Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Evolving Religions Message-ID: <446@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Date: Sun, 9-Jun-85 18:34:09 EDT Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.446 Posted: Sun Jun 9 18:34:09 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 02:20:08 EDT References: <238@ihnet.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Lines: 118 Amazing! Karl Dahlke actually appears to be a net.religion poster who has an open mind! I withdraw my former objections to the Resurrection: obviously miracles do happen. > Allow me to ask Tim (or anyone else) a couple questions. Primarily, what > constitutes a religion? Without this common understanding, it is difficult > to discuss concepts clearly. It is possible to define a religion as any > belief system (e.g. Christianity, the scientific method, do unto others as > you would have others do unto you, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we > die, etc). Let me restrict myself, for this discussion, to theistic (not > necessarily dogmatic) religions. I should have made this clear in the > original article. It's a good question. I only wish I had a good answer. Truth to tell, I've been taken to task for calling Thelema a religion; other people would prefer to exclude Buddhism, Taoism, and so on because they are not particularly concerned with gods. I dunno. If you would like to restrict this discussion to religions that do use the concept of "deity" in some sense, fine with me. > 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. 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. > > 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? > > Of course, another question, what is a deity? Hopefully my answer to the latter is somewhat more clear now; sorry for not giving a fuller explanation the first time around. As for the former, the deity is in the perception. On one level, deities are symbols of the pure forces of the human universe: for instance, beauty, life, death, and love. > 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. 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. > > My own feeling is that from certain perspectives large and complex systems > > such as ecosystems, galaxies, and universes can be considered sentient > > Well, these systems certainly affect us. Shall I call the deity some subset > of the natural processes around us? At this point, religion simply becomes > science, which is all right with me. This is not what I (and others) mean > by deity. Many do mean exactly that; I believe Charley Martin recently said something of this sort on net.religion, for instance. As for me, I recognize "universal sentience" as a valid perspective and sometimes meditate on it, but it is not the concept I normally use in my invocations. I just don't consider it very important; this is purely a subjective judgment. I used to consider it fundamental, but that was back in my undergraduate days (seven years ago, was it? gad) when I still considered every new revelation to be THE TRUTH. For months after my meditation practice revealed this I was utterly convinced of its absolute validity. Insecurity is a terrible thing. > 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 a delight! A non-acrimonious, fun discussion on net.religion between two posters with different beliefs! If you'd like to continue it, Karl (or anyone else), I'm certainly game. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"