From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 9 Nov 1992 00:58:01 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@itchy

In article <1dkc53INNia8@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl  
J Lydick) writes:
> Path: nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
> From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
> Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
> Date: 9 Nov 1992 00:39:43 GMT
> Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
> Lines: 33
> Distribution: world
> Message-ID: <1dkc0fINNia8@gap.caltech.edu>
> References:  
<1dk7sdINN39n@gap.caltech.edu>,<1dkageINNgss@gap.caltech.edu>
> Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
> NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu
> 
> In article <1dkageINNgss@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney  
(Michael Agney) writes:
> >(By the way, my own experience has been that Christianity is used to  
mean
> >that which all Christians believe, and not what individual Christians
> >believe.  "Custom and usage" must have been different in my neck of the
> >woods than it was in yours.)
> 
> Er, aren't you getting a bit circular here.  Near as I can tell, your
> definitions are now:
> 	Christian:  Someone who subscribes to Christianity
> 	Christianity:  What Christians believe
> Also, I've been arguing that Christianity is what the Christian Churches  
have
> said it was.  If you belong to a Christian church then you are, by  
definition,
> and according to hundreds of years of custom and usage, a Christian.   
And
> finally, I strongly suspect that if we tried to use your definition and  
took
> the intersection of all beliefs held by all Christians, we'd end up with  
the
> null set.
> 
> >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?  Check out "Utilitarianism" by John Stuart Mill.
It's thick reading, but it's worth it.

The basic premise of utilitarianism is, "Those actions are good which tend
to increase happiness or decrease unhappiness."  If you want to object to
this, I do ask that you read "Utilitarianism";  there are too many quick
ways to try to refute it, most (if not all) of which Mill deals with, and
I don't feel like covering old ground.  If you think of an objection Mill
doesn't cover, post it, and I'll have a go at it.

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.

What I'm trying to say is that "Everybody should be happy" can be made
into a perfectly good philosophy, and one that you can even use to
evaluate other philosophies if you accept it.  There is (IMHO and in
Mill's opinion) a way of evaluating a religion, besides the actions of
its adherents.

I wonder if I can find a work where Christianity is evaluated on
utilitarian grounds?   It'd save a lot of time, and probably do a better
job than I can do here.

--
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
\---------------------------------------------------------/
-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.environment