> If it takes a new, inclusive, religion to overcome the divisive > influence of the old religions, then I am willing to commit to it.
I hope you understand how this is completely illogical to hope for. The most enlightened beginning for a religion is the example set by islam. It began by holding up philosophical thought and scientific exploration as a beautiful -and ultimately human- endeavour. Very shortly after becoming mainstream, the religious hierarchy couldn't stand that people didn't need them and began decreeing that all science and philosophy needed to be rooted in god first. You can thank al-Ghazali for that. He was one of the most intelligent and enlightened of them to begin with but soon decomposed(not a misuse of word, intentional) into the raging theistic tyrant that he originally was against. This resulted in Baghdads degeneration into the slums that it has remained for so very long. Religion rots human minds, human creativity, and humanity. The quest for spirituality or meaning need not end in religion. I wish I could describe the taste of physics, somewhat like mental chocolate topping on ambrosia. The sound of a successful chemical chain is like a lyre, playing for titans before the rise of gods. Calculus could humble the greatest painting ever devised in sheer beauty. Too often people refuse this awesome, remarkable, spectacular universe in favour of ideology that proclaims it to be mundane. Nothing is farther from the truth. When christian quote-miners claim that Einstein, Newton, Jefferson, and Sagan were all god lovers, they have mistaken the awe inspiring grandeur of reality for a sad little diminishing concept like a god. To address the title: Religion was invented when some apes wept after recognising the majesty of what they had the capability to achieve and learn, and sheep-like apes wept because they could not achieve or learn it. The sheep-apes needed to find a way to feel important. Alas, there were far more sheep than apes. On Feb 10, 8:17 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > Mostly I was replying to the line "I'm not looking for religion, but > radical, practical changes in > society, the way we live and could live" from the OP. Perhaps you > know better than I, Fiddler, but form the article and from other > sources I have gotten the impression that religion has had a powerful > roll in shaping society (whether or not it influences individual moral > choices). I am very much into changing society so that we might be > free(er) of the various inequalities and injustices which you so often > and so eloquently describe. > While the Baha'i Faith does not answer all objections that people have > to religion, it does, at least, name speaking ill of others > ("backbiting") the greatest sin of all, which tends to prevent all of > the finger pointing and such that helps make other religions so > intolerable to most people. (I know, this is another shameless plug > for my "beliefs"...) <( :-}= > > On Feb 10, 10:16 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that all people have equal value in terms of their intrinsic > > > worth, which also implies that all should have the same rights under > > > the law and in society. > > > This is impossible in societies that allow religion to determine when > > some people have more worth than others. The abrahamic cults all > > depend on being the "right" path. When some people are going to be > > "saved" and some are following sharia, they must -of necessity- tell > > others that they aren't as "saved" or that they aren't following > > sharia correctly. When homosexuals have the same rights as christians > > and muslims or atheists can legally hold office in every American > > state, I'll be impressed and perhaps view these divisive and exclusive > > little clubs in a slightly better light. > > > > One of the goals of an improved society should be to provide support > > > and stimulus for each individual to develop his or her capacities, and > > > to find a way to use those capacities to earn a living. I do not see > > > how this could be done without some sort of educational system that > > > teaches people how to develop character, resolve conflict, and > > > collaborate, along with arts, sciences, literature, history, crafts, > > > and so on. > > > Unfortunately, most societies are under the burden of supporting > > bronze and iron age superstitions that determine science to be evil, > > conflict to be necessary, history to be personal only, crafts to only > > be legitimate when in support of theology, and character to be > > something that must be subverted to some fictional construct; all the > > while the act of ignoring knowledge is held up as some sort of twisted > > ideal. > > > >(http://fullcirclelearning.org/default.aspx) > > > Please note the dearth of religious organisations that support this. > > The Baha'i are present, as nearly always, in support of human rights > > and education. While I'm not a great fan of superstition, or belief in > > the anthropomorphic representation of it, the Baha'i are often located > > at the front of humanitarian rights and deserve respect for this. > > > I'm not sure why you posted this in this particular thread, however. > > It could stand on it's own and doesn't seem to address the thread > > title. > > > On Feb 10, 6:12 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > On the other hand, different people have> different skill sets, different > > approaches to life, different cultural > > > backgrounds, etc. There are some people who have the skills and > > > character to be leaders, and others who would prefer to follow, and > > > not have to worry about "the big picture". There are some who love to > > > use there minds and consider abstract concepts, while others consider > > > such activities a waste of time and prefer to "get things done." In > > > short, each person has strengths and weaknesses, in their potential > > > and in there actual condition. > > > One model that is already being tried with notable success > > > > is based on incorporating character-education/self-mastery, > > > peacemaking skills, as well as local and global service into the > > > curriculum. > > > > On Feb 10, 8:12 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 10 Feb, 04:50, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This is an extract from a recent article. > > > > > The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have > > > > > not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among > > > > > scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal > > > > > Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new understanding > > > > > to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link > > > > > between morality and religion. > > > > > > There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are > > > > > ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with > > > > > humans, [actually something similar seems to have been observed in > > > > > chimps] are ultimately based in the brain. However, there are many > > > > > unanswered questions about how and why these behaviors originated and > > > > > how they may have been shaped during evolution. > > > > > > "Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve > > > > > the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, > > > > > while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre- > > > > > existing cognitive capacities," explains study co-author Dr. Ilkka > > > > > Pyysiainen from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Although > > > > > there is some support for both, these alternative proposals have been > > > > > difficult to investigate. > > > > > > Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of > > > > > Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, used > > > > > a fresh perspective based in experimental moral psychology to review > > > > > these two competing theories. "We were interested in making use of > > > > > this perspective because religion is linked to morality in different > > > > > ways," says Dr. Hauser. "For some, there is no morality without > > > > > religion, while others see religion as merely one way of expressing > > > > > one's moral intuitions." > > > > > > Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the > > > > > finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious > > > > > backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for > > > > > unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive > > > > > judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit > > > > > religious commitments. > > > > > > "This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a > > > > > biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by- > > > > > product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non- > > > > > religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen. "However, although it > > > > > appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that > > > > > are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating > > > > > and stabilizing cooperation between groups." > > > > > > Perhaps this may help to explain the complex association between > > > > > morality and religion. "It seems that in many cultures religious > > > > > concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing > > > > > moral intuitions. Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is > > > > > not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using > > > > > it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a > > > > > fundamental threat to our moral existence," concludes Dr. Hauser. > > > > > > I tend to see religion much as I would view political correctness - > > > > > that is, peevish, hostile, posturing pretense to be on the moral high > > > > > ground. Even Orn, who is a splendid example of the opposite most of > > > > > the time, lapses to this and so do I. I'm sure he won't take offence > > > > > and think I'm merely pointing to difficulties, not accusing him. Any > > > > > quest for origin is fraught with self-deception and the struggle to > > > > > sort wheat from chaff. > > > > > > I'm not looking for religion, but radical, practical changes in > > > > > society, the way we live and could live - this, of course, sounds > > > > > rather religious! > > > > > Yup, it sure does. But only if people live like that religiously, > > > > i.e., devoutly. The problem, of course, is what are the tenets OF > > > > your 'practical changes to society' and 'the way we...could live'? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
