Religion: a survival mechanism?

Guardian Unlimited writes:"If you talk to a shamen who takes a substance so they can enter into the spirit world, they don't think that diminishes the experience in any way,"

Prophex writes:Strange, but what do you mean by transcended the realm between self and oneness? Isn't that just an effect of the drugs, not really going outside yourself?

Yes, yes look into it!
One thing you find is that one's notion of genetical continuity, no matter the group(,) is somewhat tied to one's feelings about the recent history of physics. If you think you can talk about what is taken advantage of in the "next" generation, biologically (of religion, fetishes, taste of food, spice etc) then it seems odd, to have said ("than") that you think by simply making the kind of "blanket" statements that you (do""),,, retain, any gains that Jammer narrated, as linked @Renouvier to Poincare to Bohr to Feynman say... without dealing with Kierkegaard! There are ending possibilities indeed. They/that would be just fine for a physicist but as soon as you notice Kierkegaard in the discussion it is impossible to NOT deal with creationist issues. Now if you were Gould then perhaps you might think that you indeed carried through a biological carrier in which you simply found creationism as a CONTRADICTORY opposite. I find nothing of the sort. That is why if you can’t find the means to talk with me over coffee say we can not even get on with any communication we might disagree about.
You insist it seems, that I must be able in one sentence or two to communicate something that is up against the whole trend of modern science and do it as convincingly as the last 100yrs of scholarship combined. I can't, even if I wanted and it was physically possible. So love is called for. I have no problem if you want to think you might be thinking like I think Gould might have been thinking but I really CAN engage a discussion of why I think this discontinuous and digital question is a mistake. It was a mistake when APPLES' computers first appeared on the Cornell campus and we were only using the mainframe and it is the same drag; and drop-today.
Jammer links rejection of actual infinity, to, a conceptual philosophy of science, to Poincare's denouncement against giving up differential equations, to,, the difference of kinematics and dynamics; from newer considerations on identity but co-opts, the Lucretian exiguum clinamen principiorum rather for goals I think can not be, intellectually sustained, as biological trajectories of reproduction-educate-students, about,,, the/ transitivity/of/genetic transmission. I’m stuck with that. You don’t need to be. Be free. ()
That is easier for me to write then yes and no"" to specific questions. I know you might not understand it so that is why I often, DONT post.
If you require actual rope to "tie" it in with, well then, I obviously can not satisfy you there. ()
If you can’t see that modern science has been depauperated since the founding of nuclear physics I cant help you on that level. I can always just chat however.

plato.stanford.edu writes:For Kierkegaard Christian faith is not a matter of regurgitating church dogma. It is a matter of individual subjective passion, which cannot be mediated by the clergy or by human artifacts. Faith is the most important task to be achieved by a human being, because only on the basis of faith does an individual have a chance to become a true self. This self is the life-work which God judges for eternity.

purpledawn writes:Today we assume that man lost immortality, but did he really? Our story is rather crytic, it can be argued both ways, which I think someone is in another thread. IMO, it doesn't imply immortality.

DominionSeraph writes:God was afraid that Man would eat of the tree of life, implying that he could not reverse its effects.

Prophex writes:I can't see how the drugs provided means for you to be outside of yourself. Sorry if I misunderstood something, but if you can, try to explain what you mean to me. (posted this in school!)

Websters writes:religion \ri-li-jen\ n 1 : the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2 : devotion to a religious faith 3 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes, and practices 4 : a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor religionist n