nocTifer wrote:
> lovely discussion, Hatter, Joseph.
>
> Joseph Littleshoes <jpstifel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
>
>>Both religion and science have done great harm as well as good. Which
>>is why i am fond of Crowley's motto of his Equinox: "The method of
>>science, the aim of religion."
>
>
> I'm familiar with the method of science ("the scientific method"),
> but what is "the aim of religion"? is there only one? what is it?
> why is it laudible?
>
> nocTifer
Of course i have no idea what Crowley might have thought he meant but to
me the motto, taking Crowley's other writings on "Magick" into
consideration, suggests an ongoing struggle to define a relation****p or
even 'obligation' to a sense of deity that through the 'method of
science' the understanding of constantly recedes. Not unlike the
science of astronomy, as our tools to observe the universe get bigger so
does the universe exposed by them.
The more we learn about 'neuroscience' the more questions we have.
Rather then settling for dogma (religious or scientific) we question
the assertions of the dogmatists. Some of us have a, perhaps misplaced,
faith that eventually science will get around to an 'scientific'
explanation of the seemingly instinctual aspect of human nature to
adore, and mythologize its existence.
Also, i think, one has to consider a progression of intellectual
development, even if science is ultimately able to substantiate or prove
the atheistic ideal of a random causeless universe, religion can be a
necessary (however false) brake on sciences mad rush to trivialize and
brutalize the human experience, perhaps at some point in human evolution
these human will have the ability to wield power in a compassionate and
thoughtful manner, until then, it seems to me, false or not, religion
plays a significant role in at least trying to restrain science from its
tendency to trivialize the individual.
Perhaps all Crowley meant was an 'enlightened' science that does not do
more harm than good?
--
J (not a Luddite...yet:) L
--
JL
--
JL
|
