they mean (which i've also been doing).
j
On 6/16/05, snitsnat <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> At 01:39 PM 6/16/2005, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
>
> >ok, i know you're not this dense. which leads me to infer that you're
> >trying to distract me from the fact that you (apparently) don't want
> >to define "religion". did i miss your definition?
>
> i don't honestly think she should have to. you're the only one who really
> cares in this conversation. and, aside from which, it's unfair. it's like
> asking a sociologist to define society. it's a gotcha. Every single def. of
> religion is controversial and Yoshie probably knows that you can do a
> gotcha on her or may suspect that's what you're up to (though I concede
> that this isn't your goal).
>
> So, you see why no one would want to answer the question. You only have to
> have half a .... oh my dog .... I don't believe what I almost typed....
> anyway, most people are going to understand that "the def of religion" is
> inherently controversial
>
>
> >why don't you try taking on the rest of my argument, because i believe
> >i have set out workable beginnings of a useful definition of religion
> >(which no one has yet challenged).
>
> becaues they don't study religion. it's expecting a level of expertise
> folks here don't have or necessarily care to have.
>
> I'm enjoying the discussions and you're argument, I just don't think it's
> fruitful to expect people to answer those questions or, at least, I think
> I'd like to explain why others may be interpreting your question as
> actually a hostile question.
>
>
> Kelley
>
> "Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
>
> -- rwmartin
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead