From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 9 Nov 1992 01:35:29 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1dkd2pINNk9j@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>> >P.S. We've lost track of the original argument, i.e. whether or not
>> >Christianity can be judged on the basis of its followers' actions.
>> >I think that one deserves more thought.  Let's get back to it.
>> 
>> If it can't be judged based on that, then on what can it possibly be judged?
>> How can it possibly be distinguished from a philosophy that simply says
>> "Everybody should be happy"?

>> What I'm saying is that you need to use an OPERATIONAL definition of
>> Christianity, not some bogus mystical definition that is unlikely to  
>mean the
>> same thing to any two different people.
>
>Okay.  Let me (re)ground my definition of Christianity and Christians:
>Christianity:  A belief system which holds that the Bible is true.
>Christian:  A person who subscribes to Christianity.
>
>Now:
>So you think that a philosophy that simply says "Everybody should be
>happy" is bogus, eh?                                                

No, I didn't say that.  When I break something into two paragraphs, I do so for
a reason.  Don't respond to two separate paragraphs as if they were a single
sentence.  Is English a second language for you, by any chance?

My first paragraph said that the only way to judge any particular philosophy is
by its results.  As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.  No matter how well-intentioned something might be, if it leads to
bad consequences, the intentions don't count for jack shit.

My second paragraph said that defining Christianity in some way that has no
corresponding operational definition is bogus.  What your, Ata's, and Leet's
definitions work out to be is "Someone is a Christian if and only if Agney (or
Ata or Leet) says he is, and then only for as long as they continue to say he
is."  That is NOT a very useful definition.  Unless you use a definition that
allows anyone else to figure out whether, according to your criteria, a
particular person is a Christian, then your definition is bogus.


>If you don't have time to find "Utilitarianism" (I can understand that) or
>read it (I can understand that even better! :) then I can live with it.
>It's just that if we get into a debate over utilitarianism, I don't want
>to waste too much time over it.

Mill believed in "absolute utilitarianism," something which has since been
largely discredited.  Nobody has yet found (last I heard) any possible
underpinning for interpersonal comparisons of utility.

Now, would you mind answering the points I raised instead of starting off on
yet another irrelevent tangent?

	1)  How do you propose to judge anything other than by its effects?
	2)  What is an operational definition of Christianity that you'd be
	    willing to use?  Remember, the definition must be one that will
	    allow anybody to determine whether a particular person is a
	    Christian, and must not rely on subjective judgements that vary
	    from individual to individual.

If you can't (or won't) answer these questions, then take the thread to one of
the philosophy or religion groups, because it most certainly does NOT belong in
sci.skeptic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.