Has anybody read...

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Waters is trolling. And the fish are biting.

So Waters is passing himself off as the average bumpkin to incite discussion. Who cares? The discussion is still interesting and relevant. The world has a lot of these poor bumpkins.

[MikeWaters]

SU sees a fundamental change in human culture. A move away from religion in favor of rationalism, empiricism and science.

And of course he sees himself at the forefront of this movement. At least in the context of his own family.

All I am suggesting is that SU doesn't have a clue when it comes to the basic trappings of human beings.

Various religions have come and gone. And they will continue to do so in the future. But they will always be here.

Just as humans have always reached to the stars, they will always reach for a higher power.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SU sees a fundamental change in human culture. A move away from religion in favor of rationalism, empiricism and science.

And of course he sees himself at the forefront of this movement. At least in the context of his own family.

All I am suggesting is that SU doesn't have a clue when it comes to the basic trappings of human beings.

Various religions have come and gone. And they will continue to do so in the future. But they will always be here.

Just as humans have always reached to the stars, they will always reach for a higher power.

Maybe I am the bumpkin, but I think there is no trolling here, just a point that mankind will alwqys have religion becasue we are hard-wired to have religion. Religion in this context, and as presented by MW, does nto mean mormonism, nor does it mean mono-theism, nor does it exclude treehuggers and crystal gazers. The focus of the religious urge we almost all have can be placed on a variety of targets, and those targets can shift many times during a lifetime and very widely over centuries within any given culture.

SU hedges his bets carefully, pointing out that the articles are critical of the notion of a genetic basis for religion, but also stating that he does not necessarily disagree with the articles. Hmmm. So, which is it? Apparently he doesn't know or won't tell or both. What he will do, again very predicitably, is tell us the very clear deficiencies in our form of orgnizaed religion, although his more amorphous belief in God passes muster.

I certianly don't think that there is a genetic mandate to participate in any type of religion, but I do believe we, as homo sapienms, are wired to believe in something. It may be as simple as an urge for society, for even a tribe, but it is there and underlies much of what we do. Paris and Amsterdam only serve as good examples for SU's straw man, but not for the premise originally asserted by MW, IMO.

Sorry if I seem grouchy. Spent all morning at the dentist.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I have been reading with interest and will comment when I get a chance. I've been doing end of the semester work and I'm travelling all day tomorrow.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have been reading with interest and will comment when I get a chance. I've been doing end of the semester work and I'm travelling all day tomorrow.

I'm looking forward to it. Great avatar.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

SU appears to be . . . a more articulate Grapevine, if you will.

No I won't. Is this what's called damning with extremenly faint praise? Please cease and desist the comparisons to grapevine. This is the second one in a week.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No I won't. Is this what's called damning with extremenly faint praise? Please cease and desist the comparisons to grapevine. This is the second one in a week.

Well at least this got a response out of you. Last post you disposed of with a pithy "this is off base" and a "see response to Lebowski."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Maybe I am the bumpkin, but I think there is no trolling here, just a point that mankind will alwqys have religion becasue we are hard-wired to have religion. Religion in this context, and as presented by MW, does nto mean mormonism, nor does it mean mono-theism, nor does it exclude treehuggers and crystal gazers. The focus of the religious urge we almost all have can be placed on a variety of targets, and those targets can shift many times during a lifetime and very widely over centuries within any given culture.

* * *

I certianly don't think that there is a genetic mandate to participate in any type of religion, but I do believe we, as homo sapienms, are wired to believe in something. It may be as simple as an urge for society, for even a tribe, but it is there and underlies much of what we do. Paris and Amsterdam only serve as good examples for SU's straw man, but not for the premise originally asserted by MW, IMO.

Sorry if I seem grouchy. Spent all morning at the dentist.

If this is what Waters is saying we're not that far apart. I think he's talking about more traditional religion. As for my hedging, here is a novel concept for Mormons--there are such things as mysteries. Apparently that is the way it is supposed to be. Of course I don't pretend to have all the answers.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As for my hedging, here is a novel concept for Mormons--there are such things as mysteries.

You think? Perhaps this is where something like faith comes into play, eh?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If this is what Waters is saying we're not that far apart. I think he's talking about more traditional religion. As for my hedging, here is a novel concept for Mormons--there are such things as mysteries. Apparently that is the way it is supposed to be. Of course I don't pretend to have all the answers.

No where could a reasonable person discern he intended to limit it to traditional organized religion. Talk about trolling with one's biases. Evolution and God are much more subtle than that. You would plant, according to chaos and catastrophe theory, a myriad of genetic choices, but linking a subliminal need to satisfy emotional needs, tending toward spirituality. It would require higher elements of culture, nurturing to rend that toward God, and if so educated, organized religion. It seems absurd to imply Waters wanted anything different than that.