Dear George,

I have a different view of evolution from the one you have. I do not think of it as culminating in the human species. Humans to me are just one of many species which have survived and reproduced. To me they are no more a culmination than is the Tyto alba or barn owl. Evolution to me is not a ladder but a continuing process as new species evolve, and other species become extinct. Many species are the end of the line, and become extinct without any new species evolving from them. That may be the case with Homo sapiens. To think of humanity as a culmination is more theology than biology. Hegel thought history was a progression to superior forms of social organisation. His apotheosis was the Prussian state. Of course Hegel was a Prussian, and you are a human.

I have thought of those words, a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing, in describing evolution and our existence. I take great pleasure in enjoying the arts and science that are the products of humanity, but eventually life together with what has been produced by it will all disappear from our universe. Expansion will continue until entropy is maximised.

I do not know if religion is necessary for humanity. It may or may not be. I think some form of it exists in all societies. I know that some humans can exist without it. There can be other forms of bonding. However, if some humans cannot exist without it then it will continue. If it is not necessary then nothing need replace it. It may be that a mature society will not need it. It may be that we will never reach that point. However, I am mindful of the history of Manichaeism. It existed from the third to the eighteenth century and extended from Spain to China. It exists no longer. I think that all current religions will disappear and may be replaced by others.

Continued

Dear David,

Thank you for correcting my English.

<<Your definition of religion: “Whatever works in bringing one closer to God, is religion.”, to the best of my knowledge, is a definition of religion which you share with no one else.>>

It depends which circles of people you contact.

I understand that this definition is meaningless to those who have no personal interest in religion. This includes not only atheists, but also those whose only interest is in the social aspect of maintaining the customs, influence and solidarity of "religious" organisations. It even includes some clergy, which have no genuine interest in God, which perhaps had such interest in the past, but lost it and are now just caught in going through the motions.

That's how religion looks from the outside.

From the outside it's like saying that mathematicians are people who waste their time sitting in a room, next to a desk all day, with a pile of papers in front of them on which they scribble Greek letters and other manner of meaningless hieroglyphics.

Within the circles I frequent, we talk about religion as whatever works. I talk with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Baha'is, Sikhs, and we all understand each other and share our spiritual experiences, so even while we may be using different terms, we see no difference between us. When someone says "Christianity works for me", we are very happy for them and encourage them to be better Christians, same when another says "for me Islam works best". The goal is the same, the methods are many. Each person should choose the method(s) most suitable to their situation and temperament.

<<God is an invention which is not common to all religions.>>

The CONCEPT of God may be an invention - not God. Some find it helpful to use one concept of God, others find it helpful to use another, while others still (such as Buddhists) find it best to have no such concept at all. That's not a problem, that's wonderful - "My Father’s house has many rooms"!

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Eliminating human sexuality would eliminate humans>>

Let alone artificial methods of procreation that already exist, eliminating human sexuality is not the same as eliminating the sexual act. Sexuality is an attitude and revolving our lives around it takes many orders-of-magnitude of energy above the act itself.

<<I do not know if religion is necessary for humanity.>>

The meaningful question is whether humanity is necessary for religion.

Humanity in itself has no purpose: it's just a matter of time either until the big crunch or until all sub-atomic particles in the universe will break down, hence even evolution itself will come to naught.

However, humanity can be meaningful when seen as a vehicle for religion - for the evolution of each individual from unconsciousness towards consciousness of oneself as God. Schools and school-buildings are meaningless unless there are children who study there. This world is but a school, it has no other purpose.

<<There can be other forms of bonding>>

But what for? No bonds will last forever. Society and all its evolutionary consequences are bound to disappear in time.

Dear George,

<<What does abandoning religion mean? In my dictionary religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”.>>

One cannot abandon religion any more than wilfully stop breathing. One is free of course to stop believing, then either their progress slows down or they find different religious methods that may be more appropriate for them. Your dictionary was written by scholars, not by religious people.

<<As for abortions, there are two extreme positions>>

I present something in between - that it is a continuous gradient, that the level of sin increases with the level of suffering and loss, especially with the loss of the victim's investment in education.

yu/quote..<<..The meaningful question..is whether humanity is necessary..for religion.>>

nessisity..is a human condition/we
are driven..to be..the means..to meet need..humanity/allows the meeting of need as a service/that is far from servile[religion does need a higher level...of need/..that cant be met purely by that readilly tangable...or strictly..material..but becoming trancendant..of the one..of the many[all]..into the many..all being of the one.

<<..Humanity in itself has no purpose:>>
not sure/re-frame of referance..[material life/has its puropse/reason..logic..]..humanity..is a higher reason.even more definitte/level\frame of referance/nessisary to realise our [thus each others]..greater humanity..

i see humanity..as being the way/we reveal our will to meet others will..that the will/works..freely..and that freewill is not threat..to the divine reveal/life facilitates..in defining that of the beast/raw-survival drivers/from that of humanity..that accords simple respects..as the way..to love other.

<<..the universe will break down,..>>[change state]..
<<..hence even evolution itself will come to naught.>>
what need has a buttefly/for the shell of the grub..it left behind.?

<<..humanity can be meaningful..when seen as a vehicle for religion - for the evolution of each individual..from unconsciousness towards consciousness of oneself as God.>>thus beholden to achieve godly works.

<<Schools and school-buildings are meaningless..unless there are children who study there.>>

i value content/more than position/location
but we are each..of different leaning..[or so im learning]..
but its not the teacher/as much as the teaching..or maybe..its not so much the learning as the learner...lean on me/hee..or thee..

[fake it till we make it..once we seen 'it;' done..we then know it can be done/but till one sees its doing..one sees little or even nothing

Dear Yuyutsu,

It was David not I who used the expression “abandon religion” and judging from the context he was referring to a society without religion (I gave the explicit definition to explain how I saw it) not an irreligious state of mind, which is or is not possible depending on how you define religion, religious.

Scholars and religious people are not mutually exclusive. You are right that the distinction between Atman and Brahman, or some other ways of saying that God is both inside and outside of us, can be translated into other religions. However, “any attempt to speak without speaking any particular language is not more hopeless than the attempt to have a religion that is no religion in particular.” (George Santayana).

As for abortions, I presented the two extremes precisely to indicate that my take was somewhere in between.

continued

I would not say that the Enlightenment came from Christianity. In my view of history Christianity brought on the Dark Ages, and the Enlightenment was necessary to free European society from the grip of Christianity. If Christianity had not destroyed the spirit of enquiry existing in the classical world the Enlightenment would not have been necessary.

Killing a human intentionally may or not be murder. We may kill an enemy in war. We may kill in self defense. If abortion is legal, it is not murder to terminate a pregnancy. Murder is an act defined by law.

The foetus is part of a woman’s body which has resulted from the contribution of part of another human’s body. We agree on that. I think we are playing with words if we call an embryo a potential human being. An embryo is an actual human being in a particular stage of development. I think a pregnant woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy which means the right to kill a human being. I think that the right of an adult woman to dispose of the human being inside her is greater than the right of the human being inside her to continue its development. However, I don’t think anyone else without the woman’s consent should have the right to harm the foetus.

In the case where the pregnancy is the result of rape or other non-consensual form of sex I think most people would agree that it should be left completely up to the woman whether she wishes to terminate the pregnancy. I think that she should have that right even if the sex was consensual. Some societies deny her that right no matter how her pregnancy happened. Other societies allow her to terminate a pregnancy under certain circumstances.

Dear Yuyutsu,

A world where nobody bothered about god in any way would have divested itself of another superstition. A world where nobody bothered with the difference between measurable quantities and countable numbers would be immensely poorer. Over 2,500 years of mathematics would have disappeared.

We talk past each other