86 replies to this topic

[susmariosep]

Science and philosophy seem to be similar even identical, except that in science we work in the laboratory, while in philosophy we work in the mind; also in science we are after pure knowledge, and productivity, effectivity, and efficiency, while in philosophy we are after values. Here are my definitions for science and for philosophy:

Science is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything by laboratory ways and means.

Philosophy is also the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything by speculative thinking.

I use the word "programming", but I am now more inclined to use the word "scenario"; because it is a more simple and concrete word.

Laboratory ways and means I guess we can all agree to be based on observation and experimentation, and again on and on without end in sight of more experimentation and observation.

What is speculative thinking? I use the word "speculative", from the Latin, "speculum", mirror. As we look at ourselves in the mirror we see ourselves as we are, but at the same time we would want a better we than the one we see reflected in the mirror. So also we see the world as is but we also want to see it as a better one.

Susma

[susmariosep]

About the difference between religion and superstition? There is in religion a dialogue and even a negotiation with the unknown power entity founded upon reason, which is assumed to be subsisting in both parties, man and the unknown power entity. In superstition there is no dialogue, no negotiation, and certainly no basis whatever of reason subsisting in the relationship between man and the blind object or agent of fear and hope.

For example, assuming the existence of a benevolent power entity called God, man asks him for a favor on a platform of reason (God is good), and he expects God to reciprocate also on that platform. What if God returns not with a favorable answer, but the opposite? In which case we have to admit that we cannot reasonably be certain that the answer is not good; because we cannot see everything and the way God sees everything.

In the case of a superstitious observance, say, not leaving the house on a Friday the 13th of the month, there is no dialogue, no negotiation, no reasonable platform for the observance except pure fear. Or in the case of a positive superstitious act, say, keeping a rabbit's foot for bringing in good luck, again there is no dialogue, no negotiation, and no platform of reason; it is mere hope.


To be honest, I also indulge in superstitions, but I choose the superstitions to indulge in as a whimsical luxury; because if it does not diminish in any way your liberty, it is better for one's feeling to save oneself from unpleasant association or reminiscence many a superstition is connected with.


To make a general confession, then: I can be totally and exclusively scientific and philosophical and live without religion, and of course absolutely without any superstitions whatsover; but life is more enjoyable or there are more pluses in life with religion than without: on condition that science first, and then second philosphy, are the uncompromising criteria to adhere to when one has to choose between them and religion -- and the simply optional luxury of superstition.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Gewis and Stranger both have encountered in their religious heart and mind what we might consider experiences of God and God's knowledge and the world beyond physics and biology.

What I have always been after, being a man in the street and ever on the lookout for practical shortcuts to life's daily routines and chores, specially the labor and inconvenience and time involved in making a living, is namely, do you people have anything from God whereby I can earn a good fortune without so much work and trouble and time, so that I can retire say in five years time, and devote my life then to the search for knowledge, and of course to the service of God?

What about obtaining from God a health-safe and fail-safe formula for fighting obesity, which is the Number One affliction and even deadly disease of modern food opulent society. If I have such a formula, it should earn me a good fortune in a short time, for me to retire on and enjoy life, occupying myself with things I like to do and enjoy doing.


Susma

[stranger]

Hey Susma,

How's it going,

Not much here. You were wondering?

"Do you people have anything from God whereby I can get by?"

Right now I find myself in the very same situation, financial wise.

As many Gods as I might claim to know, still, I am a victim of circumstance. I tell my Gods the same thing. I should be happily painting away for Them and I''m wasting my time working for somebody else. Right now , the only break that I'm getting is that, I'm working out of the house, for myself. But I still have to perform a service. And as much as They assure me of better things to come, I still suffer my occassional shortcomings. I am not immune to suffering--financially or otherwise.

You were also wondering if I'm superstitious?
I guess, a little bit, maybe. I try not to walk under a ladder, but black cats don't scare me. For me, they are good luck symbols. A different kind of superstition I guess.

later,

stranger

stranger

[stranger]

Hey Don,

How's it going man.

I hope I didn't offend you in any way. I meant all in good faith.
You have much clarity in your way of thinking, even though we might not agree on a lot of things.

As far as my little story is concerned, yeah , I mean every word I say.
However freaked out it might sound. I am not a native Hindu, I am Christian by culture, but the Hindu Gods are play a major role in my life.

The Gods that I talk about are all interconnected, yet, They retain a sense of individuality and uniqueness. And yes, there is a main one. All of Them work for the goals of the Main One in many respects, without losing self sufficiency and SELF IDENTITY.

I tell you this because you claim to be more agnostic than atheist.
But more importantly, because, to me, you sound intelligent, however far we might find one from the other.

Just don't forget one thing. I am not preaching any religion. Whether they're right or wrong is not much my business. Even the so-called Hare Krishnas hate my guts.

I work alone--in this world.

stranger

[Gewis]

What about obtaining from God a health-safe and fail-safe formula for fighting obesity, which is the Number One affliction and even deadly disease of modern food opulent society. If I have such a formula, it should earn me a good fortune in a short time, for me to retire on and enjoy life, occupying myself with things I like to do and enjoy doing.

Yeah, he has given us one, actually. Eat grains and herbs and meats sparingly, stay away from alcohol and coffee. Go to bed early and get up early. Don't be idle.

But, no, I don't have any shortcuts. "It is by taking the course of least resistance that makes rivers and men crooked." Besides, when you asked earlier about my answers to prayers, I suppose I should also say the answer has sometimes been, "That's not for you to know right now." But in those cases, it's always turned out to be the answer I needed, the comfort and guidance to set me in the right direction. Like, if I had known for certain that I would be held over at Ft. Huachuca for five weeks doing B.S. details, it wouldn't have really helped me feel better. On the other hand, when I'm told, "That's not for you to know, but don't worry, it's in my hands," it's just what I needed.

[Lazarus Long]

OK my fellow theists, atheists, anti-theists and agnostics please tune into this site.

I am listening to this homemade and of mediocre sound quality documentary on the impact and invention of religion and I suggest it is worth wading through.

It is a montage of sound bites done as an audio collage and kudos to the artist.

Enjoy it at your leisure all; preferable late at night )

It's called: "It's All In Your Head"

and it is from the show called "Over the Edge" and it's found here:
http://matrix.csustan.edu/Negativ/

It is broadcast locally for some of you Left Coasters and Webcast enthusiasts on KPF Berkley. Also that link above is the archive of all the now available shows though I gather this is still a work in progress.

My GOD this reminds me of the old Firesign Theater work, even some of the voices do. [lol]

[DJS]

lol... that is great.  I'd offer a critique and a big list of corrections, but, eh, it's South Park.

Well, you may think that it is "just" South Park, but for millions of 20-somethings who are comedy central junkies that episode of South Park is all they know about the Mormon faith. Heck, I'll admit it -- everything I know abou the Mormon faith I learned from that South Park episode -- I'm serious. [huh]

Please, by all means, point out to me any inaccuracies because I take South Park as the GOOD WORD. [lol]

DonS

[susmariosep]

(snip)

Right now  I find myself in the very same situation, financial wise. 

As many Gods as I might claim to know, still,  I am a victim of circumstance.  I tell my Gods the same thing.  I should be happily painting away for Them and I''m wasting my time working for somebody else.  Right now , the only break that I'm getting is that,  I'm working out of the house, for myself.  But I still have to perform a service.  And as much as They assure me of better things to come, I  still suffer my occassional shortcomings.  I am not immune to suffering--financially or otherwise.

(snip)

stranger

The same old problem with God or Gods, procrastination.

Any way you can tell your Gods to act faster in your favor?

Susma

[susmariosep]

(snip)

The Gods that I talk about are all interconnected, yet, They retain a sense of individuality and uniqueness.  And yes, there is a main one.  All of Them work for the goals of the Main One in many respects, without losing self sufficiency and SELF IDENTITY. 
stranger

(snip)

Do you think I can get to talk with your Gods? without having to go through your prolonged procedure before arriving at your access to them.

Susma

[susmariosep]

QUOTE 
What about obtaining from God a health-safe and fail-safe formula for fighting obesity, which is the Number One affliction and even deadly disease of modern food opulent society. If I have such a formula, it should earn me a good fortune in a short time, for me to retire on and enjoy life, occupying myself with things I like to do and enjoy doing. UNQUOTE -- Susma

Yeah, he has given us one, actually.  Eat grains and herbs and meats sparingly, stay away from alcohol and coffee.  Go to bed early and get up early.  Don't be idle.   

But, no, I don't have any shortcuts.  "It is by taking the course of least resistance that makes rivers and men crooked."  Besides, when you asked earlier about my answers to prayers, I suppose I should also say the answer has sometimes been, "That's not for you to know right now."  But in those cases, it's always turned out to be the answer I needed, the comfort and guidance to set me in the right direction.  Like, if I had known for certain that I would be held over at Ft. Huachuca for five weeks doing B.S. details, it wouldn't have really helped me feel better.  On the other hand, when I'm told, "That's not for you to know, but don't worry, it's in my hands," it's just what I needed.

Gewis, you say in an earlier post to DonSpanton that God answers is testable, and you give the example from your own experience when you asked God about your mission head calling you, and got the answer from Him correct, he did call the following day, as God told you so.

That's all very good of God, to tell you about something to come in a matter of little consequence.

What I like your God to do is give me a formula for a substance that is health-safe and fail-safe so that when an obese person eats this substance once a week, he will slim down and stay slim, even without dieting as we understand dieting, but just eating normally. Or better it will enable him to diet as we understand diet in terms of reducing and staying slim, without any adverse effects.

Susma

[susmariosep]

OK my fellow theists, atheists, anti-theists and agnostics please tune into this site.

I am listening to this homemade and of mediocre sound quality documentary on the impact and invention of religion and I suggest it is worth wading through.

It is a montage of sound bites done as an audio collage and kudos to the artist.

Enjoy it at your leisure all; preferable late at night )

It's called: "It's All In Your Head"

and it is from the show called "Over the Edge" and it's found here:
http://matrix.csustan.edu/Negativ/

It is broadcast locally for some of you Left Coasters and Webcast enthusiasts on KPF Berkley. Also that link above is the archive of all the now available shows though I gather this is still a work in progress.

My GOD this reminds me of the old Firesign Theater work, even some of the voices do. [lol]

My computer, a Pentiium II 233 with 64ks of ram, and my modem of 54,566 maximum kbs download, takes a century to even store up 2% buffering. So I gave up.

Anyway, I have the suspicion that the broadcasts do not deal with religion in the atmosphere of a very straight face, as we are here trying seriously to do.

I submit that though talking on religion without a straight face has its own merits in a way, just like sex; we must talk religion with a straight face to be truly constructive and productive, also as with sex.

Susma

[Gewis]

Gewis, you say in an earlier post to DonSpanton that God answers is testable, and you give the example from your own experience when you asked God about your mission head calling you, and got the answer from Him correct, he did call the following day, as God told you so.

That's all very good of God, to tell you about something to come in a matter of little consequence.

What I like your God to do is give me a formula for a substance that is health-safe and fail-safe so that when an obese person eats this substance once a week, he will slim down and stay slim, even without dieting as we understand dieting, but just eating normally. Or better it will enable him to diet as we understand diet in terms of reducing and staying slim, without any adverse effects.

Susma

A matter of little consequence? During my military training, I was going through a very hard time in my life, and I really had no idea where to go or what to expect. Those five weeks I was held over were extremely discouraging, after having been at the top of my platoon in the course, I was painting the barracks and washing dishes while my platoon graduated without me. When my mission president called, it was about what church headquarters had decided to do regarding my just-then diagnosed depression, and I was being sent home, and that at a time when I was in the pit of despair, hardly cared about anything, and wanted to end my life. It was very relevant and has had a lot of consequence. In familial relations, friends, all sorts of things, it's been a wonderful source of strength and guidance to me.

Now, if I was God, and I understood the eternal nature of things, knowing that my children would continue on after their mortality, what would I be most interested in doing? I'd want to help them become like me. And I'd know that they couldn't if they were forced to, so they had to learn and choose and grow. So, my son prays to me, wanting to know what the right thing to do is, so I tell him. Or I let him know that things will be okay, and that he doesn't need to worry. Another son prays to me, wanting to know the exact formula for some perfect substance so he can get rich, entirely concerned not with what the right thing to do is, but with what will help his pocket book the most. In the eternal perspective, I realize that the only worthwhile thing that any of my children will gain is knowledge and wisdom, stuff that will help them gain greater glory and happiness. So how do I best teach my children? When they have an open mind and are willing to do the right thing, even if it doesn't seem to be of much consequence, I let them know what the right thing is. And when they come to me with selfish things and are looking for easy ways without effort or understanding, I sit and wait for them to realize their hearts are not in the right place.

So instead of telling either me or God what's important and what's of consequence, maybe you should stop and ask God what's important and what's of consequence. Because somehow I get the feeling that diet pills may not have so much impact on your eternal salvation.

[Lazarus Long]

Anyway, I have the suspicion that the broadcasts do not deal with religion in the atmosphere of a very straight face, as we are here trying seriously to do.

Actually you are quite wrong in this assumption but too bad about the low tech as you are correct it will take a lifetime at those speeds and capacities. It is a remarkably accurate and lengthy treatise on the history and relevance of religion in modern times.

It is also very accurate in regards to the scriptures being quoted and contested. You all regardless of your persuasion with respect to the positions you have staked out would probably be interested, enjoy and be not a little surprised to find that not a single thing said here was not addressed in the webcast; including modern memetics and analysis from an evolutionary psychological and biological perspective.

Humor, call ins, soundbites and musical interludes to boot, along with interviews with pastors, parishioners, pagans, heretics, and scientists like Dawkins and Blackmore interspersed with authors and religious scholars.

[susmariosep]

Dear Lazarus:

I am missing a lot of good materials in the net, because there are more and more materials to be heard instead of read, and maybe later on to be seen than also read.

My bias is that things put down in writing are better communicated than things said or graphically portrayed. I could be wrong though. Just my bias.

What's that about a picture saying a thousand things? How about just sticking to one thing and being very clear and precise about that one thing?

About listening, it does not have the advantage of easy access to what's coming before and after from what's right in front of you. Of course technology can eanble one to access quickly what comes before and after from what one is actually listening to. Yet, my attachment is still to the written word, than the spoken word and certainly not to the graphical image.

Well, I guess I have to acquire a much more advanced computer and software.

There is that website with nothing but radio pieces, and I asked the people there if they have a text version. Same also with your referred to religious broadcasts, is there a text version?

Here is my bias for the written word: whatever the convenience of the spoken word and the picture, there is always the need for the written word in truly serious purposes.

What do you say?

Susma

[susmariosep]

Dear Gewis:

I guess I have been putting my neck out to be openly interested in acquiring expansive funds (a lot of money, that is), because society and civilization have conditioned mankind to downgrade any honest soul confessing to be keen on monetary enrichment.

So also the God of mankind would prefer that man does not go for monetary favors, but to be occupied instead with spiritual yearnings.

Suppose God will take seriously my bargain, namely: that God enable me to come to a lot of honest well-earned but quick and easy money -- that's possible with God; and I will show Him how I can be very spiritual with all those oodles of funds (i.e., money).

What do you say to that?

Susma

[Lazarus Long]

The problem is that it is a work of art and social science at the same time. There is music and prayer, it would be hard for you to hear the choir if you didn't read the music and lyrics at the same time. Half the fun is the eclectic mix of music from so many aspects of today's society.

IOW I am sorry but I doubt there is a text version.

Would you like me to now try and fill in the ten thousand necessary words to even approach the depth of Da Vinci's Last Supper?

Part of what is interesting is the synergy of spontaneity of callers to the show. It is really a remarkably coherent and complete series and it is many hours long and the audio is passable if not perfect. Leave it loading in the background while you do other things and it will load eventually and then listen to a two hour segment per day while doing something else too.

We call it multitasking and it is another of those newfangled ideas )

It is BTW respectful and remarkably current if not prescient of the discussion in this thread.

[susmariosep]

Thanks, Lazarus, for your courteous reply. I am sure that those broadcasts have good materials for my education. And I will try to get a more advanced computer and software, and also download while I am not occupied with the computer for immediate purposes.

By the way, what is the stage in Nootropi's trial by people's court?

[Lazarus Long]

By the way, what is the stage in Nootropi's trial by people's court?

I am sure it has not come to trial 'yet' and is probably still under investigation and advisement. He is still providing information in his area and I hope has at least heard the voices of those whose interests he shares, as to his presentation.

We don't do vigilantism in this here virtual town and when you start learning to live a very long time being extremely methodical and precise becomes ever more important than hasty. Though I do not think justice has ever really been served by haste it still needs to be timely.

It will no doubt be settled in chambers. We have not had the kinds of problems you described elsewhere for yourself and frankly I hope we never do. As long as I can defend free speech I will and I will endeavor to always try and do so respectfully.

[susmariosep]

Well, back to science, philosophy, religion, and superstition.

My purpose is to find ways and means by which a person like yours truly can be rational though having a sense of religion.

A sense of religion, what is that?

A sense of religion is what everyone has who is looking for a church to attend, and is trying to determine which church is the best for his 'sense of religion'.

These are the people who are not quarreling among themselves about which religion is the true one and who is into that true religion.

My assumption is that a sense of religion is good for life, better than being without a sense of religion.

My attachment might seem to be what I might call artistic or romantic or sentimental or emotional. And what's wrong with being emotional, isn't that a most essential component to being human?

Veterinarians and animal trainers tell us that many animals which can be trained to live with people exhibit also emotions, an obvious observation for people who do have pets in the house.

So, why should we deprive ourselves of emotional attachments, like say religion, when even our pets at home like the dogs and the cats are emotional beings.

Now, I am not saying that animals do have religion, that is another question.

What I am trying to seek here in this thread is that at least for me and people who are interested like me, there is a religion that can be rational and not ruled by superstitious fear and hope. A religion, the 'a' stands for the general, meaning religion can be rational or reasonable.

Take that very common religious event, the church wedding or ritual marriage. Is it a superstitious enactment?

I will talk about the typical Christian ritual marriage, but I am almost sure that in every people on earth there is a corresponding religious marriage that embodies the analogical components of the Christian marriage or wedding.

Certainly people can get married in a purely and exclusively civil ceremony, though I tend to suspect that the purely civil marriage is an invention of the Western secularist society, a consequential part of the principle of separation between church and state.

In the typical Christian marriage, God is a very important party aside from the contracting man and woman agents to their own marriage. The human minister of marriage is simply representing God.

God is the confector and super transcendental witness of marriage, although He is invisible but present nonetheless. The human parties promise to assume on themselves mutual reciprocal obligations and rights, primarily over each other’s body for the exercise of love, sex, and family, and to share between themselves everything, material, emotional, and moral: body, heart, and mind, and their earthly resources present and to come.

Is that enactment superstitious?

Consider also the religious burial which is also the universal practice of peoples. In Christian burials God is again present. And essentially the person being buried is consigned back to God, but his deceased body is considered as earth remnant, so that from earth it comes to earth it returns: to that earth namely also a domain of God, the universal and transcendental maker and owner.

Is that enactment of a religious burial, is it superstitious?

Consider first, God, Who is the main character or player in the dramas of marriage and burial. He is believed to be present, or to make it more simple to understand, He is imagined as being present and involved.

That belief or imagination, is it rational? I submit it is rational, as rational as the imagination that some entity had earlier turned on the light in the room if it is lighted when you enter the room.

Now, is it rational to bring God into a marriage, a burial? Yes, as rational as you would bring in your boss to be a, and for you very distinguished, witness at your wedding, and also bring in your father’s boss at his burial.

My point is that for religion to be rational instead of superstitious, there must be considerations for the belief and the consequential observance, considerations namely that can be sensibly accepted by the averagely reasonable person as thinkable and logical and also very important not, at least not, detrimental to the interests of society and civilization.

What are the interests of society and civilization? Very simple: to preserve life and enhance life and ennoble life.

Is a religious marriage or a religious burial detrimental to the preservation of life and its enhancement and its ennoblement?

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

[susmariosep]

In superstition we have two components, the belief and the deed. The belief is imagination, the deed is action.

For the present we can concentrate on the action, because if a belief is not concretized into an action, then there is nothing to be really alarmed about. At most it is no different from imagining the existence of Dracula or a werewolf in today's world of entertainment.

It is with action that we have to be very concerned in the matter of superstition.

Broadly we can say then that a superstitious belief is at most only an impediment to genuine knowledge, but when it is enacted into a behavior then we have to judge whether that action is preservative of life or not, whether it is harmless to life, or it is against enhancement of life, and whether it might be against its ennoblement.

Thus society has to be on guard against superstitious acts just as with all acts however rationally or philosophicaly or scientifically grounded, because of their life destructive character, or their being contrary to life enhancement or ennoblement.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Thus society has to be on guard against superstitious acts just as with all acts however rationally or philosophicaly or scientifically grounded, because of their life destructive character, or their being contrary to life enhancement or ennoblement. -- Susma

And how do we know that a deed is counter-productive to life, its enhancement, and its ennoblement?

The way I see the problem, the conclusion seems unavoidable, namely, that we need a philosophy of humanism, which I think is the ruling philosophy of the United Nations and what it stands for.

And the corollary is obvious, that to save religion from superstitions, religion must be subject to philosophy, the philosophy of humanism, namely, the preservation of life, its enhancement, and its ennoblement.

What do you guys say?

[ocsrazor]

The point you seem to keep overlooking susma is that religion IS superstition. Its just superstition codified. Religion by its very nature is dogmatic, and therefore cannot be saved - its wrong from the getgo. Big picture philosophy, the search for higher meaning, moral codes of behavior - these are all good things - but not when wrapped up in the bitter pill that is religion.

[susmariosep]

The point you seem to keep overlooking susma is that religion IS superstition. Its just superstition codified. Religion by its very nature is dogmatic, and therefore cannot be saved - its wrong from the getgo. Big picture philosophy, the search for higher meaning, moral codes of behavior - these are all good things - but not when wrapped up in the bitter pill that is religion.

Big picture philosophy, the search for higher meaning, moral codes of behavior - these are all good things - but not when wrapped up in the bitter pill that is religion.

You seem to have come in a way to my idea of religion in your statement that search for higher meaning, moral code are all good things.

Do you think we can remove dogmatism from religion and still have religion in the definition of relgion that I have formulated here earlier, namely,

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

I think a non-dogmatic religion is possible and necessary, by education. I consider myself a relgious person but not a dogmatist.

What about you, you think it's impossible? In which case you think that religion should be abolished totally or some people should have altogether nothing of religion?

I would like to hear of your idea of what is religion.

The fact is that mankind has been having religion since I suspect the dawn of intelligent consciousness. You think that one day as we near even 'distantly' (hehehehe) singularity religion will disappear from man's horizon, like maybe what is no longer present today, namely, slavery?

Susma

Just so you know Sus I edited the quote function only. Sorry to intrude

Edited by Lazarus Long, 08 December 2004 - 12:12 AM.

[arc3025]

Susma,
If you don't know your "unknown power", then you do not know what "resulting affections and actions" you need to "influence the power to react favorably".
But there is no warrant or reason to postulate, hypothesize, or suspect gods, so there is certainly no reason to believe in them.
gej

[susmariosep]

Susma,
If you don't know your "unknown power", then you do not know what "resulting affections and actions" you need to "influence the power to react favorably".
But there is no warrant or reason to postulate, hypothesize, or suspect gods, so there is certainly no reason to believe in them.
gej

Allow me to repeat my definition of religion:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

To make a long story short, by unknown I mean as in I don't know you, but still I am interacting with you. Of course with the unknown in religion of my understanding that kind of knowledge is even less than the unknowing of you.

Let's not talk about God. I don't mention God in my definition, I say 'unknown power'.

So, perhaps if I were to enumerate the features of unknown-ness of this power, I might list the following but not exclusively:

1. Existence not known the way today we know things like we know the existence of the Internet and you and me and Lazaus Long.

2. Manners of operation we don't know, as we do not know either how you and I really operate, so as to predict with great certitude how we would act.

3. Unknown in the sense that we can't measure or even whether it is subject to quantification.

What we are dealing with here is a power, that is an entity with the capacity and actuality of work or getting things done.

Does it exist? The power is thinkable, so we can provisionally take it to be existent.

And then we can exercise the option to try to relate with it, by all the ways and means by which we also relate with fellow intelligent humans.

Yes, we also provisionally take this power to be intelligent, and we exercise the option to deal with it in an intelligent manner, the way we today understand intelligence to be among us so-called inteliigent beings.

And we also provisionally take it to be an entity possessed of personality, that personality that we ourselves take ourselves to be possessed of, and by which for which and on which we have and exercise all rights and duties.

Can we relate to and with a provisionally, from our part that is, existing power but not known except as explained above, by affections and actions, and intend by our overtures to influence the power to react to us favorably?

And can we be intelligent in doing so?

That is an option that is open to us, to deal with this power. And wise men like the founding fathers of the US have even guaranteed this option or liberty to exercise religion the way I define it.

Now, as to the distinction between religion and superstition, I like to say that in religion the way we should want religion to be, from the standpoint of humanistic philosophy, we are exercising an intelligent option, because we take the power we want to interact with at least provisionally as intelligent; while in superstition the power to be manipulated is a blind entity.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Rational, provisional, and optional, I think those three adjectives describes my kind of religion, and by which I think we can have a religion that is without the unwelcome features of superstition.

Rational means that the beliefs and observances of the humanistic religion is founded upon reason, the way we would want to understand reason today.

Provisional means the information content of this religion is subject to revision as our knowledge increases and improves.

And optional means that you don't have to accept this religion if you don't want to; no one and no institution are going to coerce you into its acceptance.

But humorously, as I said somewhere here to Don Spanton, that since in our modern democratice society, religion is free, then we had better take as much as we can profit from it, as we can. Hehehehe.

Personally, everything considered, having and doing some religion of my description is better for us humans, than having none at all.

Susma

[Lazarus Long]

To make a long story short, by unknown I mean as in I don't know you, but still I am interacting with you. Of course with the unknown in religion of my understanding that kind of knowledge is even less than the unknowing of you.

There is an old joke Susma; " When you talk to God it is prayer but when you hear God talking to you it's schizophrenia."

The problem with admitted ignorance is when one claims knowledge in spite of it. It is very fair to say there are still great mysteries to solve in this Universe as we are far from *knowing it all* but also the definition of God for most people is something that is not truly *knowable*.

It is this denial of tangible, objective, or corroborative *qualia* that makes all further claims and actions in the *Name of God* suspect; other than perhaps as a self directed behavioral choice not imposed on others, regardless of the three caveats you apply.

The criteria of being *Rational,* is a valid basis to begin a spiritual quest IMHO and I appreciate the search for ethical logic. However *Provisional and Optional* sound very much like they are redundant but also they are a very different catechism from the standard dogma of institutionalized religion.

[DJS]

I think those three adjectives describes my kind of religion, and by which I think we can have a religion that is without the unwelcome features of superstition.

"Rational religion" is an oxymoron if you ask me. How can you be rational when you believe in made up supernatural entities?

And no offense susma, but all religions are superstition. The only difference between Christianity and Animism is that Christianity is codified (ie; it is further along in its memetic evolution and representative of a literate guild). Your whole argument that your religion is rational, but more primative religious beliefs are superstition seems rather elitist to me.

Rational means that the beliefs and observances of the humanistic religion is founded upon reason, the way we would want to understand reason today.

No, rational means this:

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.

2.  Influenced by reason rather than emotion.

3.  Of sound mind, sane.

4.  Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation.

Let's stick to the dictionary definition, shall we? Second, how do you arrive at -- "the beliefs and observances of the humanistic religion is founded upon reason". And also what does -- "the way we would want to understand reason today" mean exactly?

Provisional means the information content of this religion is subject to revision as our knowledge increases and improves.

Well, this is just fine. Flexibility of thought is a good first step toward rational thought. But I've got some bad news for ya buddy, you're going to have to do an aweful lot of revisions... [lol]

And optional means that you don't have to accept this religion if you don't want to; no one and no institution are going to coerce you into its acceptance.

That's great. It's good to know that business as usual no longer consists of forced conversion like in the time of the noble Charlemagne. [sfty]

But humorously, as I said somewhere here to Don Spanton, that since in our modern democratice society, religion is free, then we had better take as much as we can profit from it, as we can. Hehehehe.

Humous, yeah you're a barrel of laughs. Doesn't anything get through to you. I have watched this thread as numerous rational minds have pointed out to you the error of your ways only to have you entirely (or so it would seem) disregard their posts. Religion is an outdated social institution which does more harm than good. It is an impediment to social and technological progress and its tenants are just plain false.

Personally, everything considered, having and doing some religion of my description is better for us humans, than having none at all.

There are plenty of better things to do with your time. Volunteer at your favorite charity, make a lasting contribution to science and specifically to the field of life extention (MM Prize), go sailing, visit a country you've never been to before, AND attain a better understanding of the world around you by embark on a study of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

[susmariosep]

To make a long story short, by unknown I mean as in I don't know you, but still I am interacting with you. Of course with the unknown in religion of my understanding that kind of knowledge is even less than the unknowing of you.

There is an old joke Susma; " When you talk to God it is prayer but when you hear God talking to you it's schizophrenia."

The problem with admitted ignorance is when one claims knowledge in spite of it. It is very fair to say there are still great mysteries to solve in this Universe as we are far from *knowing it all* but also the definition of God for most people is something that is not truly *knowable*.

It is this denial of tangible, objective, or corroborative *qualia* that makes all further claims and actions in the *Name of God* suspect; other than perhaps as a self directed behavioral choice not imposed on others, regardless of the three caveats you apply.

The criteria of being *Rational,* is a valid basis to begin a spiritual quest IMHO and I appreciate the search for ethical logic. However *Provisional and Optional* sound very much like they are redundant but also they are a very different catechism from the standard dogma of institutionalized religion.

That above is a very cautious reaction.

In consideration of which, I think you are eminently qualified to judge whether Nootropi should be banned, and I hope not; but I am just a casual onlooker.