KARL JASPERS FORUM
TA 106 (Müller)
Commentary 49 (to C47 Lothane)
by Philip Benjamin
15 September 2009, posted 26 September 2009
[Lothane] TA106 C47
"I agree with Sergey Patlavskiy's viewing both religion and science as (1) PRODUCTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL-PHILOSOPHICAL ACTIVITY and would add that both are fueled by two powerful emotional-cognitive needs: the (2) NEED TO BELIEVE, THE (3) NEED TO FIND CAUSES OF PHENOMENA".
I understand that the Latin origin of "religion" comes from relegere: re= again legere = read and relegere means go through or read again. The verb relegare means to bind, "place an obligation on". However, the popular thought of religion (psychological-philosophical-commonsensical) is necessarily centered on DEATH; how to DO the present LIFE in order to UNDO all negativities of the AFTERLIFE. Since nobody knows what death 'realy' is or what if any the afterlife is. The is a "binding" that comes from believing superstitions.
So when you say "you agree with some one on religion and science, that is a very dubious statement if there is no agreement on what 'religion' is. 'Binding' this with an Ultimate Cause as you do is also problematic, since there are whole systems of religious thought which have nothing to do with an Ultimate Cause, including the 'religion' (belief) of Atheism. On the other side of that impregnable fence, there is a systematic theology which ratioanlly argues that the originator of all "religions" ("godless" and "godly") is the "enemy" of the Ultimate Cause, which 'enemy' is the "the god" and "the prince of this world" who could then rightfully be addressed as "His Excellency Right Reverend god-Prince of this World" !!!
There is only one area where all humans can agree. That is, from the moment of conception DEATH reigns, LIFE succumbs. Perhaps there is one more: Taxes.
e-mail <medinuclear (at) hotmail.com>