I agree completely, Ron and Mary. It's been my experience with Adventists (yer basic fundamentalist fundamentalist) who are mostly in the scientific medical professions and thus take any attack on the philosophy of science almost as a religious attack. The two views are not antithetical at all, SOM and fundamentalism feed each other certain unexamined and unexaminable assumptions.
Good points! John On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:34 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry to butt in, but that makes good sense Mary, in fact it can be traced > to the Pythagoreans and neopythagoreans. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism > > > -Ron > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mary <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, February 12, 2010 9:47:39 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The Truth of Symbol part 1 - Joseph Campbell (Demanding > Evidence part 2) > > > Hi Mary, > > > > I think you make an excellent point. > > > [Mary Replies] > Thank you, Steve. And I think you've written an excellent post. > > There are so many ideas in it to be explored. Tangents. Sparks. > > While reading it, a new idea popped into my head (new to me anyway). If we > can agree that Western Civilization is built on the idea of the self as > supreme and eternal; that all monotheisms are based on that, then it seems > pretty clear to me that a religious fundamentalist is simply someone who > has > taken this notion to its logical conclusion. > > I would suggest that fundamentalists have so completely bought into the > twin > Western ideas of the supreme individual combined with the scientific method > as the supreme foundation of our culture that they are inexorably compelled > to express their faith in scientific (that is, provable) terms. If you > believe in God and eternal life, while at the same time believing that the > physical world is all of reality, then you have really no other choice than > to couch your religion in terms of historical fact. > > You could say that a fundamentalist is (in an odd juxtaposition of their > own > position) someone who believes in science more completely than the most > dedicated scientist. I say this because a scientist at least knows the > limitations of his own craft, and realizes the futility of attempting to > answer mystical questions using the scientific method, while a > fundamentalist does not. > > Does that make sense? > > Mary > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
