If trhe ecstatic state is religious in nature, religion is its ideational
content.
At base we're all fundamentalists. Sorry, I can't help myself. I should be
punished.
Mark
At 11:53 AM 3/9/2004 +1100, Alison Croggon wrote:
>On 9/3/04 11:36 AM, "Mark Weiss" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > No neurological research suggests that the ideational content of things
> > like ecstatic experience is a part of our neurological make-up, and it's
> > entirely possible to have ecstatic experiences that have no theistic
> content.
>
>Yes, it does, I saw it on tv (so it must be true), in a program about
>research into schizophrenia which involved brain imaging. An enormous part
>of neurological research, btw, involves investigating abnormalities...
>Nobody said anything about ideational content, or at least I didn't. We
>were talking, I believe, about the ease or otherwise of sustaining belief.
>
> > Einstein wasn't "all those scientists," which is why other scientists are
> > rarely trotted out as examples.
>
>There are quite a few of them, and they do get trotted out whenever this
>science v. god thing is raised. I just can't remember their names. Please
>note I didn't say "all scientists". And mathematicians too - Roger Penrose
>gets all mystical at times - I think most of those Platonic mathematicians
>do -
>
>Now I'm shutting up before people start calling me a fundamentalist - damn,
>too late -
>
>Best
>
>A
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>
>Editor, Masthead
>http://www.masthead.net.au
>
>Home page
>http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>
>Blog
>http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com
|