RE: On Religion (and politics)
In peforming the unusual task of typing quotes from a book, I *erased* the nearly-done missive, and can't get those paragraghs back!!! I HATE it when that happens - so just imagine that my thoughts were much more brilliant than what I've tried to reconstruct below... Having long ago enjoyed CS Lewis' _The Screwtape Letters_ , I checked out _God In The Dock_; while I found much of it thick-headed, some was quite relevent to current events. > PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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. They weren't so much 'invented' as 'grew out of' the terror and awe at raw Nature's power. The numinous surely existed before a human's command of fire. > >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. As the size of human groups increased, the tight interpersonal network of the band diminished, and more compelling reasons for self-denial were required. "Because God sad thusly" is more forceful than "well, because we've always done it so." Custom became codified into law. > >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 controlI think it's > >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 life's work > >to explain the world around them. > Not just reasonable to conjecture: 99% certain. Agreed. I also think that the chief/shaman/priest evolved into part of "the government" with its attendant beaurocracy (sp!), and power over others' lives became both less personal and more terrible. Lewis is chewing both ends of the stick here, because while he writes that a Christian society is more desirable than a non-Christian one, and that he personally would like to see more Christians involved in public life, he also notes: "I do not like the pretensions of Government - the grounds on which it demands my obedience - to be pitched too high. I don't like the medicine-man's magical pretensions not the Bourbon's Divine Right. This is not soley because I disbelieve in magic and in Bossuet's _Politique_. I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands 'Thus saith the Lord,' it lies, and lies dangerously." from 'Is Progress Possible/Willing Slaves of the Welfare State' - @ 1958 > 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. Synchronicity and coincidence played a role in those stories, and the perceptions thereby gleaned. While largely fanciful, they did hide a kernal of at least one level of reality: Kronk paints a picture of himself killing a bison, and lo! his next hunt is indeed successful. It seems understandable to move from propitiating one animal, to the Herd Leader, to the One Who Leads All Prey, and so on. > >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. In certain (usually extreme fundamentalist) segments of a religion, easy answers and absolute truths are to be had; if one wishes to ask questions and be challenged to one's very core, some sect of that same religion will hone one's humility to a fine edge, yet offer hope as well. > We ca
RE: On Religion
At 07:56 AM Monday 7/25/2005, PAT MATHEWS wrote: 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. Or as I often mentioned in class when we were talking about the ancient origins of astronomy, someone figured out how the positions and motions of the heavenly bodies could be used as a calendar which could tell them when things like planting and harvest season should be vital knowledge in an agrarian society and probably not long after that realized that watching the Sun, Moon, and stars was a heckuva lot easier than digging and planting and harvesting, but that cushy position would only last as long as that knowledge was available to only a select few, so much of the arcana of astrology and such accreted in order to make it look like what they were doing was something only a select few could do and so allowed those select few to keep their cushy jobs rather than having to actually work for a living. (Of course, today's astronomers teach at universities rather than actually working for a living . . . :P ) 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. Depending on one's personal POV and circumstances, sometimes the very same piece of advice can be "destructive" in one person's POV and "the best guidance going" for another . . . 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. And look what it got him . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: On Religion
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
