Re: virus: Does God really exist?

tedlick badkey (
Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:26:31 -0400

Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> Tedlick seems to be redefining religion so broadly as not to
> be terribly useful.

Not necessarily so broadly, but in a different context. I would prefer
to look at the deep structure of religions, and to do this you need to
look at the circumstances which begat them (and how they altered over

When you look at religion as a coping method rather than divine
inspiration, the metaphor of technology as god is just as valid as Jesus
as savior of the opressed. Regardless of your concious knowledge that
technology can fail, you take calculated risks, displaying your faith.
The religion changes with the times; we cope with the problems of the
world by investing faith that technology will overcome obstacles. How is
this any different in practice from the Native Americans having faith
that their animal spirits will help them on their hunt? The rituals are
different (we watch CNN, they had social ceremonies), but they are
rituals nonetheless.

> Anyone who has faith in our technology needs
> to study it more (try comp.risks).

Agreed-- likewise anyone who has faith in religion should study it more
from a historical sense, not just a spiritual, emotional sense. I have
found many believing Christians who have distilled their beliefs into a
pure spiritual practice that is unhindered by the need to take the Bible
literally, mainly because they studied what was going on at the time the
New Testament was written. They were able to gleen the ideas and
concepts out of the prose.
I deal with coworkers daily who unconciously treat technology the same
way one would treat religious iconography-- they don't understand the
computers which have been put on their desks, so it's no suprise to them
when these mysterious objects behave strangely. They are amazed when I
come and tinker with the computer and fix a minor problem they have had
for months. If they took the time to seriously learn the computer
(rather, if they had the desire), the mysticism would disappear.

> As for "a creation implies a creator," that's
> tautological but not helpful, because we have no reason other
> than habit to think of the universe as a "creation."

Most scientists agree on the "big bang" theory. In such a scenario, the
universe is a creation of the big bang; thus, the universe must have a
creator. Because this creator must be outside of the universe, any ideas
about the nature of god are creations from our minds. It's therefore
much more interesting to look at the _reasons_ a religion exists than to
determine if the religion accurately describes god.

Tedlick Badkey

Wholesale Slaughter Enterprises
"70%, I can live with the smell..."