On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Party of Citizens wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > Party of Citizens wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > > > Party of Citizens wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > > > > > > Extropy is not a religion, but cryonics tries very hard to be one.
> > > > > > > We are addressing the same purposes that religion serves, and are trying to
> > > > > > > achieve the same goals that religionists desire.
> > > > > > Bull's eye.
> > > > > Show me some organization in society which DOESN'T address similar
> > > > > purposes.
> > > > Nice going, Robin Hood. I think you split the arrow in the bull's eye.
> > > > "Ubiquitous religiosity"?
> > > At which point, the term loses all meaning, indicating that someone is
> > > trying to paint with too broad a brush.
> > There are universals in social-political sciences, or close to
> > universals. For example, all societies I know of have
> > leaders. Purposiveness of all institutions quickly takes us into values,
> > mores, totem and taboo...RELIGION.
>
> Again, too broad a brush. Religion applys ubiquitously to all aspects of
> society only so long as those aspects are not understood by science,
> when there is still 'mystery' about the working of nature. Religion is
> explaination of nature by ad hoc bardism, not by cross examination,
> testing, hypothesis and experiment. Looking critically at nature is
> blasphemy to religion as a matter of course, as nature just IS and 'it
> is not our place' to look critically at it.
Not only is that broad brush, it is untrue. For example, how could the
teachings of Jesus Christ, correctly understood, be contrary to scientific
truth when He identified Himself as truth personified (ie "I am the way,
the truth and the life") and said "I came to tell the truth"?
POC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT