From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion connection
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:11:48 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07645; Tue, 29 Dec 92 10:05:02 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA22699; Tue, 29 Dec 92 10:04:34 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0681; Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:04:06 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Erik Radmall types:

>Huh? wouldn't it be to eradicate the will to power? Religion is not a bad
>thing in and of itself. In fact, is is a necessary oil for the machinery of
>society. Violence comes from greed and fear, not religion. The conquistadors
>didn't care about "converting" the natives -- they cared about gold. The
>crusades were not religious, they were a land grab. Just because greedy
>individuals use religion as an umbrella for impropriety does not invalidate
>religion itself. C'mon, I would expect more serious inquiry from someone
>who seems to care a lot about logic.

I doubt the assertions about the crusades and partially that about the
conquistadors. The driving force behind the first crusades was religion,
though it is probably correct to say that the coordination force was greed.

Religion is a nice tool for power mongers. Anyway, I doubt that one can
replace religions without using another, as the one you answered to implied.

>> What people really need is the ability to think with their own minds, not
>> just mindlessly follow the opinions of the masses, "just because their doing
>> it too". The amount of people that believe in certain ideas never tells the
>> correctness or logic of those ideas.

>Agreed. But what is "correctness" or "logic" other than a useful tool within
certain contexts. Religion is a tool to help point to a state of transcendence.
>All of the dogma and seeming contradiction is of a superficial nature. At the
>esoteric level all religions are centered on the "mystical" experience. It is i
>Hinduism, AmerInd religions' expressions of this mystical state differ so littl
>as to be almost indistinguishable from one another.

I think this is going to be another discussion of religion and true religion.
Like the many we had about christianity and true christianity. To cut it short,
the common understanding of religion includes more than the mystical state you
refer to.
And if the dogmas and contradictions are superficial, why do they exist? Don't
they serve a purpose? Like for instance telling who is one of us and who is
one of them?

>To deny the importance of emotion or the need for self-transcendence can cause
>to lead a very shallow existence, indeed. You may be able to use logic to win o
>the debating team, but it hardly helps one to woo women. I can tell you what I
>prefer to do! :-)

IMO, people are seeking transcendence because they are not content with their
lives. I wonder if there are no other tools of addressing that problem. And
my impression of religion is that it aids people in feeling miserably in order
to keep them hooked.


>Alas, this is about as far from the truth as could be (providing your version
>of "smart" is in any way tied to success in academia or IQ tests). Financially
>successful folks are those who possess a strong desire to succeed and the
>courage to carry out their plans.

And I always looked at success as a form of random noise ... :-)
   Benedikt
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24801 talk.religion.misc:24979 alt.pagan:14850