On 08 Aug 2015, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in
religion, they show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT
believing in God can believe there is a need for humans to do
something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust God
for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job.
What about when they "attack" the behavior of other people.
No humans, nor group of humans can think at the place on another
human, I would say. If some do that in the name of the non nameable,
it is a "blasphemy", which is the summit of the invalid "argument-per-
authority".
Could parents think at the place of their kids? It is more difficult,
but ideally, they should do that the most rarely as possible, and
again, without invoking transcendence, and use explanation instead
(but I know what it is, and how hard that can be especially when both
parents works).
All religions prescribe some kinds of behavior as good and others
as bad
That made sense before democracy. "The laws" have a religious origin,
but such mixing if maintained will kill the religion and the politics.
and claim these prescriptions are supernatural.
It is fraud, but we should not judge this, just understand that it
should not be done, and democracies should find ways to prevent that.
If you know the religion of the philosophy of a politics, never vote
for him/her.
They base laws and taxes and wars on them and trust God is on their
side.
Vanity sin. Like spudboy and Lincoln says, to say that you are on the
side of God might be less grave, but I am not sure. People can have
that feeling, that God is on their side, privately, but to say this
publicly is fraud, both in science and politics.
People can do experience, and report of experiences, but we cannot
invoke any particular first person experience publicly, unless it
follows from some theory when it is properly invoked as an hypothesis
and not claimed as being true.
But we are still a long way from that. Our "wolves gene" makes us
prone to the theory that "the boss is right, even when wrong". It
works in the short run, but it leads to unnecessary suffering and
catastrophes in the long run. Now, if a politics want privately
consult his shaman or any experts in some field, before taking a
decision, as long as this is not made public, there is no problem.
Bruno
Brent
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
