timber wrote-
Quote:spendi, the assignment was to objectively and in forensically valid manner demonstrate that religious faith and superstition be differentiable. Your deeply personal, subjective, heartfelt, elegaic paean to religion, though elegantly put, does not constitute fulfillment of the assignment.
We had better leave it at that then.
There's a theory thay says that character is a function of society rather than the other way round.Presumably the more primitive the society the more character,instinctual urges,dominates society.
Civilisation may thus be seen as the switch from one to the other and where the more the society creates the character the more civilised the society becomes.
It has been 3 times mentioned in my recent reading that the American character will not stand correction and thinks that things are true merely by them having been said.There's plenty of evidence on these threads for that,which may or may not be typical.But one does represent one's country to some extent when on an international forum.
Maybe this is why my posts are often incoherent to American readers.
But the American character,in this respect,can be taken in two ways.
1-It's a strength.It has that level of confidence.The evidence is that the US is the only superpower and on the might is right argument that is superior.Thus the credit goes to the American character and to the educational process which produced it.Movies and music being the dominant sector.
i.e.It works.Like a tin opener.
2-It's a weakness.It has features of a switch back in the direction of the primitive where instinctual urges overcome society's ability to control them.Greed,selfishness and psychological gratification covers it.
i.e.It's a sign you've peaked.
A European can distinguish between religion and superstition to his own satisfaction.An American is unable to do.You have probably said that there's no difference between the two so many times and possibly with force before witnesses that the idea is stuck fast.
And it might be a strength and it might be a weakness.
Ever since Schopenhauer and Nietzsche pronounced God dead;an ex-God as Monte Python might have said,God's carked it,he's in the river with his toes turned up,the problem has been how to accept it and to figure out the implications of a Godless world.
Those who think about these implications with a view to securing the future,the basic Faustian project,may well see them in a different light with regard to themselves or with regard to the general population;the masses.The great unwashed.The ones to whom it is done.
If religion is the opiate of the masses what happens when the opiate is withdrawn?What's the cold turkey like?A question anti-IDers won't go near.
IDers say that withdrawing the opiate presents a danger to the future and anti-IDers say "let's get this show on the road" or,if you like,the one eyed midget shouting the word "NOW!".
IDers want to keep the tried and tested opiate and anti-IDers have a new opiate which they say will secure the future.
Right and left.Conservatives and radicals.
Before deciding which side to be on one has to have an idea of the possibilities of that "cold turkey".Otherwise one is a mere camp follower.
Perhaps America is resolving the issue in the only way it knows how to do without risking other problems.A theological Superbowl complete with CEOs,bureaucracies of back-room staff,players and fans and a cynical media to crank up the juicy bits.Oh-I almost forgot-a paying public.
In ancient Rome they opened and closed the temples on the whim of the Emperor and that didn't work.
And now the Chinese are increasingly tolerant of religion which is an interesting development but slightly off topic.
