Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Evolving Religions
Message-ID: <99@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 13:06:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.99
Posted: Mon Jun 10 13:06:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:19:16 EDT
References: <238@ihnet.UUCP> <446@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 125

In article <446@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:

>> Is there any evidence for a deity(s), as described in any religion?
>
>If you mean the incorporeal humanoid most monotheists believe in, no.
>People do report contact with the being, but their accounts are
>contradictory and can be explained as delusions of some sort.  (I tend to
>think that many dogmatists do have genuine mystical experiences, but find
>them so upsetting to their normal perspective that they immediately slap
>them into some readily comprehensible, literalistic model afterwards.)  Nor
>is there any reason to believe that there is any being, who is real in the
>same sense we are, who is Zeus or Indra or Aphrodite or Kali.

Humanoid?  Only in a sense so weak that christians and jews almost always
choose "personal" instead.  Besides, see the following argument from Tim.

>On the other hand, if you consider deities simply symbols, as I do, then
>obviously they do exist; just go down to the library and you'll see a whole
>mess of 'em.  This puts the discussion on another level: are they useful
>symbols?  My empirical evidence (my own experiences in my "lab") show that a
>properly performed invocation, that is, an attempt to harmonize oneself with
>the nature of the deity, is effective in producing states of consciousness
>that cannot apparently be reached by other means.  I consider this
>exploration of the potentials of my consciousness valuable, since it has
>become clear to me that most people confuse a single state of consciousness
>with "reality", failing to understand the observer-created nature of the
>universe.  If someone else does not consider such work to be valuable, I
>have no argument with them, provided they do not seek to prevent me from
>following my own path.

The problem with this argument, Tim, is it is the traditional monotheistic
argument wrapped around Pantheism.  Language about deities, as almost every
religion has ever conceived of them, has to be purely symbolic and
metaphoric in nature.  Even the word "exist" takes on a symbolic meaning,
since it is claimed of deities that they exist in a different framework than
we do.  As I understand it, Tim seems to be saying that, outside of being
mental constructs, deities do not exist at all.

I find Tim's evidence equally as problematic as he finds mine.  Moreover,
his evidence (as it is presented) fails to disprove the reality of the
beings he seeks to invoke, in the sense that the language of the deities may
be symbolic of supernatural order.

In general, I find that the strongest conclusion I can draw from the
mystical experience is that there is some supernatural order which shows
some unification of the natural order.  The problem with trying to go beyond
that is that the language appears to be stretched to the limit just to get
that far, making it very hard to generalize across the mystics.  Furthermore,
if there is person in the supernatural, then (assuming it matters what this
"person" is like) an important dimension of the information must be
revelatory.  Consider the following exchange:

>>> I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of
>>> rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols").

>> I see amazing and complex natural processes, especially in trees, but I
>> don't see the deity.  Where is it?

Well, in Judaism and Christianity we have, by revelation, that the world is
created, in correspondence with divine purpose.  Therefore, one should be
able to observe this purpose in the world.  One level of this observation is
in looking at nature, and natural order (such as physics, for instance); the
other, and controversial part, (since it is the part that makes demands on
us)is the historical revelatory claims made by Judaism, Christianity, adn a
host of other religions.  Obviously examining this is very difficult, not
only because many of the ordinary assumptions of inquiry are questioned, but
because it "matters" what the answer really is.

>> The primary need for religion seems to be psychological, not scientific.
>> That is why religions will always remain.  Reread my article.  I was only
>> commenting on the mechanisms (specific religions) employed to fill this
>> enormous psychological need.  As long as you have to worship something,
>> you
>> better set up an invincible system, especially since your mind will be
>> questioning it on a daily basis.  Thus, religions relie on the
>> unexplainable, but are not driven by it.
>>
>> Clearly, all theistic religions have been (and still are) shaped by social
>> and technological forces.  Since you provided no refutation, I shall
>> continue.

But so have all other systems of thought; if this discredits religions, it
also discredits Marxism, the various humanisms, and all other atheistic
religious systems.

>Well, I'm not in the habit of refuting things I think are accurate....  In
>large part I agree with your analysis of the forces that have shaped the
>modern religious scene.  In particular, the reasons for the predominance of
>proselytizing religions and exclusivist religions.  They make of humanity a
>resource, which must be divided between competing religions, and which each
>competitor tries to dominate.  Thus evolutionary processes are given a field
>in which to operate.

Again, this argument applies equally well to atheistic systems.  Marxism, for
example, is an object case in point.  Whether or not this is true, it has
little to do with the truth or falsity of a system (something, I must add,
that a lot of Christians tend to forget).


>> Do you think the term "religion" includes atheistic belief systems?
>>  If so,
>> perhaps we need a new term.  If your religion consists of ethics, empathy,
>> curiosity, etc, I sincerely hope it remains untarnished in the face of
>> scientific and technological progress.  I am an atheist; I don't know if I
>> am religious or not.

>I consider all such terms such as "religion", "truth", "table", "color",
>etc., to be labels we apply to things.  I do not buy the idea that there is
>some essence of "religion-ness" or "table-ness" which the terms should be
>used in conformity with.  Whether atheism is or isn't a religion depends on
>the definition in use.  I tend to use the term in a sense that includes
>monotheism, polytheism, atheism, agnosticism, Taoism, eclecticism, etc., and
>excludes only the "don't care" attitude.  If you would prefer to use a
>definition that excludes atheism, fine with me, so long as we can find some
>common ground for discussion.

What's this?  An esoteric existentialist?

Actually, I agree completely with Tim on this.  An important question then
arises: given this list of members, is there anything that characterizes
them?

Charley Wingate    umcp-cs!mangoe

   "A veritable sage among limpets..."   C. S. Lewis