Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ogicse!pdxgate!eecs!erich
From: erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Stefan Boleyn)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Religion, mysticism (was Re: forwarded post)
Message-ID: <656@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: 14 Nov 90 02:22:00 GMT
References: <1990Nov5.181355.24990@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <557@pdxgate.UUCP> <1990Nov12.101013.14703@canon.co.uk>
Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP
Lines: 58

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%<