On 03 Jul 2014, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/3/2014 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only a pseudo-scientist would say that the science progresses have
put any threat on the non literal reading of any "sacred texts".
Wouldn't that depend on what the non-literal reading is? I think
what you mean is that there is always some non-literal reading that
is not threatened by science...or by logic, or by empathy, or by
anything else you care to name, because "non-literal" is just "not
what it says". "Mein Kampf" is also consistent with good race
relations, on a non-literal reading.
'Mein Kampf' contains hate. Hate is always literal, or you are in a
Charlie Chaplin movie.
You can study the deep non literal meaning in a book like Aldous
Huxley "philosophia perennis". You can sum it by "Plato might be
right", or "the laws of physics might have a deeper reason, perhaps
even a purpose".
The institutionalist religions are as far of religion than the today
politics of health is from health. For basically the same reason
(stealing people's money).
A scientist interested in religion will always read a "sacred text"
with the same equanimity than reading a "salvia divinorum" report.
Religion, like nationalities, have also social identity role, indeed
very often perverted, and we (the scientists) have to keep calm and
try hard to not throw the unsolved questions when abstracting from the
fairy tales and legends associated with some plausible, or not,
contact between humans beliefs and truth.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
