Dear Severin,

Does your ME stand for me (as myself), or abbreviation for Middle Eastern?

I am not sure how you can take dogma out of religion, there are religions with no clearly stated “dogmas“, and where they are, I think they have to be understood as the basic tenets of a belief system (i.e. the Nicene Creed). They make sense only within the particular religious language. Something like axioms, usually built around undefined concepts, that one a priori accepts, and then follows a system built around them.

Actually, it was on this OLO that david f called my attention to the situation with Euclidean axioms. Until about 1800 they were seen as “necessary truths”, and only later (when people came to think of other geometries) saw them just as axioms of one particular geometry (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2952#68945). This, of course, is not an argument to accept any set of religious dogmas, only an attempt at explaining why one can live with that concept also in the 21st century.

I think the meaning of the story about the elephant and six blind men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant) is not that the “elephant“ has to be “viewed in its entirety“ but that the “elephant“ CANNOT be viewed in its entirety [all the men (specialists) are “blind“, so they have to extrapolate only from what they can touch].

Your analogy with the universe works only to a point: only natural scientists - physicists, chemists, biologists - can say something relevant about the universe, so the collection of the “blind men“ is more limited, and they can communicate with each other (biology builds on chemistry builds on physics). Also, the universe is usually not regarded just as a phenomenon, a delusion without any independent of the subject Reality (“elephant”) behind it (except by solipsists), as religion is by many. So in the second case the existence of an “elephant” can only be the subject of faith.

Mind you, I am not here to convince you, but I thank you for making me think more carefully about my attitude towards dogma, and the parable with the elephant.

Dear George

>> Does your ME stand for me (as myself), or abbreviation for Middle Eastern? <<

Now you are just being facetious, given your penchant for detail, I am sure you understood the CONTEXT in which I used the abbreviation ME.

As for the 6 Blind men + elephant. I first heard this analogy as a child, no doubt you did as well, back then I always thought that the six blind men actually put all their evidence together (they were only blind not stupid) and were able to 'see' the entire elephant. As an adult, I still trust the blind men managed to overcome their biased perspectives.

I can happily live knowing that science does not and may never have all the answers. One thing I am sure of is this: the universe is so vast, complex and possibly beyond our mental acuity (Euclidean geometry becomes useless when studying quantum physics), the god as described by the Abrahamic (ME) religions is too much of a simpleton, an egomaniac to have brought even planet Earth into creation let alone all the rest.

severin/quote..<<..the god/as described by the Abrahamic..(ME)..religions is too much of a simpleton,..an egomaniac to have brought even planet Earth into creation..let alone all the rest.>>.so many miss-conceptions..

first i will try to explain the simple ones...god created the universe...and all in it..now sustains bits of it to live/conciously..as i will try to explain further/later

next we ourselves...have changed..over time...why should god not be given the same right...we have even here admitted to errors...and no doudt god has seen/and regrets his as much as we do

if we asked the simpleton/blind-man...to sumerise his conception of the elephant/his reply would be couched into simple terms...

but i feel the writers..of the two/books[bi-ble]...were far from simple...no doudt the translators...have adapted the words over time...as we know...use the wrong/word..the whole gets distorted..those of the flesh/simply cannot grasp the intent of spirit

anyhow i been doing what i term thinking..so will throw away my pearl before swine/as well as angels..mainly in forms of trinity

man=animouse[spirit]+flesh/body+soul/body
spirit=animous[life]internal+external[soul/body]+rationality
god=way/means/nurture

i differ in the option of duality of mind...

prefering to see a trinity of mind=concious/the objective/mind]..+..unconcious[the subjective mind}..+..autonimous[the instinctive/autoactive/autonimous mind

and it is in this trinity of mind/much about which we disagree/has its roots..the subjective mind,is the passive mind[and im sure we havnt any like that here[but im trying]

the subjective accepts all input/rationalising via recollecting of previous recall via its emotional quotant..as modified by the autonimous mind..often beyond reasoning

the objective mind is controlled by sensory input from the senses/emotive similtude according to previous conditioning often seeking to meet need's/wants/desires..seeking rewarding experience

anyhow im not conveying my page of notes in a fullsome manner/so leave it so...never the twain should meet[3 degrees of life=natural/spiritual/celestial...[science can fit in between n/s...or s/c...]

c
u
later

Dear Oliver,

You can be an atheist (in the strong Sagan sense) and that is a legitimate basis of many world-views. Or you can accept the other alternative, as we have discussed them, and look at the numinous Something through a culture dependent and/or personal experience determined “lens” (to use Squeers’ expression).

I am not a psychologist but I do not think the smorgasbord (or Lego) approach to religions can lead to an understanding (insider view, or Polanyi’s “indwelling” that I am grateful to you for calling my attention to) of religious faith. If you like, you can take the taxonomist’s point of view, but this to me is something like taking a sociologist‘s or “science studies” approach to mathematics: it might be an interesting, even useful, exercise but it will not lead you to understand mathematics (e.g. to use it to solve non-trivial problems). Probably the same about understanding science and science studies (in spite of Thomas Kuhn).

I think we have been here already, and agreed to disagree.

Dear Severin,

You yourself state that “the god … is too much of … an egomaniac“, and I have heard others accusing monotheist religions of being “me“ religions, i.e. encouraging their adherents to be selfish, thinking mainly about their personal salvation in afterlife (here I am not so sure about Judaism). So I was just trying to understand you in parts where I thought you were original (though I do not think you want me to nit-pick on “Euclidean geometry becomes useless when studying quantum physics” or on how a blind man can see, as distinct from having a mental image of).

I am sorry for coming out to you as being facetious (or condescending), and for not being able to express myself more comprehensibly.

As mentioned in my post to Squeers, I do not want to be contentious, so I just thank you for this discussion, especially the thought stimulating parts.

Severin,
I didn’t say that you need to study something from the inside before you can have an opinion. But it is beneficial to have an insider’s view. With an insider’s view, at least you’re getting the mail first hand.

You ask if I believe in the resurrection.

This is from Paul’s 1st century letter to the Corinthians –

How do you interpret it?

“Let me now remind you, dear brothers and sisters, of the Good News I preached to you before. You welcomed it then, and you still stand firm in it. It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place.
I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. ...
And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.
But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead.”

And as for how belief in the resurrection relates to the rest of your question? I can’t see any connection. It’s missing a full stop at the end. Perhaps your sentence got cut off, as I can’t make sense of it.

jesus/main mission was to negate...the deciet...that dead means dead/and worse..that beings lie smouldering in their graves/awaiting some delusional day of judgment..he returned to invalidate those clear lies

that he died for our sins/is the other delusion...unless we activly turn/our back to the love of vile...our vile caries over to the next/realm...[even so god dont judge ANYONE]...so get over the paternalistic-con-trol mechanism..the fiction made up by man

we are ALL born-again...in the realm/that best suits that we LOVED..to do here..we are in an ongoing progression..of life/after life..then life...AGAIN...re-incarnation is a fact supported by the bible..but not by those subverting jesus/clear rev-elations

severin/quote..<<..rather than pulling the supernatural out of religion>>>au contrare..it needs be resored...ALL MUST KNOW...dead isnt...DEAD...there are fools sleeping away..their eternity...THINKING they are dead...they are called the sleeper's

if i do nothing but reveal...i dont want you lot to become sleepers[because i for one will be doing all those party things to you...[that fools do to drunks/passed out at a party...!

once i get there i will be awaking any idiot sleeping away...gods gift of life...!

<<taking the dogma out of religion>>>yes i couldnt agree more..!

<<religion gets too much of a free ride>>>absolutly agree/sadly to whom much is given/..MUCH IS EXPECTED

<<the atheist perspective.."could do more".>>>absolutly...if nothing-else..dont dispute...the possability...of other dimentions..or a cause..[KNOW..energy...cant be created...NOR DESTROYED...know..science...HAS NEVER MADE LIFE..

<<prayer v meditation;>>puts...the mind...into the subjective state[mind control by anyother/name

<<religion needs be viewed/in its entirety>>>egsactly...god sent many messengers...not all were believers...but each had their message

<<How long/is a piece of string?>>>by what measure...the more usefull it was..the more got used..did you get value...is it really string...or just a new string-theory?

<<I don't know...that is the joy of science.>>in truth..NO_ONE DOES[but god]..but thats a joy of living