Dick, Matthew, et. al.,
First, before veering off into the religion topic, I would like to once again castigate Dick for not sticking to the original question to the end, even if it was on the other thread, I think. But as I understand it, Dick, you are on the record of being in favor of urinating on holy texts, in cases in which that text has been used to support one particular social evil, that is, the beheading of Daniel Perle. My follow-on question was whether the important act of urination on others' holy books should be undertaken as a coordinated U.S. policy, or be left to individual soldiers' discretion. I'd also like to know whether other social ills - for example, pogroms - which are justified by a given religious writing, similarly uphold the government-sanctioned desecration of that body of work.
Now on to religion its ownself.
Matthew- interesting post, and not at all surprising; for centuries repeatable experiments have documented that particular neurological/mental/psychic states accompany anomolous physical states. The usual examples are the faqir who can walk over hot coals or lay on razor-sharp nails, etc. The faqir can meet the skeptic's demand that he repeat the experiment, over and over. Finally the skeptic comes up with "unusual facility with physical control," or somesuch, to discount the validity of the exercise of mind in regard to body. This latest round of data will produce more of the same. The skeptics will now rush to make certain the data are sound (as they should,) and if the data are found to be sound, will discount the fact that one is physically altered during a meditative state as irrelevant. One is also physically altered by ingesting LSD. It proves nothing other than the very scientific viewpoint they start from, vis., all sorts of things are out there. They need only be explained to be demystified.
Where I come down on the subject of religion is here: The scientific mindset is a tool to more and more thoroughly understand the physical world. It is also absolutely impotent to describe subjective states of being. Reliance on the "hard" scientific mindset in, say, pharmopsychology, actually misses the entire point. Objectively, I can look at your levels of seratonin, dopamine, etc., give you a cocktail of pills to put those levels back on the main sequence, say "have a good day," and expect it to happen. When it does not, I can try another cocktail to fix one or another level that has gone haywire, tell you to "have a good day," and be amazed by the novel interaction of your body chemistry with my extrasomatic chemicals. What the psychopharmacologist or pharmopsychologist or whatever the hell they are refuses to realize, is that the levels are not the phenomena of depression, rage, etc., they are the measureable manifestations. Some individuals will continue to be untreatable as long as they are at odds with the world as they find it, or as long as the individual feels unable to affect his world satisfactorily. It's the subjective landscape that defies quantification. Realizing this, some even try to reason away the subjective self in favor of measurable data representing that self from an objectivist standpoint, in essence treating subjective experience as illusory.
This comes very close, in fact, to the Buddhist perspective, except the Buddhist has the sense to know the measurables are illusory as well, in the grand scheme of things, not to mention the rage and/or depression, so he tends to bother less with the drugs.
My own belief is that God is one; that we lie by so much as discussing it, in that we limit by discussing; and that I will continue to do so at such great length because I came among you in this form to learn such limitations
Our words are symbols, and our thoughts are models of the real. We do not have the neurons to describe what we claim to describe, even if God is only the sum of all that is. We can only fool ourselves into believing we grasp with the forebrain what can only be partaken in, not understood.
As Wallace Stevens put it, "The squiming facts exceed the squamuus mind." (Correct the quote, somebody - it's from memory. But I'm pretty sure I'm close.)
I respect the Jungian sentiment repeated above regarding the function of religion, in that I do distrust clergies far more than mystics, but I see both communities as necessary. To experience as a self, then to experience something transcendent from the starting point of self, is one experience. To experience from the starting point of millions of selves, at least insofar as you bring their tradition with you, is quite another. Even if the mystic's solo flight is the crowning glory of all religious searching (which you would have to convince me of, although it's the most attractive candidate for that honor,) it's most commonly achieved after a sojourn in the dogmatic confines of one creed or another.
Does religion cause bloodshed? Yes. Does irreligion cause bloodshed? Also yes. Therefore bloodshed is. There should be less. I don't lay it at the door of any particular religion, but it's very easy to see the same characters who use a bible viciously would use a copy of
Capital just as viciously in Russia in the 20s, given a different set of life experiences.
Finally, I believe that posts like this will act much as a mandala for most readers, bringing them a bit of nirvana as they go "huh?" because they are lost in my convoluted sentence structure.
Om Vey,
Dan