[Mark]
The fact that certain Western religions need to incorporate tools of
science to convince those sitting on the fence of its
appropriateness, is simply pointing towards the somewhat nefarious
power of Scientism.
[Arlo]
This endeavor was not, as far as I can tell, undertaken to "sway" the
undecided, but to legitimize the "One True Word" as a valid (or
superior) "method" than science. I am not sure which non-religious
person was suddenly convinced to take up with theism when
creationists announced a "science" that dated the earth at six
thousand years, but it certainly massaged the egos of the theistic
community seeking some sort of validation.
The problem within the theistic camp is that religion has been slowly
drifting (when it is not being actively pushed) into exoteric or
literal renditions. As "religion" moved from the mystic and/or
gnostic traditions, it ceased being a signpost for offering humans a
way to peek towards the unseeable void, and instead became a "fact".
The "Ark" ceased being a parable, or even a global retelling of a
long-ago flood event preserved in the stories of many cultures, but
became a "historical fact". Noah built the ark. Period. That is all
you need to know. Stop thinking. I've heard others call this the
"sunday school-ization" of myth designed to lead enlightened minds to
a place of cosmic realization.
This is the Pirsig quote DMB provided in his last post, which I repeat.
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as
the rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality,
a sign-post which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see
Dynamic Quality. The danger has always been that the rituals, the
static patterns, are mistaken for what they merely represent and are
allowed to destroy the Dynamic Quality they were originally intended
to preserve." (Lila, p.385)
Church demographics in this country reveal that nearly all
denominations across the board are loosing members except for the
most extreme fundamentalist churches. I'd say that "religion" has
thus failed, that instead of being mysteries to lead people to
enlightenment, it is fast becoming nothing but a tool for ideological
separation, a congregation whose understanding of "religion" amounts
to little more than a fan club for "my team".
[Mark]
Religious talking points are trying to use analogies which are
seemingly accepted by today's so called educated masses to provide a
rational approach to the spiritual.
[Arlo]
I don't think this is the case any longer. Maybe back in the 60's and
70's. There is no longer an impetus to provide a rational approach to
the spiritual, but one that abandons "rationality" altogether as an
evil force. If there is a theological roundtable, it has been
out-volumed by the bombast of cheap and easy "religion", where
"thinking" is a bad thing and all you need to do is repeat "Jesus
love me and hates everyone not like me" over and over until your eyes
glaze over and your brain atrophies and you say things like "all
queers should commit suicide".
[Mark]
Pirsig uses the term rational spirituality for a reason. Such
rationality is not just one-sided.
[Arlo]
Of course not, but of course Pirsig does not mean "spiritual" as
"going to church every Sunday" or worshipping the Christian god, or
even believing in a god. Pirsig had said the MOQ is not just
atheistic but anti-theistic. So for Pirsig "spiritual" has nothing to
do with "theism" at all. In fact, one could even say the two are
opposing forces.
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/md/archives.html
