> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 08:54:56 -0800
> From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Hal on Science versus Religion
>
> As the Buddha says in Hesse's _Siddhartha_, which I recommend all on this
> list read, [his] doctrine is about overcoming suffering -- not truth.
Yes, but Buddhism, particularly the overcoming suffering bit,
isn't a 'religion.' This is not a supernaturalist claim.
>
> But truly the problem is with linking the idea of overcoming suffering
with
> faith.
Again, no problem with overcoming suffering, we all try to do
this, no "faith" required.
>
> 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!
The problem is that these older 'committed' christians & suchlike are
putting far more effort into their propaganda than are the
non-supernaturalist "voices of reason". Agreed, religion should not be
indoctrinated in young either at school or by parents ... but how do we
counter the big money push for religious conversion. It is far too much
trouble to argue wirth them rationally because (as previously posted)
religiousity is about emotion, and not rationality.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:33:17 EST
> From: Dehede011@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Hal on Science versus Religion
>
> In a message dated 3/5/01 5:57:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> neptune@mars.superlink.net writes:> 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!>
>
> Daniel,
> If you will take a look at Clarence Graham's hierarchy of needs you
will
> find that the motivation toward religion changes substantially as our
> position on the hierarchy changes.
> Most of the time the critics of religion concentrate only on very firm
> fundamentalist churchs regardless of which major faith they are looking
at.
> This ignores the fact there are people in all major religions whose
> motivational needs are quite different from those attracted to the
> fundamentalists and whose religious practice is quite different.
> Ron h
I think we should offer a strong, "posthuman" alternative rational
belief-set that DOES satisfy the emotional and social functions that
religion once offered .... my particular view is that only MVT can
offer this alternative ... although PSYCHOANALYSIS might be
another alternative (not mutually exclusive with MVT of course).
www.steve-nichols.com
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:06:55 -0500
> From: michael.bast@convergys.com
> Subject: Re: extropians-digest V6 #63
>
> I think you're making my point. The Taliban is NOT representative of
Islam,
> though you might think that from the news we get. (Keep in mind the same
> destruction of statues by Christians, and wonder if that is representative
> of the Christians you know.)
No, but all the religious beliefs are basically incompatible with
each other ..... and furthermore there certainly is a long history
of image-bashing (Henry VIII reformation) as well as book-burning
by Xtian sects throughout history. They are certtainly no better
than Islam.
> We were discussing how a significant portion of the world's
population
> might respond to certain technologies, and how we might find out what
their
> thoughts are. I simply made a point about politeness, and then get
> responses based on things I didn't say, and on misperceptions based on
> faulty reporting. You don't have to agree with their religion to
understand
> the power they have. You might think Islam is primitive but telling
Muslims
> that, while discussing how they feel about technology would certainly stop
> the conversation.
> The technologies needed to fulfill the things most extropians want
> (life-extension, AI, etc.) are VERY controversial, and are constantly
being
> threatened with being made illegal. Countering those threats will take an
> effort, and some of the things people have been saying seem more aimed at
> making sure NO ONE listens to us.
> Mike
Agreed. Access to media is vital.
>
> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:17:37 -0800
> From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Hal on Science versus Religion
>
> On Monday, March 05, 2001 6:33 AM Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> > If you will take a look at Clarence Graham's hierarchy of needs you
> will
> > find that the motivation toward religion changes substantially as our
> > position on the hierarchy changes.
> > Most of the time the critics of religion concentrate only on very
firm
> > fundamentalist churchs regardless of which major faith they are looking
> at.
> > This ignores the fact there are people in all major religions whose
> > motivational needs are quite different from those attracted to the
> > fundamentalists and whose religious practice is quite different.
>
> Excellent point! Go for the fence sitters -- not the people who have deep
> commitments to a particular religion. Go for the easiest ones first. And
> forget the rest.
>
> I tend to think most of these types are among the young, though. I'm not
> aware of Graham's hierarchy... But I reckon as most people get older they
> are less amenable to philosophical change. This has been my experience.
> (Think of when most people are intellectually active -- teens to early
20s.
> After that, most people have a worldview and don't change it much before
> death.)
It is true that children are more susceptible to hypnosis to adults on the
whole ... but nevertheless, *everyone* is suggestible and can have their
opinions changed, and the change of mind might be more lasting in an
older person.
Once the *facts* (of Darwinism, or that in early evolution we lost our
pineal, primal, sens commens eye at the time of the cold to warm-
blooed interface .. and gained REM and internally generated, symbolic
mentation as a result) are known, it is very difficult indeed to unknow
them.
Takes a while to replace the older, religious paradigms though ... after all
they have a 2,000 odd year start on Darwin.
www.steve-nichols.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:39 MDT