Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (16290)	2/16/2004 9:53:02 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"I consider the efforts of Freud and Kierkegaard an attempt to consider the relationship between science, heart and mind. How do you see them" Certainly, Freud desired to explicate these concepts and to rationalize them, as it were. But his motive was scientific. Kierkegaard cannot be regarded as having an objective approach. He grew up as a devout Christian and his ingenious work went to serve his faith. Indeed, he considered reason to be an obstacle in the path rather than the path. One suspects he took this from Luther. I read much in existentialism some decades ago. I still think it is very revealing. Mostly, I think (in terms of religious existentialism) that it gives an intellectual approach to religion rather than a primitive mythological approach to it. It was so for me. But I have since come to learn that ideas (no matter how ingenious) are not necessarily "real". Have you ever looked at magic 3d pictures? You know the ones. You put your nose against the paper and stare fixedly while slowly withdrawing it. Suddenly, you are in a 3d world. This is simple "evidence" that "reality" may certainly be beyond anything we are capable of rationally justifying. So I don't pretend to know anything ultimately. But I separate this from irrationally choosing one of any thousands of primitive or modern (Hale-Bopp) myths.