> > What good is having shared goals if your beliefs and actions
> > actually prevent us from getting there? There is certainly room
> > for those who choose to believe irrational things personally but
> > who generally stay out of the way of those who are building the
> > future; but irrational people do have a tendency to spread their
> > irrationality or use it to interfere. That they are well-meaning
> > is no excuse.
> >
>
> What good are put-downs of those with active spirituality if
> they tend to turn away highly talented people dedicated to
> creating the future you desire? What you call irrational I
> might call (in some cases) supra-rational. I believe that many
> supra-rational viewpoints and concerns are actually critical to
> building a future that is viable personally. Meaning well is
> no excuse for anyone.
We don't actually disagree here much; I do see a place for some
of what I would call spirituality, especially with regard to
ethics and esthetics. Even a mathematician can benefit from
following lines of reason that seem "elegant". I studied Zen
and still practice zazen regularly. But your initial question
suggests that you see contemporary mainstream
non-fundamentalist religions as this kind of benign, even
beneficial, spiritualism; while I see most of them as over the
edge. Even something as seemingly benign as Christianity is
not merely extra-rational or supra-rational, it is decidedly
anti-rational, and that's not acceptable. Spirituality has a
place _beside_ rational thought; but those who actively oppose
the latter, even when they don't realize it, are a danger to
the future.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT