From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think whoever (Robert Chassell?) said that they thought maybe people
_need_ religion hit the nail on the head. When gods and religion were
invented, people needed a way to explain that which there was no possible
way for them to understand. While we know much more about the universe
around us now, there is still so much unexplained that just thinking about
it can be frightening.
They also needed guidance on how to behave and think. They needed a reason
to sacrifice their short-term good for the long-term survival of the group.
Custom and taboo used to be the answer.
I don't agree with those that think that religion is evil, I can understand
why people need it and on balance I think that it has played a positive
role in our civilization. I think that one of the things that it probably
did was allow intellectualism to compete with physical prowess in terms of
societal control. This may seem contradictory in light of present day
religion â especially fundamentalism â that seems to rely on archaic
ideas and superior intelligence without substantiation, but I think itâs
possible to look upon religion as a precursor to science!
Agreed, and also, see above.
It seems reasonable to conjecture that the shamans, the priests, the
medicine men were probably the first doctors, the first astronomers, the
first botanists and biologists the first that made it their lifeâs work
to explain the world around them.
Not just reasonable to conjecture: 99% certain.
In doing so,
however, they must have found that for every question that they answered
they uncovered two new, baffling questions. Questions they were only able
to explain by inventing deities.
I doubt the professional priesthood invented deities. I think the people
did, telling themselves just-so stories in the night.
I do believe that religion has begun to outlive its usefulness and that it
is time for human civilization to move beyond the idea that there is some
mystical power controlling the universe. As I mentioned before,
established religions have a tendency to cling to anachronisms
(creationism, for instance) that are an impediment to intellectual growth.
I notice what they cling to is archaic *science*. On matters of (to
paraphrase the Pope's mandate) faith and morals, they can be anything from
destructive to the best guidance going.
We canât solve problems by pretending that
they donât exist or by insisting that the words of an ancient text
overrule our intellect. By the same token, however, we canât just dump
wholesale the institutions that insulate us from our incomprehension.
Exactly. Or that stand between a good many people and their barbarian
tendencies. NYT Online had an article by Chuck Colson, now a prison
reformer; it's very clear that religion has made him a better person.
Stories like this abound and have even, as in the 12-step movement, become
an institution.
Don't make the mistake Sokrates made - when he deconstructed the Athenian
religion (which was overripe for it), he liberated a lot of intellectual
energy. He also cut Kritias and Alkabiades loose from whatever moral
moorings they once had, since they were ready to follow him through the
deconstruction, but not into the higher reaches.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
