>
> On Nov 20, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Chris Doss wrote:
>
> I think a problem here may be in people's differing definitions of
>> religion. I take it to mean something like the unity of the following three:
>>
>> 1. belief that something exists outside of experience and outside of
>> possible conceptualization (this is very bad phraseology on my part, but I
>> hope you get the general idea);
>>
>> 2. belief that relating to this something is important in some way for
>> human existence;
>>
>> 3. a conceptual system, whether simple or complex, whether formally
>> organized or not, for relating human existence to that something.
>>
>
>
> The absurdity is to believe that what is "outside of experience and outside
> of possible conceptualization" can possibly be "related" to human (or any
> other form of) existence.
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>>
>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Not at all. If you conceive of human understanding as absolutely open-ended and thus accept your relative ignorance (i.e. not possesing absolute knowledge) of many things not only will you be able to avoid dogmatic statements and prescriptions but you'll also recognise that there will always be something new to seek out and understand. Its not so much relating the "unknowable" as much as it is allowing it a place in the structure of human understanding. That's what I'd see as a humanist approach to "what is outside of experience and outside of possible conceptualization".