Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Jan 2006 12:15:02 -0800
Roger Johansson wrote:
> Mani Deli wrote:
>
> > > I
> > >believe the scientific-method all too often channels us down a
> > >particular form of only-verifiable knowledge to the exclusion of a
> > >wider understanding, and appreciation, of the complex nature of
> > >existence.
>
> > Biology tells us more about the complex nature of existence than any
> > mystical speculation or spiritual mumbo jumbo.
>
> We probably need som knowledge about history and the psychology of
> religion to understand "the complex nature of existence".
I wonder about that. I think religion, as you suggest below, more often
than not muddies the nature of existence. My point, really, was that we
need to know about religion to understand the complex nature of the
human being. Why this need for belief? Why the wish for value? Why the
attraction for mysticism? Will rational solutions always play second
fiddle to the lure of magic and the transcendant? I hope not. My hope
for the future is dependent on our eventually firming up on an
acceptance and valuation of our unique place in nature and our
potential as the eyes and ears and the voice of the universe. I keep
being told this is mysticism etc. It is not. It is simply taking on
board a role made possible for us because of our intelligence. If we do
not take on board this role we will (a) fritter our achievements,
technological etc, away on baubles and (b) allow the sensible
management of life and the planet itself go amiss by default.
>
> Religion has manipulated our minds and our social relations for
> thousands of years and the religious traditions are still alive in the
> habits and gender rules people follow, even though the religion no
> longer is supported by official laws.
>
> Religion is often about creating a "higher" state of mind, a more
> powerful and excited state of mind. Even cultures far from the middle
> east, like the indians in north and south america had methods for
> creating states of mind like hallucinations, bravery, fearlessness,
> shamanistic power over other people's minds.
>
> The socially strongest and most influential people have defined a
> "normal" state of mind based on their on state of mind. They are
> themselves products of a lot of training and manipulation intended to
> create superhumans, gods.
> But they are often unaware of how they have been manipulated and
> trained by their parents and the social environment.
>
> We need to investigate how religious traditions still influence our
> lives very much.
>
> A lot of people think they have a perfectly normal state of mind, and
> normal social relations to other people, but they need to get totally
> drunk once a week to stand living like that. Others can do it without
> stimulantia but they develop some kind of fanaticism instead, like
> strongly moralistic views or religious conviction.
>
>
> --
> Roger J.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Scott
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- References:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: downinthefolds
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: David V.
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Mani Deli
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- Prev by Date: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by Date: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Previous by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|