On Monday, March 05, 2001 4:09 AM Anders Sandberg firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Even if theologicians formulate their theologies in untestable terms
> (for whatever reasons), it doesn't mean religion loses its
> strength. Most religious people don't care strongly about the details
> about how evolution *really* happened or how souls interface the
> physical world, since the important thing to them is the emotional,
> social and spiritual effects of their religion. They might quote
> scripture to defend it, since an attack on some of the system is
> interpreted as an attack on the to them important parts. They might
> simply say that faith is more important than logic and science, and I
> think that is a correct description of how many value their religion:
> its value is found in the realm of subjective experience, not
> objective facts. Since we on this list are very fond of objective
> reality, we tend to miss the difference in emphasis.
As the Buddha says in Hesse's _Siddhartha_, which I recommend all on this
list read, [his] doctrine is about overcoming suffering -- not truth.
But truly the problem is with linking the idea of overcoming suffering with
faith. If you show that link to be tenuous -- which would be no small
feat -- then you might have a better chance.
(On this note, see my "A Dialogue On Happiness" at
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Dialogue.html This dialogue by no means
solves this problem. It was not intended to, but it raises some of the
questions involved. I think faith generally starts with skepticism; if one
can route skepticism, one can remove the need for faith.)
Still, I don't argue with people about religion, especially people who are
older than their early 20s for the most part because those people are
settled and it takes to much time and effort to convince them to change. Go
for the young!
> Creo quia absurdum...
Isn't it actually "credo.":)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:39 MDT