Hello Peeps

Hello peeps

More philosophical spam. Has anyone else compared religion to an operating system. It seems that critics of christianity etc such as richard dawkins shares the same error as the fundamentalists on the other side. They are determined to treat the bible as if it is the instruction book or more to the point as the software, whereas in fact it much more like a generally accepted set of icons that can be utilised to represent any manner of software. In other words an operating system. It allows a society to represent itself and each individual act within a frame of referance. In this context it is important that the system is capable of adopting a sort of short hand for human experience, which is boith extremely complex and very simple. Rational then irrational. Awake then asleep. In other words inherently paradoxical and contradictory, at least as we experience it. As such it is more important that the system represent general yet deep and complex human experience rather than a documentary representation of factual reality. It must speak to peoples inner life of dreams and anxieties while also being within enough of a tradition that people can accept as the faith of their fathers but being sufficiently up to date to meet the needs of the situation that they find themselves in.

Now the fundamentalists (the pope, mullah omar,but not rowan williams or the dalai lama) obviously have a problem as they cant bring their system up to date with a changing world.

Richard dawkins however has another problem. It is one thing to say that religion is false but it is another to replace it entirely. And Im not talking about individuals having the right world view. Secular ethics or what ever. I mean you need to replace the operating system. But the problem is microsoft have planted theirs on 90 percent of pc's. And the fact is. It works in terms of what it sets out to do. Which is to allow a common basis for people to sell their old green lantern comics and send each other rascist jokes by email.

Now one can complain about the internet and how its killing the art of conversation, bt its a fact of life and so is people having vivid imaginations. Leaving aside the bigger debate of wether there is something going on behind the scenes of the unverse, it is clear that religions represent pretty well the alegorical texture of human experience and as such people will continue to accept currency with 'In God we trust' printed on it.

it seems to me the problem with replacing religion rather trying to come up with a set of values that promote harmony between differing sytems of belief from humanism and marxism to hinduism and maori belief is that one is basicly trying to get sharon in human resources to do her work in binary code rather than windows.

What I think we need is a kind of blank valueless grand narrative. Not a lack of personal integrity, but an attitude to truth that regards our own personal view point as finite and the view of others as possible true even if we personally think it unlikely. Life is a casino, some people can count cards but they get chucked out or nailed to a cross, we pays our money and we takes our chances. But people should only play with their own money. Addicts to truth gambles should seek help... The metaphors go on and on and on... The roulette wheel spins for all time. See Ive started my own cult.

in short I dont have the answer but at least I know what the question is, as Im sure do you all. But its worth remembering what the situationists said about the society of the spectacle. Pontifs praying for us and saving us from contraception. Atheistic biologists slaying gods saving us from reiki healers. All on our behalf

Im off to pray to the Great Millenium Bug. OOOOOHM

Ewan