WJ

Philo!

Because, the 'defense' is based on primacy. Primacy of sentient existence being intrinsic to humans, as I think James suggests in his empirical view of human nature. What follows is the evil's (abuses of power etc.)of what you have concern over. What's more, mere observations don't tell us why and how these intrinsic qualities exist. While 'thinking' about them provides for some of the answers behind this issue if intrinsic meaning, without feeling, it [religion] would not exist to start. That's the point.

How do you observe the [a]truth about religious feeling? You might could observe abuses of power thru a read of history, but you cannot get a read on the 'intrinsic' qualities of religious feeling by mere observation, only that it 'appears' to be or effect people in a certain way.

Perhaps your specific question relates to the interpretation of what Jesus thought about organized religion, power, and so forth. Luv? Anyone?

Is that the concern?

Walrus

John Page

<a href="http://www.psychjournal.com/interviews/October01_Newberg.htm" target="_blank">Link to some medical info on attempts to do this</a>

Typhon

Wali!

This primacy is in and of itself, part of the propaganda produced commonly by the authoritarian type of religion, for example such as Christianity. This primacy is by no means a certainty in a naturalistic universe, nor even in all religions, or at least, not to the same extent.

Observations, plus experimentation, plus critical thinking, do tell us the whys and hows of "these intrinsic qualities." Feelings are not generally the tools which best suit the task of analytical problem solving, nor are they entirely appropriate to an informed study of history. That's the point.

Religious feelings likewise fall in an understandable pattern, and can be very adequately described by the behavioral, historical, and even biological fields of study. Religion does not occur without purpose, it is just that this purpose is not always or even typically benign or appropriate in our modern era.

As for Jesus, I and many others hold him to be a purely mythical figure. One might as well ask Odin or Marduk, what they thought about organized religion, power, and so forth. You will get the answer that was created by the same people who created the religion, nothing more.

What is your point then?

Typhon

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

WJ

Typhoon!

My point then is exactly as your rationale suggested. Your speculation about religious feeling is in part based upon your own feeling. I think you've proved James correct. Feeling exists, and has both cause and effect-consequences.

Feelings in themselves are neither right nor wrong, they're feelings. No?

Walrus

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Typhon

Walrye!

My point is exactly opposite what you claim it is, and thus we have fallen out of agreement. My speculations about religion are not based on my feelings, but my analytical thoughts about it, based on a historical examination of the subject and critical thinking. Religious feeling, as feeling, is no different from non-religious feeling and is as you agree, only feeling! Reason and logic exist, therefore, we have reason to belive that logic shows us the consequences of basing our decisions about the world on feelings rather than facts. To take the inverse of the rational man and apply the base functions of the cosmos brings us only into agreement or disagreement, yes?

I'm glad we both agree then that feelings are not the measuring stick we need in order to weigh the value and problems created and credited to religion, no?

Typhon

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

WJ

typhoon!

Indeed, we agree to disagree. Two tenants;

1. Your motivation to seek loving, caring, interaction with humans and cooresponding sentient relationships is based *purely* on the primacy of feeling. Therefore, your feelings drive your cause and effect-motivations effecting your existence. You seek pleasure not because logic requires you to.

2. To this end, you cannot use analytical reason to explain that existence. You're stuck, aren't you! You're just another politician who plays with propositional logic to make yourself *feel* or look better about your own beliefs/position.

What now, oh great master of logic and reason? Or should I call you Dr. Spock... Please tell us more about feeling.

Did I interpret that correctly?

Walri

Koyaanisqatsi

It's "tenets" not "tenants."

If you're going to try to jam the controls yet again, WJ, you should at least use the right terms.

Have fun buzzing around.

WJ

Well, I am a slumlord, for f*cks sake.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

That's a polite word for what you are.

And could you please stop genuflecting? We can see your ass crack...

WJ

My ass crack is bigger than yours. On the other hand, God's tool is bigger than both of ours.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />