There are far too many false concepts and unproven ideas here, but your first statement sums it up.
> Equality…a strange notion, no? Equality means sameness. No, no it doesn't. An orange may be equal in weight to an apple, or to a starving man be equal in worth. They are not the same, especially when orange juice is desired. I suggest studying science for a while. You make many odd statements about what it says and does and how it's dogma, but I haven't seen an accurate statement from you yet on science. >Many > are aware how science does precious little when it comes to unifying a > psyche. Really? Explain a little. Religion separates you piece by piece to this or that god or satan under the influence of this or that elf riding such and such unicorn filled with some or other spirit or soul. Science is a method of looking at the world. Yes, it leads people to live their life as if the daily living is important... someday religion may also. >Science does little to > nothing in addressing such core facets of our befuddled psyches. I'm sorry if you think science does nothing for you, but billions of people are alive because scientists did not bow down to religion. Millions have focus and are no longer subject to the whims of the priests of some asinine god that punishes rapists by forcing them to marry the victim. Nothing happens after death other than returning to your base components. Eternity is a fools concept. And no, nothing is wrong with guessing. It's when those guesses are put forth as truth that humanity suffers. For tens of thousands of years predators have been putting forth guesses as truth and we have the house of cards known as religion to show the results. On Feb 14, 10:28 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: And we are > aware that no two physical things are exactly the same. This is the > case. And, when it comes to human beings, yes, we all have specific > aptitudes, abilities, insights and characters…and at different points > in time, ‘we’ each are at numerous points on almost countless scales > of hierarchy. So, in this sense there is ‘difference’. Yet, on an > essential scale, we are all equal. No essence is better, larger, > smaller, worse, prettier, more honest, wealthier, smarter, dumber etc. > than any other. At the core of each is this eternal spark of sameness. > We are essentially equal. > > In a similar way, all religions start out with the insight, revelation > etc. of one person and this is imparted to and assimilated by a group… > sometimes an entire society. Here too, the apparent differences from > one set of tenets to another may seem to be numerous. And, these > change too. Yet, again, at the core, essentially, all of these truths > are a part of a larger ‘religion’…a sense of true unity…an integral > acceptance of the value, truth and equality of all thought. This > ultimate oneness is known by many and is being learned by others. > > And, as Vam so aptly points out, we each are a multitude. A confused > set of senses, apprehensions, feelings, thoughts and countless other > realizations that appear to not be connected nor understandable. Yes, a > constant ebbing and flowing of associations and > correlates to perceptions…all part of a very small facet of a confused > unity. Each specifically (and changing) defined ontological realm > attended to by a specific science, while of some use and function, > does very little when it comes to unifying the whole. Many religions, > being what they are, do their best to address such things, within the > limits of their prevue. Of course, philosophy does the same thing and > perhaps in a more direct and much more expansive way. > > What is at the core of religion? Besides the obvious aspect of some > sort of ethical structure, answers to questions about life and death > are attempted. For humans, just being human seems almost like a cruel > joke…we live only to die! Surely there must be a mistake! Well, > religion does look at such things. Also, at the core of most all of > philosophy is the question of death too. There > are just too many areas of study. We know how science has changed its > defined areas of and ways of what is to be understood. No blame…and > other than in some physically pragmatic ways, not much use in > understanding. Disjointed, unconnected areas of knowing are presented > like a crazy quilt attempt at explaining what is real. Any appearance > and dogmatically imposed view of this reality is quickly understood > and realized as being just the limited thing it is. We all look for > clarity with little to show for the quest. If anything, the tenets > presented by scientific inquiry merely add to the din. > > We all wish to know what happens at death and most are skeptical of > the obviously compartmentalized and provincial view through science. > We all would like to at least know what happens at death let alone > learn of a continuation…the eternity. As an aside, the other area of > extreme ignorance in the west is sex…how we continue on in physical > form. > > The overall movement of religious thought over the millennia can be > described…along with the countless variances and ongoing mutations and > changes inherent in such things. > > Ontologically, few can even pretend to approach to know. And, in any > ultimate sense, to “sort wheat from chaff” as Archy started this topic > with is not the issue. He is exactly correct in looking directly at > our situation instead. Religious activities are but one small aspect > of the human psyche…an important one, but not primary other than > perhaps in the unifying sense. Self actualization will not arise while > confusion is present. And, actual ‘doing’, let alone towards any sort > of Good is just not possible in any conscious way while one hold on to > attachments and beliefs that are all too common about the nature of > reality. In and of itself, nothing wrong about such guesswork and > probing, yet, > > On Feb 9, 8:50 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 at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
