Religion as a Side Effect of Evolution

[Gretchen]

Kevin Solway wrote:

Consciousness evolved because it gave us a survival advantage. It turned out that humanoids with greater consciousness had more chance of surviving and passing on their genes than humanoids with lesser consciousness. That's the way natural selection works.

I have become interested in evolution theory from a non-scientist perspective – as I am not a scientist. I have read where there exist certain adaptations that, as a whole, may not necessarily be good, or that certain genetic adaptations cause peculiar “side effects,” for lack of a better term.

In taking what Kevin has stated, given that consciousness was an evolutionary adaptation for survival, could it be that the creation of religion and gods are a “side effect” of this adaptation?

Kevin Solway wrote:

This alien being of yours (ie, your "God") must have been extremely lazy — to seed a world with only microbes, and then wait billions of years for intelligent life to evolve.

Why didn't he "implant" fully conscious life right from the start?

I know: "For reasons known only to him". ;-)

If a genetic predisposition towards God and/or a God concept exists, then, in accordance with Totality, it has existed since the beginning, correct? In your opinion, what viable situation exists to explain why it took so long for this evolutionary adaptation to manifest itself? Or is there one?

[skipair]

I think just "effect" is better than "side effect" when talking about evolution, otherwise there might be some misconception that there is a purpose and that all is not just accidental. For example, with medication we can speak of "side effects" (although just effects) because they do not help toward the goal of curing the illness. Or we can speak of some genetic adaptations being good or bad in terms of wanting to sustain the species. But while we can be conscious of particular aspects of evolution, they cannot be conscious of us.

In the end consciousness, religion, and everything else is a temporary and accidental manifestation of nature, and has no regard for anyone or anyone's goals.

The god concept and consciousness play no bigger role in the conditions of our existence than anything else. In fact they play an infinitely small role. In another place or another time there could easily be humanoids that had no god concept, and frankly I would bet on their survivall lasting longer than ours.

[David Quinn]

In the past, religion occasionally played a decisive hand in the development and expansion of human consciousness. For example, by providing people with a feeling of mental certainty, it diminished their mental chaos and gave them the courage to explore the world. Modern science originally arose out of a belief in God's laws, leading to the idea that scientific investigation could uncover at least some of these laws.

Religious ideas can also prompt a person to seek ultimate realities and absolute principles, which is a necessary first step towards becoming enlightened. So it has definitely played a positive role in human development in the past. If we were smart enough and wise enough, we wouldn't need religion any more, but the human race is still a long way from this.

-

[Unidian]

In my view, religion offers primitive societies a number of survival advantages. Most notably, a belief in "life after death" can inspire a greater willingness to encounter danger - whether on the hunt, at war, or what have you. Additionally, religion can help create critical social bonds and thereby strengthen the "tribe."

Religion was probably a relatively useful survival adaptation until fairly recently. Within the modern era, however, it has begun to outlive its usefulness, becoming an overall hindrance to progress.

[David Quinn]

I'm rather loathe to advocate the elimination of all religious thought at this point in time because so many people nowadays are trapped within the empirical/scientific materialistic mindset. At least religion points to concepts of absolute truth, albeit in a clumsy fashion. It helps keep the flame of the spirituality alive. If that were to be removed, the human race would no longer have any contrast to the scientific mentality and we would be even more mentally limited than ever.

Perhaps if eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism were to take over at the expense of the more primitive religions, such as Christianity and Islam, we would be in a position to start eliminating religion without risking the elimination of visible avenues to wisdom.

-

[Unidian]

Fair enough.

I'd have to agree with that overall, although perhaps with less overt hostility toward the scientific mindset.

[David Quinn]

It's not hostility towards the scientific mindset - I have great respect for science - but towards the way people use it, either wittingly or unwittingly, to close their minds from truth.

-

[Philosophaster]

Let's not forget that religion often causes people to reproduce more than they otherwise would, thereby ensuring the existence of more people inclined to be religious.

"Be fruitful and multiply."

[Gretchen]

In working through this question and doing a little research in the GF archives, it seems that the QRS philosophy supporters are as diverse as the various denominations of Christianity, ranging from atheists to pantheists and all points in between. The ideology is agreed upon by the more seasoned members, but it seems the God concept is the variant.

skipair wrote that consciousness is an accidental manifestation of nature. I have a hard time accepting this idea. If the Totality is all things, why is it not conscious? In perfection, there should exist an awareness or perhaps even a oneness with all things. If this is true, then God is not a survival adaptation. But then, I think about rocks and dirt.

Unidian wrote:

Religion was probably a relatively useful survival adaptation until fairly recently. Within the modern era, however, it has begun to outlive its usefulness, becoming an overall hindrance to progress.

Religion, on the other hand, has to be an accidental manifestation, an adaptation. It is not substance but a system. Religion can be a process to give light to the truth but it can also hinder the truth by creating superstitious behavior and fear.

David wrote:

Perhaps if eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism were to take over at the expense of the more primitive religions, such as Christianity and Islam, we would be in a position to start eliminating religion without risking the elimination of visible avenues to wisdom.

I am not acquainted with Buddhism and Taoism, but are these belief systems not adaptive as well? It is not the teachings themselves, but a creation of “a god” by and through a system. It is why I am wondering about God and these adaptive gods. But moreso about people’s yearning for Wisdom and Truth about What Is…that is hard-wired into us - not as an adaptation, but possibly as the substance of our very being.

David, could you expand on this topic a little more?:

At least religion points to concepts of absolute truth, albeit in a clumsy fashion. It helps keep the flame of the spirituality alive. If that were to be removed, the human race would no longer have any contrast to the scientific mentality and we would be even more mentally limited than ever.

I am not quite sure what your “Enlightenment” really means. However, I do think that man can evolve in a direction of better understanding, abandoning religion, while retaining the wisdom and truth of the various prophets’ teachings.

[skipair]

skipair wrote that consciousness is an accidental manifestation of nature. I have a hard time accepting this idea.

Probably because you're getting some emotional nourishment, safety or whatever, from thinking that consciousness, and therefore you, are more special in some way than rocks and dirt. Weird stuff, yeah?!

[DHodges]

If I recall correctly, Dawkins addresses this issue at length in The God Delusion, particularly chapter 5, "The Roots of Religion."

Contrary to the summary on Amazon, I thought he was overly polite with respect to religion, but I'm sure many would disagree. He takes great pains to point out the good things about religion. If it did not have some benefits, it would not exist.

Additionally, religion can help create critical social bonds and thereby strengthen the "tribe."

This is certainly a critical element - the establishment and maintenance of a group identity - "I believe this because this is what my people believe." Social bonds depend on defining exactly who is in a group and who is not.

[Gretchen]

If I recall correctly, Dawkins addresses this issue at length in The God Delusion, particularly chapter 5, "The Roots of Religion."

Contrary to the summary on Amazon, I thought he was overly polite with respect to religion, but I'm sure many would disagree. He takes great pains to point out the good things about religion. If it did not have some benefits, it would not exist.

Currently, I am wading through David Sloan Wilson, but I will certainly take a look at this book...thank you for the suggestion.

Skipair wrote:

Probably because you're getting some emotional nourishment, safety or whatever, from thinking that consciousness, and therefore you, are more special in some way than rocks and dirt. Weird stuff, yeah?!

Perhaps, but as the years go on I have become more insecure of the ground I stand upon.

Our physical bodies are surely marvelous machines, but in the end we become dirt and possibly rocks over time. We can agree that humans are not special in that regard. However, consciousness is a tricky subject. Dirt and rocks are not conscious, at least not that I am aware, and yet these substances are derived from the same ultimate source as humans.* So, is it special...the jury is still out.


* If anyone thinks I mean the Adam and Eve story, hold that thought...I'm not.

[skipair]

Our physical bodies are surely marvelous machines, but in the end we become dirt and possibly rocks over time.

Are we not (physically) already dirt and rocks?

I think the "we" that people usually talk about is an imaginary abstraction we fill in vain with other imaginary content.

Dirt and rocks are not conscious, at least not that I am aware, and yet these substances are derived from the same ultimate source as humans.* So, is it special...the jury is still out.

Consciousness is special in the sense that it is comprised of characteristics we don't find elsewhere (and therefore have the ability to distinguish and name it), but it's the same case with everything else, whether it be trees, atoms, planets, galaxies, etc. Everything is equally special and equally unspecial.

What is this "source" you're talking about? As of this moment, I see no source.

[David Quinn]

David wrote:

Perhaps if eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism were to take over at the expense of the more primitive religions, such as Christianity and Islam, we would be in a position to start eliminating religion without risking the elimination of visible avenues to wisdom.

I am not acquainted with Buddhism and Taoism, but are these belief systems not adaptive as well? It is not the teachings themselves, but a creation of “a god” by and through a system.

In theory, practioners of Buddhism and Taosim don't believe in a god. They are atheistic religions which focus on mental development and the accumulation of wisdom.

In practice, however, most Buddhists and Taoists are as superstitious and irrational as the rest of the population, including Christians and Muslims. And yes, the beliefs they hold can be thought of as being "adaptive" (to the needs of their own egos).

So in my utopian scenario above, I was referring to those rare strains of Buddhism and Taoism which aren't superstitious in nature and which emphasize the value of sanity, intelligence, rationality, clarity of thought, understanding, etc.

It's all a pipe-dream, of course.

It is why I am wondering about God and these adaptive gods. But moreso about people’s yearning for Wisdom and Truth about What Is…that is hard-wired into us - not as an adaptation, but possibly as the substance of our very being.

Alas, the yearning for wisdom and truth doesn't form the substance of our being. It is indeed nothing more than a side-consequence of our evolutionary will to survive and pass on our genes. What's more, it is a purely egotistical desire through and through.

As our minds evolved and we became more aware of the ways of the world, we became conscious of our own mortality and the fragility of our existence. In a bid to counter the anxiety stemming from this, we sought ways to resolve it - hence, the comforting stories of religion which sprang into being, along with all the charlatans who sought to exploit this anxiety.

Needless to say, comforting stories can never satisfy those who are more discerning and rational. And so the rare few seek a deeper logical solution that possesses genuine certainty. Not because it is inherent in their nature, but because their egos demand it.

David, could you expand on this topic a little more?:

At least religion points to concepts of absolute truth, albeit in a clumsy fashion. It helps keep the flame of the spirituality alive. If that were to be removed, the human race would no longer have any contrast to the scientific mentality and we would be even more mentally limited than ever.

I am not quite sure what your “Enlightenment” really means. However, I do think that man can evolve in a direction of better understanding, abandoning religion, while retaining the wisdom and truth of the various prophets’ teachings.

Expand in what way? You already seem to have a pretty good grasp of the matter.

-

[Gretchen]

So in my utopian scenario above, I was referring to those rare strains of Buddhism and Taoism which aren't superstitious in nature and which emphasize the value of sanity, intelligence, rationality, clarity of thought, understanding, etc.

It's all a pipe-dream, of course.

It doesn't have to be. Through observation over the years I have noticed that people must have something tangible/physical to hang onto. Religion was created to assist them in their desire to know God. The problem comes in when they turn the system and the spiritual leaders into the tangible god they seek...then they seem to become unconscious.

Alas, the yearning for wisdom and truth doesn't form the substance of our being. It is indeed nothing more than a side-consequence of our evolutionary will to survive and pass on our genes. What's more, it is a purely egotistical desire through and through.

The funny thing is I was reading last night about this specific type of bird that could be segregated into the curious and not curious. I guess I'm like the curious bird. So why is this curiosity egotistical? Is a bird egotistical? I can see why yearning for knowledge might be egotistical, but wisdom and truth...are these not virtues? One sees so little of them in one's life.

As our minds evolved and we became more aware of the ways of the world, we became conscious of our own mortality and the fragility of our existence. In a bid to counter the anxiety stemming from this, we sought ways to resolve it - hence, the comforting stories of religion which sprang into being, along with all the charlatans who sought to exploit this anxiety.

Needless to say, comforting stories can never satisfy those who are more discerning and rational. And so the rare few seek a deeper logical solution that possesses genuine certainty. Not because it is inherent in their nature, but because their egos demand it.

But can there not be room for the uncertain? It is one thing to be grounded in certainty, but there are also some things that we, in our lifetime, will never know. However, those that are curious and continue searching move closer to "what is." Do you believe this to be a waste of time and/or delusionary thinking?

[David Quinn]

So in my utopian scenario above, I was referring to those rare strains of Buddhism and Taoism which aren't superstitious in nature and which emphasize the value of sanity, intelligence, rationality, clarity of thought, understanding, etc.

It's all a pipe-dream, of course.

It doesn't have to be. Through observation over the years I have noticed that people must have something tangible/physical to hang onto. Religion was created to assist them in their desire to know God.

Well, that's putting religion in the best possible light there. At best, it only describes a small portion of religion.

As you undoubtedly know, most religion is used by dubious characters as a political and social tool to control people, via the exploitation of their anxieties.

On the other hand, in reference to the point you make, there are probably many simple-minded folk who want to be spiritual and pure, but aren't capable of the level of abstract thought needed to understand profound truths and open themselves to the Infinite. So yes, they have no choice but to utilize the "tangible" and often dubious props offered by religion.

The problem comes in when they turn the system and the spiritual leaders into the tangible god they seek...then they seem to become unconscious.

These kinds of people invariably lack the capacity to go beyond the middlemen and access God directly. Not much we can do about that, short of a genetic overhaul.

Alas, the yearning for wisdom and truth doesn't form the substance of our being. It is indeed nothing more than a side-consequence of our evolutionary will to survive and pass on our genes. What's more, it is a purely egotistical desire through and through.

The funny thing is I was reading last night about this specific type of bird that could be segregated into the curious and not curious. I guess I'm like the curious bird. So why is this curiosity egotistical? Is a bird egotistical?

Human curiosity is egotistical because it involves being emotionally disturbed by a lack of knowledge, however subtlely, and summoning a will to overcome that disturbance.

We can't really call a bird egotistical because its self-awareness and capacity for abstract thought are minimal, if indeed they exist at all. They are like robots programmed to behave in certain ways, sometimes to be curious, sometimes not. They don't really have a choice in the matter.

I can see why yearning for knowledge might be egotistical, but wisdom and truth...are these not virtues? One sees so little of them in one's life.

The yearning for wisdom and truth can still be considered virtues, even though they are egotistically motivated.

In the end, everyone who is not a perfect buddha is egotistically motivated. So, ideally, we should egotistically strive to cultivate those strands of egotism which will lead to the eventual destruction of all egotism.

As our minds evolved and we became more aware of the ways of the world, we became conscious of our own mortality and the fragility of our existence. In a bid to counter the anxiety stemming from this, we sought ways to resolve it - hence, the comforting stories of religion which sprang into being, along with all the charlatans who sought to exploit this anxiety.

Needless to say, comforting stories can never satisfy those who are more discerning and rational. And so the rare few seek a deeper logical solution that possesses genuine certainty. Not because it is inherent in their nature, but because their egos demand it.

But can there not be room for the uncertain? It is one thing to be grounded in certainty, but there are also some things that we, in our lifetime, will never know.

True. It is very important to be able to distinguish between what can be known with certainty and what can't, and to be intimately familiar with both sides of this coin. It is a basic prerequisite for becoming wise.

However, those that are curious and continue searching move closer to "what is." Do you believe this to be a waste of time and/or delusionary thinking?

Only if it doesn't move you in the direction of knowing "what is".

Again, knowing how to distinguish between what is certain and what is uncertain is critical here, if only for the fact that it can prevent you from wasting your life chasing mirages and going down blind-alleys.

-

[Gretchen]

David wrote:

As you undoubtedly know, most religion is used by dubious characters as a political and social tool to control people, via the exploitation of their anxieties.

The reason why it makes it all the more difficult for one to break free. These systems breed fear into their constituents such that the God they were yearning to know is replaced by the system. In thinking about this more, perhaps religion at one time was an effect in an attempt to communicate with the gods, but over time it has become an adaptation…but not in all peoples. Some choose not to believe at all, while others adapt differently – that is, becoming spiritual but not religious.

David wrote:

On the other hand, in reference to the point you make, there are probably many simple-minded folk who want to be spiritual and pure, but aren't capable of the level of abstract thought needed to understand profound truths and open themselves to the Infinite […] These kinds of people invariably lack the capacity to go beyond the middlemen and access God directly. Not much we can do about that, short of a genetic overhaul.

Well, I’m stuck in no man’s land…having just enough abstract thinking abilities to have broken ties but not enough to be well-adapted. Funny thing is that my father thinks abstractly and agrees with many of the ideas here, and yet, he indoctrinated us in Catholicism. It is only now that he and I can have discussions about such things. I can see the pain in his eyes because I think he thinks he failed me somehow as I didn’t turn out to be a good Catholic.

David wrote:

We can't really call a bird egotistical because its self-awareness and capacity for abstract thought are minimal, if indeed they exist at all. They are like robots programmed to behave in certain ways, sometimes to be curious, sometimes not. They don't really have a choice in the matter.

You have described some people I know. The more I talk to you the more I think that religion has turned from an effect into a type of adaptation. So one has to be curious enough to question, but once they know the truth, destroy the curiosity? How do we know we have ever reached the truth – because it is logical and has a rational explanation?

David wrote:

The yearning for wisdom and truth can still be considered virtues, even though they are egotistically motivated.

So, wisdom and truth as ideals are not the problem, but the want and need to attain them are. If one stops wanting and needing them, then one may see them? If this is true, no wonder you made the comment about the pipe dream…sadly, this world is full of ignorance and deceit.

David wrote:

In the end, everyone who is not a perfect buddha is egotistically motivated. So, ideally, we should egotistically strive to cultivate those strands of egotism which will lead to the eventual destruction of all egotism.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this statement. It may be my lack of knowledge in Buddhism that hinders me.

David wrote:

It is very important to be able to distinguish between what can be known with certainty and what can't, and to be intimately familiar with both sides of this coin. It is a basic prerequisite for becoming wise.

One can be an atheist and believe God does not exist because there is no proof and therefore, be certain - as the ego demands, OR be a theist and believe there is a God despite the uncertainty while risking the danger of delusionary thinking.

So, do you think in order to be wise this search for a better understanding of God, that which is uncertain, should be abandoned because it is something we can never know?

Edited: for relevance and clarity

[Alex Jacob]

Gretchen: "Religion, on the other hand, has to be an accidental manifestation, an adaptation. It is not substance but a system. Religion can be a process to give light to the truth but it can also hinder the truth by creating superstitious behavior and fear."

It could very well be that 'religion' has arisen in every context within infinite time that consciousness has arisen. It could very well be that 'religion' is part-and-parcel of consciousness, something that springs from it. There may be gross religions and very fine expressions.

Religion might be merely a way to turn behavior---valued behavior, desired behavior---into routines. An almost textbook example of this is Catholic catechism and the seasonal rituals of Catholicism. I have a little book called Mi Jesús that is a child´s introductory version to the tenets of Catholicism.

I have never in all my days seen a group of ideas as these, presented in the kinds of cartoons (religious drawings of saints, doves descending, pictograms showing the result of 'good confession' (angels sending down brignt rays, etc.) and 'bad confession' (a dark cloud filling the church, a wicked lightening shooting out, Satan rejoices). The whole book is a series of the most atrocious mind-fucks I could ever imagine, yet many of the core principals (the ethics) are 'sound'.

It may very well be that certain 'Buddhists' or 'Taoists' have refined their 'religion' so that it expresses a fine essence. However, that is also done within all other traditions. In the end, they all lay down and die.

It is really the same thing: (As if to say): I have had a certain experience, this is what it is, and this is what it asks of me. I make an effort to communicate my ethics and values to others.

In that sense, this is a website expressing a proselytising religion.

I feel that it is helpful to understand things in this 'universalist' way. It certainly helps to understand one's fellow beings, not to mention the same tendencies that exist in us.

[David Quinn]

Once again, banality reaches new heights in the hands of Alex Jacob.

-

[David Quinn]

On the other hand, in reference to the point you make, there are probably many simple-minded folk who want to be spiritual and pure, but aren't capable of the level of abstract thought needed to understand profound truths and open themselves to the Infinite […] These kinds of people invariably lack the capacity to go beyond the middlemen and access God directly. Not much we can do about that, short of a genetic overhaul.

Well, I’m stuck in no man’s land…having just enough abstract thinking abilities to have broken ties but not enough to be well-adapted.

Perhaps you're simply going through a transitional phase. It takes stength and courage to break free of a religion that one grows up in, particularly for someone like yourself who is bright and honest and has a personal sense of God. You do have a personal sense of God, don't you?

Funny thing is that my father thinks abstractly and agrees with many of the ideas here, and yet, he indoctrinated us in Catholicism. It is only now that he and I can have discussions about such things. I can see the pain in his eyes because I think he thinks he failed me somehow as I didn’t turn out to be a good Catholic.

Or perhaps, in your intellectual honesty, you reflect his own irrationality back at him and he doesn't like what he sees.

We can't really call a bird egotistical because its self-awareness and capacity for abstract thought are minimal, if indeed they exist at all. They are like robots programmed to behave in certain ways, sometimes to be curious, sometimes not. They don't really have a choice in the matter.

You have described some people I know.

Tell me about it. Living in this world is a bit like living permanently in that Hitchcock film, "The Birds". :)

The more I talk to you the more I think that religion has turned from an effect into a type of adaptation. So one has to be curious enough to question, but once they know the truth, destroy the curiosity?

I notice that you use the word "they", even though you use "one" in the earlier part of the sentence. Is this a freudian slip or just a typo? Does it mean you can't really envisage yourself one day knowing the truth?

The more I talk to you the more I think that religion has turned from an effect into a type of adaptation. So one has to be curious enough to question, but once they know the truth, destroy the curiosity?

No, not at all. Nothing so contrived.

Curiosity is a wonderful thing, but it can also be a double-edged sword.

There are many people who allow themselves to be so curious about everything that they spend their days reading zillions of books and endlessly exploring theory after theory, only to lose sight of the bigger picture. Their curiosity is, in fact, a form of fear. They seek to lose themselves in the world's details so they don't have to face the core truth of their existence.

So, curiosity combined with intelligence and courage and spiritual purpose is the way to go. And when you finally do understand the truth, you will find that all these traits remain with you, honed and refined.

Here is an interesting observation from Ramakrishna:

"Two men went into a garden. The worldly-wise man no sooner entered the
gate than he began to count the number of the mango-trees, how many
mangoes each tree bore, and what might be the approximate price of the whole
orchard. The other went to the owner, made his acquaintance, and quietly
going under a mangoe tree began to pluck the fruit and eat it with the owners
consent. Now who is the wiser of the two? Eat mangoes, it will satisfy your
hunger. What is the good of counting the leaves and making vain
calculations? The vain man of intellect is uselessly busy in finding out the
"why and wherefore" of creation while the humble man of wisdom makes
acquaintance with the creator and enjoys the supreme bliss of this world."

How do we know we have ever reached the truth – because it is logical and has a rational explanation?

You will know it when you discern that your understanding cannot be any simpler, cannot go any deeper, cannot be any more universal, cannot be logically contradicted, and cannot be separated from the world in any way.

Or to say the same thing more subtlely, you will know it when you discern that it is a truth which can only be understood by living it.

The yearning for wisdom and truth can still be considered virtues, even though they are egotistically motivated.

So, wisdom and truth as ideals are not the problem, but the want and need to attain them are.

On the contrary, you should strive for wisdom and truth as single-mindedly and energetically as possible. The egotistical underpinnings of this endeavour will fade away naturally as your understanding develops.

Some more Ramakrishna:

"'I must attain perfection in this life, yea, in three days I must find God, nay,
with a single utterance of his name I will draw him to me'. With such a
violent love the Lord is attracted soon. The lukewarm lovers take ages to go
to Him, if at all."

In the end, everyone who is not a perfect buddha is egotistically motivated. So, ideally, we should egotistically strive to cultivate those strands of egotism which will lead to the eventual destruction of all egotism.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this statement. It may be my lack of knowledge in Buddhism that hinders me.

By a perfect buddha, I simply mean an enlightened sage - someone who is permanently beyond all delusion.

The spiritual path is not one of trying to be as inactive as possible and hoping that the ego will just go away. Rather, it's a matter of stengthening the ego's desire for wisdom and actively developing one's understanding. It is through understanding that the ego loses its foundations and crumbles away.

So, do you think in order to be wise this search for a better understanding of God, that which is uncertain, should be abandoned because it is something we can never know?

It depends on what you mean by God. The God of the sages can be known with certainty and forms the centre of all wisdom. It is only those strange Gods of the religionists - wherein God is turned into some kind of alien being - which are uncertain and not particularly relevant to wisdom.

In the eyes of religionists, a sage appears to be the very embodiment of atheism. They have no inkling of just how God-filled he really is.

-

[Alex Jacob]

In no sense are my concerns or comments 'mundane'.

As it pertains to you and the ideas you present I assert yours are just as 'religious' and just as laden with religious assumptions---both conscious and unconscious---as any existing religious platform. Any rational person, any sincere person making their way through the world of ideas and the possibilities offered by spiritual life---a turning from the madness of the world toward interior, spiritual life---must interrogate any source of information pointing to a Promised Land (as you are). The problem as I see things, with your position, is you do not ever seem capable of seeing what lies under your own exterior. That is to say, the unconscious content, all that you won't and can't talk about. I think you might classify all that as 'mundane'.

The Freudian reference a few posts back was interesting, I thought. What is repressed and shunted downward, distressingly enough, seems to have a way of forcing itself to the foreground, as anyone with two eyes sees when they look squarely at the content of this forum. It is not so much what is asserted, it is what is denied.

Now, the problem is that the 'sources of information' (and we know this from involvement in religions) are never able to see themselves objectively, and there is much (we have all found out) that they deliberately do not reveal. It often takes an outside third-party to shed light upon the problematic issues.

Yours is the only religious platform I am aware of that could even dream of combining the Mountain Taoists, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger and Ramakrishna! The irony is lost upon you of course.

[Foreigner]

In no sense are my concerns or comments 'mundane'.

As it pertains to you and the ideas you present I assert yours are just as 'religious' and just as laden with religious assumptions---both conscious and unconscious---as any existing religious platform.

Religious assumptions! I had no idea! David is this true? I feel terribly misled. Please post these assumptions immediately, whatever you're aware of that is!

Any rational person, any sincere person making their way through the world of ideas and the possibilities offered by spiritual life---a turning from the madness of the world toward interior, spiritual life---must interrogate any source of information pointing to a Promised Land (as you are). The problem as I see things, with your position, is you do not ever seem capable of seeing what lies under your own exterior. That is to say, the unconscious content, all that you won't and can't talk about.

David, once again i implore you to reveal whatever personal you are hiding, for if you dont Alex, who knows what it is, will no doubt share with the group, that would be quite an embarrassment.

The Freudian reference a few posts back was interesting, I thought. What is repressed and shunted downward, distressingly enough, seems to have a way of forcing itself to the foreground, as anyone with two eyes sees when they look squarely at the content of this forum. It is not so much what is asserted, it is what is denied.

Well my eyes are as good as any- ive no choice but to request a complete list of these revealing denials! For my sake and for the sake of all impressionable readers herewith!

Now, the problem is that the 'sources of information' (and we know this from involvement in religions) are never able to see themselves objectively, and there is much (we have all found out) that they deliberately do not reveal. It often takes an outside third-party to shed light upon the problematic issues.

And im sure i speak for everybody when i say Thank God there's at least 1 objective individual capable of doing so at this critical time. Thank You, Alex!

Yours is the only religious platform I am aware of that could even dream of combining the Mountain Taoists, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger and Ramakrishna! The irony is lost upon you of course.

Exactly.
How ridiculous to expect words of wisdom from such dissimilar sources.
You idiot, Quinn!

-

[Format edited for Foriegner's benefit. If you look at this post in edit mode, Foriegner, you can see how it is done. DQ]

[Shahrazad]

Foreigner,

I know you're new and all, but your posting skills suck. You shouldn't use the quote function when you are saying something yourself. Place your words separate from the quoted text.

David, once again i implore you to reveal whatever personal you are hiding, for if you dont Alex, who knows what it is, will no doubt share with the group, that would be quite an embarrassment.

I don't think anything that Alex says could ever embarrass David. Bore him, yes. Piss him off, probably. But not embarrass.

[Foreigner]

Foreigner,

I know you're new and all, but your posting skills suck. You shouldn't use the quote function when you are saying something yourself. Place your words separate from the quoted text.

I hope thats better.

David, once again i implore you to reveal whatever personal you are hiding, for if you dont Alex, who knows what it is, will no doubt share with the group, that would be quite an embarrassment.

I don't think anything that Alex says could ever embarrass David. Bore him, yes. Piss him off, probably. But not embarrass.

And you think I do?
Must'of read it tooo fasst.

[David Quinn]

In no sense are my concerns or comments 'mundane'.

They are worse than mundane, they are banal.

Banality is what occurs when a mundane man thinks he is profound and clever.

As it pertains to you and the ideas you present I assert yours are just as 'religious' and just as laden with religious assumptions---both conscious and unconscious---as any existing religious platform.

Why do you imagine people would be interested in your assertions when they are so indirect and generic?

Yours is the only religious platform I am aware of that could even dream of combining the Mountain Taoists, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger and Ramakrishna! The irony is lost upon you of course.

It takes genius to unite such disparate sources of genius.

Or madness.

Or sanity.

Meanwhile, the mundane will always be scratching their heads.

-