On Friday 20 January 2006 14:04, Dennis J. Tuchler wrote:
Do you feel coerced when you see a religious message in a note sent by e-mail through a listserv? If someone told me that Jesus wants me to use Word Perfect, I would take that as a failed endorsement, and nothing more. The person sending the religious message may have your interests at heart, and it does not matter that your perception of your interests are different in evaluating the appropriateness of the missive.
Your flame has caught me by surprise Dennis. I was arguing against raising a ruckus over a religious quote in someone's .sig. For the record though, anyone who sends me a religious note does not have my interests at heart. They have their perception of what they think my interests should be at heart. Trust me when I tell you that religious messages are contrary to my interests. _I_ determine what my interests are, not some arbitrary sender of a message.
There is no "inherent conflict" between intellect and religion. Indeed, the intellectual activity among respected thinkers with respect to religious doctrine and textual interpretation is not only sizable but also admirable. The intellect, after all, is not limited to matters of "fact" or "science". It is arrogant nonsense to assert that the only intellectual activity of any value relates to the pursuit of science. You do not (cannot) know whether the intellectual effort in matters religious have anything to do with truth. Indeed, it is not all that clear that what science describes as the world has a 1:1 correspondence with what the world is "really"like. So stuff your arrogance and, when you are done, calm down!
I am perfectly calm Dennis. Point in fact, the intellect is indeed limited to rational matters. See http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=intellect By definition, there can be no intellect in religious matters. Just because someone you think is smart has faith does not mean that religious matters are an intellectual pursuit. Religion is inherently irrational, as everything boils down to a requirement to have faith, that is, belief without evidence, or even belief in the face of conflicting evidence. It is in fact certain that what science describes the world as is not a 1:1 correspondence with what the world is "really" like. That is one of the basic premises of science--that we don't know it all. As for being arrogant Dennis, I submit that nothing I have written could be reasonably construed to be an effort on my part to exaggerate my own importance. If that were the case, then _everyone_ who replied in this thread, including yourself, are arrogant. I think perhaps you meant to accuse me of being inerrant, which interestingly enough, is one of the qualities religious people tell us that their prophets, disciples, priests, and gods possess, and so we should believe them even when the evidence says they are wrong. I cannot be wrong on matters of opinion, only on matters of fact. And from time to time, I am indeed wrong, or at least not _precisely_ accurate within an acceptable margin of error. (of course sometimes I'm just flat-out dead wrong ;-) Also, I have not asserted, nor will I, that intellect is limited to matters of science. Math is not science, yet clearly it is rational, hence intellectual. There are other such cases, but religion is not among them. On a side note, you do not need to quote the entire thread in your reply. It is sufficient to quote just the part you are replying to, and trim the rest. Also, you do not need to send mail to me and also cc the list. Unlike some others, I do not mind if you mail me directly on things that are off-topic for the list. However, if it is on-topic, please post to the list and allow everyone to benefit from the discussion. Regards Mark