Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!hermes.oc.com!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: oh, dear, more on that old-time religion
Message-ID: <CzFHAA.EoD@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <39pab9$qhg@golem.wcc.govt.nz> <39urtt$jqj@golem.wcc.govt.nz> <3a82ve$e84@news.acns.nwu.edu> <CzDKJD.FH4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 20:08:34 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <CzDKJD.FH4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
Andrzej Pindor <pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>Science tries to understand how the universe works by applying reason (logic)
>to empirical data, i.e. it is a logical structure built upon such data.
>Religion accepts 'illumination' (internally generated truths with no empirical
>support) and does not shy away from inconsistencies, which believers are asked
>to live with.

Can you give a single example of a religion which accepts internally 
generated truths with no empirical support?  Most religions, so far as
I know, believe in communications from spiritual powers-- quite a different
thing entirely.  For instance, in Umbanda, spirits are believed to speak
through interpreters.  Now given "religions believe in truths told
by spirits" and the religious opinion "spirits do not exist but are internal
psychological illusions", to conclude "religions believe in truths 
acquired from internal psychological illusions" is to confuse _de dicto_
and _de re_ statements.

As for inconsistencies, it's true that *some* religious people delight in
thumbing their noses at rationalism (e.g. Tertullian with his _credo quia
absurdum est_).  But plenty of religious people, from Aristotle to Thomas 
Acquinas to Newton to C.S. Lewis, believe strongly in reason and do not 
ask anyone to accept inconsistencies.  
