--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > I separate the God hypothesis and the Reincarnation hypothesis. Why would one > have to exist with the other? (I ask myself, not challenging your direction.) > Populations continue through patterns and forces of biology and evolution. A > anthropomorphic god is not necessary to explain that. Why would a god be > necessary to explain a continuation of inner life if it exists)?
Well, I have heard people here express the view, that upon death, it all goes blank. That to me is a radical notion. Says to me, no such thing as a subtle body, or in a more religious context, a "soul". If there is an afterlife of some sort, doesn't that presume some sort of organizing power? I'm just asking. I don't know. > > There is a tendency to lump things together and then say that because one of > the things is bad or false, all the other stuff must be also. Like a recent > post linking karma and caste systems at the hip. I see no reason to link the > two. Karma (we all have different definitions perhaps) certainly is not > dependent on some archaic feudal social organization. Nor do I see god as a > prerequisite for a hypothesis of karma. Right, I think you can decouple karma and caste, maybe a little easier than you can decouple God and an afterlife of some sort. More later. I'm off to see "Hurt Locker" with my wife and son. (-: > Cultures and societies generally have much longer lives than humans. So, > while continuity of individual life through reincarnation may be dicey to > prove, its clearer to see how the actions of one generation can affect future > ones (though far from crystal clear.) > > Odd example perhaps, but one I was thinking of earlier. Japan has suffered a > 20 year deflation and their economy has gone sideways over those years. Did > their aggression during the 30's and 40's set up chains of events that led to > the 20 year slackness of their economy? Maybe thats too far of a stretch. > But their economic policies of the 70's and 80's surely had its effects on > their 20 years in the desert. > > And digressing onto even further tangents, I try to look at history outside > the conventional "truth" of my society. Many examples of conventional wisdom > that as sacred cows yet quite suspect in their validity. This is a point AI > was trying to make in an earlier post I made on one of Curtis's points of the > sacred cows of religious beliefs. I think such sacred cows extend far wider > than just religion. What American doesn't look at Pearl Harbor with disgust > and feel all out war on Japan and massive bombing civilian populations (not > just the two a bombs, but over 100 cities were incinerated -- not industrial > targets, entire cities and their civilians) was justified because - hey out > of the blue they hit us. To express a divergent view, in public, usually does > not meet with much careful consideration -- but rather knee-jerk (a bit > jingoistic) reactions -- and echoes perhaps Obama's comments in his Nobel > Price speech -- sometimes there is evil that must be fought. > > But if evil exists and must be fought, then why did we not go to war against > Britain, France and other major colonial Empires that for 100's of years > invaded, overran, exploited and treated the locals viscously and harshly? > Japan, it can be argued, while vicious in its aggression of the 30s through > Asia, was simply replacing older colonial empires with a new one -- an Asian > one which is perhaps a step better than European ones. But discussing the > reality of geopolitics, past and present, is difficult due to the prevalence > of secular many sacred cows. The US initiated a steel and oil embargo on > Japan because Japan overthrew part of the French colonial regime in Viet-Nam. > The horror. Kicking an exploitive colonial imperialistic power on its ass. > The poor imperial French. The meanie Japanese. And the embargo directly led > to the Japanese attack on the Philippines and Hawaii six months later. >
