Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!canon!rjf
From: rjf@canon.co.uk (Robin Faichney)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Religion, mysticism (was Re: forwarded post)
Message-ID: <1990Nov12.101013.14703@canon.co.uk>
Date: 12 Nov 90 10:10:13 GMT
References: <1990Nov5.181355.24990@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <557@pdxgate.UUCP>
Sender: Robin Faichney <rjf@canon.co.uk>
Reply-To: rjf@canon.co.uk
Organization: Canon Research Europe, Guildford, UK
Lines: 48

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.