In another thread, we pondered some on equality, equality of opinions. The fact is there is no equality in the material ( formed ), natural or the human world. In here, things and beings have capacities and power in different measures and their mutual consequences have a bearing, with results that have value for individuals. They could empower, dis-empower, kill or keep alive, strengthen or weaken, make happy or unhappy.
All of those values are formed in, retained and issue from the psychological and mental domains found in living beings everywhere. There are over six billion nodal, active agents partake in it, quite as thousands of billions before them. The quest has been the same : Peace, with survival and opportunities. We each are individuals in this endless pool of experiences and attachments, of feelings of desire and revulsion, emotions and attitudes, thoughts, facts, information, ideas ... Interestingly, the pool also deconstructs the individual, showing each to be nothing but one of these zillion combinations of trillion mental forms, drives and nurture included. The religions I have known attempt at the same quest, through addressing the knowledge we have of the great ( mind ) pool, of how it is conjoined with human values, experience and behaviour. Through polarising, differentiating, changing, and integrating. Through striving for possibilities from here on. In my understanding, its successes at society, ethics and polity are unmistakeable. So too are its glaring failures. Science ( denominated way of life and world view ) attempts at the same quest. It offers facts, for all religion denominated minds to include, change and metamorphose. In my understanding, its successes at society, ethics and polity are unmistakeable. So too are its glaring failures, alround On Feb 14, 3:39 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems worth adding that science is clearly less 'democratic' than > Sophism-religion in that it is not about swaying a populace but the > harder ground of knowledge - both sides, of course, bring in appeals > to this knowledge, one entirely rigorous, the other much less so. > This does not have to be the case, as neither science nor religion > have to appeal to sloppy emotionalism - and we should note that, in > practice both do through pretences of the objective voice. Both also > use mystification to make the subjects harder than they need be for > realistic consideration. > > On 14 Feb, 08:39, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would note in passing that there is not much science in our > > discussion, and could be a lot more. I've seen quite a lot by a > > contemporary writer, Whitehead (not AN). Fidd and I are unlikely to > > be moved by ancient scripture, and one reason for this is that we tend > > towards Socrates rather than the Sophists (fairly ancient material). > > Origins are not simple, though one can see why this is so tempting to > > many wanting the soma of certainty. > > We may well have reached a point in history at which we can have > > culture without much that has always been associated with it. Orn has > > provided more material on this than anyone else in many 'attacks' (not > > really a fair word) on dogma, including that of social structures. I > > cannot, in all honesty, say this has had no spiritual effect on me - > > and the same is true of his pointers to more spiritually inclined > > writers. There is, in my view, a 'quest' that is not just about > > science. I am yet to find more than one gaping hole in work such as > > that of Alan Wallace - this hole is that he raises as straw man > > version of science fairly typical of many in here, even those of us > > who are adherents like me. I suspect we do not have a good enough > > grip on just how manipulable language is once divorced from the > > reality hypothesis and fail to detect whether we are arguing with > > Socrates or making Sophist assertions. The is perhaps something > > similar in the contrast between puzzle-solving in normal science or > > logic and more revolutionary, speculative attempts. > > I think the whole of history shows how dangerous it is to be swayed by > > charisma and the kind of 'arguments' used by politicians and lawyers > > (broadly Sophism). We are broadly hopeless at working out quickly who > > is telling the truth and are often manipulated by psychopaths. These > > creatures are three times more likely to get parole than others, so > > what chance to we have when more sophisticated examples like Blair get > > to work on us with a whole machinery of spin at their disposal? > > Religion too often strikes me as operating like this. I think this > > stuff is a disease we could now cut from our body politic, but it is > > cunning and well-practiced in concealing itself in our very attempts > > to get rid of it (like many 'germs'). > > > On 14 Feb, 07:21, edward mason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The book "The Origins of Religion", by Churchwell, I believe, is worth > > > reading. One of the few things in it which I disagree with is in the > > > conclusion when the author expresses the idea that Christianity is or > > > was at the time of the writing of the book, the most evolved religion. > > > One of the reasons that I can so strongly disagree with any such > > > notion is because of Daniel's prophecy that after Jesus is taken off > > > the scene, a proclamation will be established that would ruin man's > > > relationship with that sourse, power, energy, God, or whatever it is > > > known by. That state of being is termed desolation, houses without > > > man, a slaghter by God in Boz'ra. > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:50 PM, 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! > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- 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.
