On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:53:05 -0600, "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> wrote: >It looks like semantics to me because all I can see from the >definitions of religion is that is does in fact have to do with a >higher being or spiritual belief vs. a logistical belief. I'm OK with "higher being or spiritual belief". My points: 1. No-one can get through life on just logical belief (I'm used to thinking of logistics as involving supply, so allow me to switch terms - I don't think I'm changing your meaning.) 2. There is a big difference from person to person on where the limit of logical belief lies, and it is nice if the two people have a basis for talking to each other. Thus I think that there is more than semantics involved - that it is necessary for those who find logical consequences more easily to realize that they are asking those who do not to believe what they say in a way similar to the way proponents of faith do. I doubt that this list comprises a representative sample of this particular human parameter of awareness of and ability to draw logical consequences. :<) But furthermore, I observe many people who can reason just fine, thank you, and are not agitating for creationism, nonetheless feel the need for a spiritual life. That is another reason, to return to the original topic I addressed, why I think any future with our descendants will include religions. They may not look much like today's religions, but they will involve less-than-rational belief systems that nonetheless survive because they have been shown to work in some important fashion. Richard