"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> While I normally grant almost all posters to the extropian list
> a huge grain of salt, I must state that IMO the article by David
> Selbourne was entirely useless.
> It was nothing more than a rundown of a position based on opinions
> unsubstantiated by facts.
> Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddism, etc. are faiths based
> on the "blind" belief of one reality over another. Since they
> are cannot be subjected to scientific debate, they are useless
> from an extropian perspective.
Is that a blind belief? Scientific validation is not the only
way to come to what one considers valid and crucially important.
I don't think Extropians are required to only find value and/or
validation by science and not by anything else ever in any
aspect of their existence. Nor do I think you yourself believe
that this is the case. So I am a bit confused as to what you
are attempting to say here.
Many spiritual systems do not require blind faith but consist of
a series of exercises and practices possibly leading to a
validation of a way of being in the world that is seen as of
great value. Some of these sorts of practices exist within all
of the major religions and outside of them as well. But I am
sure you are aware of this also. So why speak as if religion is
just about "blind belief"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT