Dear Banjo,

The six, or seven, wise men in my metaphor were meant as representatives of whole classes of narrow, usually one-sided, views of which there are zillions. I appreciate your concise description of one of the standard ones among them. Just two remarks:

I do not understand what “scientific proof” (whatever that means, since even serious philosophy of science does not operate with such terms any more) you would expect for a “set of convictions” (i.e. world-view presuppositions) referring to beyond what can be investigated by science. Neither do I understand the relevance of “historic proof” e.g. for a non-historical religion such as Hinduism.

>>religion continues to serve the state and its political rulers<<
This is a standard sweeping statement (e.g. as taught by my Marx-Leninist teachers) revealing not so much the role of religion as one’s ideological orientation. I do not know what rulers are served by e.g. Buddhism, or, centuries before 1948, also by Judaism.

I can also assure you that religion did not serve the Communist “states and political rules”, unless you consider their ideology also as religion (as some do), which I do not think Marx had in mind when referring to “the opiate of the people”; neither does it have “a promise of heavenly bliss”. So there seem to be some internal contradictions in your description of religion and its role.

I think that for instance david f's reference to a variety of books dealing with the phenomenon of religion is a good indication of how complex is the issue.

Dear david f,

Thank you for the sincere words that very much illustrate how a non-fundamentalist theist can have his/her perspective broadened through listening to a non-fundamentalist atheist. Especially I appreciate you saying

>>but I do not dismiss your religious feeling as a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc. … people have spiritual feeling<<

Instead of “spiritual feelings” I would prefer “religious experience” in the sense of William James, since what I called “sense of the numinous” is not reducible to its emotional dimension, nor to its other dimensions, rational and moral. (Neither do I think James sees religious experience reducible to its emotional component, but there I might be wrong.)

[These three dimensions reflect my standard way of looking at the world (outside and inside me) through the lens of Plato’s three norms, or ideals or primary categories: BEAUTY, TRUTH and GOODNESS corresponding to the AESTHETIC, RATIONAL and MORAL, and expressed in FEELINGS/emotions, THOUGHT processes/analyses, and purposeful ACTIONS respectively (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#150621).]

If you identify religious experience with mystical experience, as some do, I can tell you I have never had one. Some mystics are aware of the “outside source” of their experience, some are not (Buddhist monks), or more precisely, do not care. Like you can watch a movie on your TV (connected to a DVD player) without having to know, or care, whether it is transmitted from outside, or just a DVD.

I think that this is true also of aesthetic, highly emotional, experiences in general. You are right, one can have them on many occasions, and in most cases there is no difference whether the subject is religious or not. Nevertheless, sometimes a believer might connect these emotional experiences to an a priori awareness of an outside “transmitter”, and the aesthetic experience becomes also a religious experience going beyond mere “feelings” (which still does not have to be a full-blown mystical experience). Of course, a non-religious subject will see any aesthetic experience just as a “DVD” played off in his/her brain.

Dan, while evolution can enable an atheist to become 'intellectually fulfilled' (to use Dawkins expression), as it gives a reasonable explanation as to humanity's origins that does not invoke special creation, a belief in evolution does not cause atheism. Nor does it actually exclude creation, because by definition that is a 'miracle' and cannot be touched by science, which is why those statements are compatible. Most mainstream religions accept it, but probably only because if they didn't it would show how out of touch with science and reality they are. Like the US fundies, and you.

Found that ID research program yet?

.

Dear George,

.

By "scientific proof" I mean whatever justifies the assertions of a scientist in the eyes of his or her pairs and competitors.

"set of convictions" or "world-view presuppositions": either term suits me fine.

You ask:

"what “scientific proof” beyond what can be investigated by science?":

None. Consequently, any conviction in this area is religion. However, you imagined that situation, not me.

Your comment:

"Neither do I understand the relevance of “historic proof” e.g. for a non-historical religion such as Hinduism":

Example: Did Jesus exist ? This is a question for history not science. Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. It has developed over time. No historian has ever provided proof of the existence of the characters and myths which compose those particular "world-view presuppositions". The corpus is therefore defined as a religion.

You indicate:

>>religion continues to serve the state and its political rulers<<
"I do not know what rulers are served by e.g. Buddhism, or, Judaism":

The rulers of many nations continue to assume both an earthly and religious role. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia also has the religious title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. King Abdullah II of Jordan is the 43rd-generation direct descendant of Muhammad. Akihito of Japan, whose title in Japanese signifies “The Heavenly Emperor”, is the highest authority in the Shinto religion. Margrethe II of Denmark is head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark. Elisabeth II, Queen of 16 independent sovereign states, members of the Commonwealth, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Buddhism is an important vector of social harmony in India, China and elsewhere, a force with which political leaders cooperate. Judaism determines almost every aspect of daily life in Israel. Though it is not a State religion, political leaders and Judaism are inseperable.

Re: religion & communism:

Communism has replaced religion in communist countries which are de facto dictatorships or oligarchies, not "idiologies" nor religions.

Communism does not promise "heavenly bliss" to help people bear their "earthly woes" without revolting, religion does.

.

.

SCIENCE V RELIGION / THE NUMINOUS, THEORIA, VISIONS, MIRACLES ...

.

Competition between science and religion seems to have settled into a stalemate position for quite some time now, except in the minds of a fragmented and disorganised minority of fundamentalists on both sides.

Religion obviously made a discreet tactical retreat which has proven quite judicious. It switched roles from that of a dominant predator to that, far more modest, of a patient scavanger.

It no longer confronts science head-on. It waits patiently until science has exhausted all its resources to no avail before stepping in triumphantly to stake its claim.

Science and religion now enjoy a far more civilised relationship. They agree to disagree but tend to avoid open confrontation.

Science rules the world and religion reigns over the rest of the universe, including the vast majority of mankind.

The debate on the so-called "numenous" reminds me of the claims of a certain number of neurologists (Grafman, Ramachandran, Persinger) that they have succeeded in identifying several areas of the brain involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex – which are unique to humans – and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.

According to Ramachandran, patients suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy frequently report having intense religious experiences.

Persinger has developed a “God helmet” that he claims produces in whoever wears it, the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room".

Grafman, a theist, observes that "When we don’t have a scientific explanation for something, we tend to rely on supernatural explanations”.

Persinger suggests that the stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe may have been the cause of the Marian apparition phenomenon by which the Virgin Mary is believed to have supernaturally appeared to one or more persons since the advent of Christianity.

Apart from a few notable exceptions (David F), perhaps we all have personal imbedded antennas in our brains, tuned-in to some special celestial wave length, no doubt installed and operated by the intelligent designer and manufacturer himself.

Who else ?

.

Dear George,

I know I have mentioned the Nicean Trinity vis-à-vis other trinities before, essentially, because Sells, introduced the topic. Then, as now, I am saying , Constantine’s helpers had a pre-existing Egyptian model, which they seemly used. As for my reference to “Nicaean Christianity”; again, I am making the point the Creed was constructed centuries after the time of Jesus and that the dogma handed down from that time might have been that practised by Jesus and those of the first and second centuries. Modern Christians look at events assembled between the third and fourth centuries; whereas, Jesus, sits as a Jew, in the factionalism leading “from” a Jewish path of history, against a Messianic backdrop. Herein, Jesus riding a donkey is far more significant than changing water in to wine.

Of the elephant metaphor, I do acknowledge the distinction you daw. Yet, there are more similarities, you don’t recognise. Rather, theists do take different perspectives on religion (even though, yes, I was emphasising that no religion has a special place, anthropologically speaking), herein, primitive religions often had a Mother Nature Goddess giving birth and the more advanced religions are more anthrocentric. Just like say in psychology, sociology and anthropology, there will be both overlap and distinctions. Christians see only Christianity.

I wasn't overtly addressing mathematics, yet, you would know better than me many different mathematic models can be used posited to explain the same underlying phenomenon or latent variable. If you, were referring to Procrutes Rotation, I was meaning this form of analysis cuts of the off or changes the information that does not fit, usually when models do not fit traditional factor analytical techniques. In Greek Mythology, Procrutes had a bed claimed to fit any person. This was achieved by stretching the slumberer or cutting off the bits that didn’t fit. Ouch!

Science is coming to grips with how matter was created and how information is created in the universe despite the second law of thermodynamics. This is not say that religions have no value. Certainly, many tenets of the religions are purposeful, as an ethical constitution.