Paul J. Werbos, Dr.
paul.werbos at verizon.net
Thu Feb 24 21:29:20 UTC 2005
We can agree reasonably far on what defines religion -- i.e. how we
decide what is or is not a "religion" in common language in English.
We can do so, at least by example. And Webster and the Oxford dictionary
have gone about as far as we can reasonably do with that aspect
of "what is religion?"
On the other hand, it is much harder for us even to discuss what the
of the phenomenon is, or even how it interacts dynamically with human
minds and human societies, if we make very different assumptions about the
spiritual aspects of life.
In a debate between the formalistic "people of the books," who see religion
as some kind of obedience to authority or commitment to a particular pile
of words -- versus modern secular humanism...
is there any hope of connecting to reality from either perspective?
Or is it like the logical thrashing of a kind of expert system which
does not have any inductive, sensory or semiotic component?
More information about the paleopsych