john grigg wrote:
> Robert Owen wrote:
> What other "take" could there be, unless we vastly expand the scope of our
> inquiry to include putative extraterrestrial cultures? Why should any
> belief-system be treated as a problem? While the Zen I practice is, I
> suppose you could say, both adeistic and atheistic, the vision of a
> post-human existence found within any of these systems is never an
> infringement of my own views. I respect every religion for what in principle
> it is -- a guide to character-formation and value-definition, a consolation
> for grief, a rational basis for hope. Yes, RATIONAL. It is totally illicit
> for non-religious rationalists to attempt to adopt a stance superior to
> theists by depriving them of rationality. Regards, Bob
> (end)
>
> Robert, thank you for putting so well into words the value of religion in
> human lives. You can say things so much better then I can. Religion can be
> a healthy and powerful structure to achieve mental discipline and try to
> reach out to something greater then oneself. It can be toxic though if
> misapplied, as even Christian therapists will say in books like "Toxic
> Faith" which can be found at your local Christian bookseller.
>
> I see the point Zero and others make about the dangers of scientific
> research being slowed or stopped by fundamentalists (of all types and
> stripes)...
This works both ways; one would hope that intelligent scientists
would exercise sensitivity and restraint in their ordinary contacts
with non-scientists whose lives are enriched by the guidance and
wisdom found in their scriptures (I have a friend who is a genuine
Zoroastrian, for example). Even when scientists are convinced that
there isn't the slightest possibility of a particular existential propo-
sition by a devotee being physically true, it is not required that this
be vocalized.
An example: in marriage counseling a husband with a puritanical
upbringing cannot achieve sexual compatibility with his wife due
to shame, guilt, shyness -- just can't let nature take its course
without inhibition. The therapist will always be very careful to
provide information requested by the husband that is adequate
for a specific question -- BUT NEVER MORE. The therapist will
let the husband decide WHEN he is ready for sexual facts that
would currently embarrass or shock him.
If scientists are really sincere about their desire for the social
acceptance and support of science, they could learn some
effective new behavior from spending some time studying how
successful professionals elicit sympathy and support for their
projects and missions.
> I suppose I am one of the few actual believers
> in God and an afterlife on this list.
You raise an interesting point here: those of us who were
trained in engineering, technology, physical or other types
of science, were conditioned to ignore the distractions of
value-judgments or evidently groundless assumptions. You
are drilled to GET THE FACTS, get the data, you've got to
get the DATA! And this is how they earn a living for them-
selves and their families. When you are TRAINED to ignore
something, you will become ignorant of it--period.
My point: many of my scientific friends don't really KNOW
how they think or feel about the "God Proposition"; even
if their core-gestalt includes an unconscious belief in a
Supreme Being, they depend on it for mental health but
they don't KNOW anything about it. This is a commonplace
which all mental health workers are familiar with. Stress
frustration and failure can alter the scientist's conscious
standpoint in a flash. His mind will do what is necessary
to ensure his sanity and survival.
=======================
Robert M. Owen
Director
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
=======================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:54 MDT