I'd have a hope if the religious and the scientific idiots ( I call them clerks ! ) would grow up ! The real ones ( among the idiots ) are looking for victories ! !
On Feb 14, 7:34 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
