rjf@canon.co.uk (Robin Faichney) (11/12/90)
Responding in this particular way to this particular article is perhaps unfortunate, as I'd very happily go along with most of what was said in it. Even regarding the relevant part, Erich, as one of the lesser offenders, should not take this personally. In article <557@pdxgate.UUCP> erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Stefan Boleyn) writes: >[..] > Look at the response of the fundamentalist christian movement to the >progress in science. It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that >they even existed. To me, it looks like a fear response to the pressure of >newer scientists that were claiming more and more that religion was >unnecessary. The mysticism movements on the surface appear similar to some >of this, although different in their own way. It appears to be a combination >of new evidence and fear to be called "just a machine" (at least on the >surface... I admittedly have little experience with most of them), and a >lack of understanding of the materialistic sciences, in some cases, I'm sure. The characterisation of religion as nothing more or less than a refuge for weak-minded, superstitious believers-in-the-supernatural really annoys me these days. Not only are some well established religions quite free of any supernatural content (eg some of the Buddhist traditions), but significant proportions of the followers of new religions currently developing in the US are not only highly computer literate but even atheistic. They do, however, believe in magic, but this is in no way contrary to the laws of nature -- it is defined as the art of changing consciousness at will. These people have discovered that some of the old religious techniques are actually very effective in helping them explore and mold their own minds in ways which they find beneficial in their everyday lives. (Ever wondered what the original social and psychological functions of religion were?) IMHO, in many cases their understanding of, and especially their ability to work with, the human mind, is comparable to that of the average professional therapist (in fact there is an overlap between these groups). Don't believe that fundamentalists are in any way representative of other religious groups. The fact that fundamentalists are literalists means that they do not share what is according to many authorities one of the definitive aspects of any religion: the analogical nature of religious truth. It is not meant to be taken literally! Though of course many are shy of saying such things in public for fear of offending those who do.. If you are interested in this, look in your local bookshops and libraries under Religions or in sections unfortunately but understandably titled Occult, Esoteric, or the like. If you are not interested, perhaps you could refrain from arrogantly expressing your ignorance in public.
erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Stefan Boleyn) (11/14/90)
rjf@canon.co.uk (Robin Faichney) writes: > ...as I'd very happily go along with most of what was said in >it. Even regarding the relevant part, Erich, as one of the lesser >offenders, should not take this personally. Thank you. [embarrassing reference deleted ;-)] >The characterisation of religion as nothing more or less than a refuge >for weak-minded, superstitious believers-in-the-supernatural really >annoys me these days. [reference to better qualities in newer systems deleted for space] > ...(Ever wondered >what the original social and psychological functions of religion were?) Yes, I have thought about it a lot. My readings on the subject were admittedly slim, though ;-). (I *do* get the impression, however, that they don't help learning about a field much in and of themselves) I was looking at the formation in a historic sense, but with a bias based on studies in the history of science. I apologize for insinuating that it has no foundation. Actually, some stuff I have read recently indicates that some of the new movements *are* very interesting, and I have been reading more about them... they certainly have surprising elements. >If you are interested in this, look in your local bookshops and >libraries under Religions or in sections unfortunately but >understandably titled Occult, Esoteric, or the like. If you are not >interested, perhaps you could refrain from arrogantly expressing your >ignorance in public. I meant no arrogance per se... perhaps that example should be deleted. My *real* intention in including the example, as poorly as it was written, is that traditional religion carries with it certain assumptions, which seem to me are inhibiting to new concepts in a field. Several bits and pieces of newer movements that I have come accross have not been any better in general. I'm not implying that I know for certain that they are wrong, just that it has never been *useful* to assume more than necessary, and it may even lead down bad lines of thought (I may have only met people expressing their *own* ignorant opinions ;-). Sorry for the inconvenience, nuff said? (I'd love to continue with the origonal topic... as this was only a side point for both of us, I think ;-) Erich P.S.: Good references would be appreciated... I've looked a bit but found myself swamped. (ugh, too much) I also don't know which has the best content. "I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where it is." / -- Erich Stefan Boleyn -- \ --=> *Mad Genius wanna-be* <=-- { Honorary Grad. Student (Math) }--> Internet E-mail: <erich@cs.pdx.edu> \ Portland State University / >%WARNING: INTERESTED AND EXCITABLE%<