2human
July 5, 2003, 06:45 AM
Most of us here see merit in the scientific method to gain
knowledge about what it is like to be human.
If we look at religion from a philosophical point of view we get
other answers than if we look at the functions of religion from
an anthoplogical point of view.
Now I am not a scienctist and know almost nothing about
anthropology but I have long experience of both being religious
and promoting atheism and what it is like to be human for me
as an individual too. Soo if that counts for anything?
1. I am one of many humans, I have to get along with the
others. We are interdependent on the others in the long run.
2. Religions exists as social forces that has political implications.
They the "religionists" has political power over my life. They
decide things, get Bills passed in Congress and so on.
Regardless if God exists or not. Religion and religious people
has real impact in my life. They exists as acting humans.
3. Alone I am powerless against millions of believers. Exceptional
non-religious individuals may influence through their carisma but
most of us are not that carismatic.
So we need to be many who make ourselves heard.
We, individually took leave of religion or never belonged to it.
I decided to be an atheist 1953 at ten years old so I never
saw me as a religionist but we are skeptical to groups
because religionists abused their power over us. We don't want
to go in under any label. We are strong willed individualists.
But to get heard we need to be many who co-operate. There are
many small organizations trying to speak for us. Freethinkers,
Atheists, Agnostics, Secularist, Humanists, and so on. We againt
them. What if we could try out another approach.
To look at what is common to us and not what is separating us.
Then if anthropology get it right? (Maybe there are those of you
who study anthropology who could take up this in this thread)
If being religious is kind of "common" to being human?
That is not to say that its a good thing to be religious. But its
what is there regardless if God exists or not. Its the best model
science have of what its like to be human. Not what we prefer
life to be, but a tendency or a virus or whatever. A kind of given
to deal with and not wishfully wanting to go away soon.
If anthropology get it right religious people will emerge for
thousands of years. We have to find an ethical way to handle
this fact??? Regardless of if God exists or not. People will "fall"
for the temptation to be "religious". Now we have debated
the existence of God for hudnreds of years. "God" still persist
as a political social force among us. We ahve tried out
restrictions to religious people. Don't preach to us in shools.
They are soo dependent on this that they use every trick to
see to it that they will create a fundamentalist Theocratic Society
if we don't stop them now. What we tried soo far has not worked.
What we need now is real science of what its is to be human.
Anthropoly need to get more input from brain research.
Like Michael Persinger suggsting that our brains produce this
feeling of a presence of the other that religionists refer to as
God. You and I find it very unlikely that there is a God so we
have to place this as a mistake of identity. What is experienced
by the religious people are our own human presence projected
unto a social construction. The difference is that we used to
dismiss this as an illusion. But its more like a mistaken identity.
The others around us are no illusions. Tehy exists independently
of our "illusions" about them. What we need is to acknowledge
is the reality of social forces constitute of cooperating individuals
that form groups that are loyal to their political agenda.
That they refer to God should not fool us into dissing them to
be powerless. They are very powerful and their "God" despite
being a social construction helps them to get along with each other.
What could we refer to as that which would help us cooperate?
Our humaneness. That we care about the future generations
of humans and that we care about this world this earth and
the ecological balance and diversity. That we are humans is
the common thing to refer to. We only need to find good
workable metaphors and ways to tell this to each other
adn we need more research into how to make use of
"narratives" tht touch our hearts and feelings so we get
motivated to cooperate. Tit For Tat is a proven strategy.
I am willing to do this human thing for you if you reciprocally
stand up for me doing that which is human in return.
But we don't accept deceptions, to make extraordinary claims
about supernatural things is to break this TFT agreement
among us humans. We will not reward such behavior.
But we need to cooperate to protect our rights to be human.
Ok you guys are much better than me to write consistent texts
so go for it. :)
Bernt Rostrom, a wanna be human native of Hudiksvall Sweden.
knowledge about what it is like to be human.
If we look at religion from a philosophical point of view we get
other answers than if we look at the functions of religion from
an anthoplogical point of view.
Now I am not a scienctist and know almost nothing about
anthropology but I have long experience of both being religious
and promoting atheism and what it is like to be human for me
as an individual too. Soo if that counts for anything?
1. I am one of many humans, I have to get along with the
others. We are interdependent on the others in the long run.
2. Religions exists as social forces that has political implications.
They the "religionists" has political power over my life. They
decide things, get Bills passed in Congress and so on.
Regardless if God exists or not. Religion and religious people
has real impact in my life. They exists as acting humans.
3. Alone I am powerless against millions of believers. Exceptional
non-religious individuals may influence through their carisma but
most of us are not that carismatic.
So we need to be many who make ourselves heard.
We, individually took leave of religion or never belonged to it.
I decided to be an atheist 1953 at ten years old so I never
saw me as a religionist but we are skeptical to groups
because religionists abused their power over us. We don't want
to go in under any label. We are strong willed individualists.
But to get heard we need to be many who co-operate. There are
many small organizations trying to speak for us. Freethinkers,
Atheists, Agnostics, Secularist, Humanists, and so on. We againt
them. What if we could try out another approach.
To look at what is common to us and not what is separating us.
Then if anthropology get it right? (Maybe there are those of you
who study anthropology who could take up this in this thread)
If being religious is kind of "common" to being human?
That is not to say that its a good thing to be religious. But its
what is there regardless if God exists or not. Its the best model
science have of what its like to be human. Not what we prefer
life to be, but a tendency or a virus or whatever. A kind of given
to deal with and not wishfully wanting to go away soon.
If anthropology get it right religious people will emerge for
thousands of years. We have to find an ethical way to handle
this fact??? Regardless of if God exists or not. People will "fall"
for the temptation to be "religious". Now we have debated
the existence of God for hudnreds of years. "God" still persist
as a political social force among us. We ahve tried out
restrictions to religious people. Don't preach to us in shools.
They are soo dependent on this that they use every trick to
see to it that they will create a fundamentalist Theocratic Society
if we don't stop them now. What we tried soo far has not worked.
What we need now is real science of what its is to be human.
Anthropoly need to get more input from brain research.
Like Michael Persinger suggsting that our brains produce this
feeling of a presence of the other that religionists refer to as
God. You and I find it very unlikely that there is a God so we
have to place this as a mistake of identity. What is experienced
by the religious people are our own human presence projected
unto a social construction. The difference is that we used to
dismiss this as an illusion. But its more like a mistaken identity.
The others around us are no illusions. Tehy exists independently
of our "illusions" about them. What we need is to acknowledge
is the reality of social forces constitute of cooperating individuals
that form groups that are loyal to their political agenda.
That they refer to God should not fool us into dissing them to
be powerless. They are very powerful and their "God" despite
being a social construction helps them to get along with each other.
What could we refer to as that which would help us cooperate?
Our humaneness. That we care about the future generations
of humans and that we care about this world this earth and
the ecological balance and diversity. That we are humans is
the common thing to refer to. We only need to find good
workable metaphors and ways to tell this to each other
adn we need more research into how to make use of
"narratives" tht touch our hearts and feelings so we get
motivated to cooperate. Tit For Tat is a proven strategy.
I am willing to do this human thing for you if you reciprocally
stand up for me doing that which is human in return.
But we don't accept deceptions, to make extraordinary claims
about supernatural things is to break this TFT agreement
among us humans. We will not reward such behavior.
But we need to cooperate to protect our rights to be human.
Ok you guys are much better than me to write consistent texts
so go for it. :)
Bernt Rostrom, a wanna be human native of Hudiksvall Sweden.