Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: "Scott" <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:16:03 GMT
"Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137701702.078409.326940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Roger Johansson wrote:
>> Mani Deli wrote:
>>
>> > > I
>> > >believe the scientific-method all too often channels us down a
>> > >particular form of only-verifiable knowledge to the exclusion of a
>> > >wider understanding, and appreciation, of the complex nature of
>> > >existence.
>>
>> > Biology tells us more about the complex nature of existence than any
>> > mystical speculation or spiritual mumbo jumbo.
>>
>> We probably need som knowledge about history and the psychology of
>> religion to understand "the complex nature of existence".
>
> I wonder about that. I think religion, as you suggest below, more often
> than not muddies the nature of existence. My point, really, was that we
> need to know about religion to understand the complex nature of the
> human being. Why this need for belief? Why the wish for value? Why the
> attraction for mysticism? Will rational solutions always play second
> fiddle to the lure of magic and the transcendant? I hope not. My hope
> for the future is dependent on our eventually firming up on an
> acceptance and valuation of our unique place in nature and our
> potential as the eyes and ears and the voice of the universe.
"unique place in nature... as the eyes and ears and the voice of the
universe"? You see? Anthropomorphism. There is no unique place in the
universe. The universe is relative.
I keep
> being told this is mysticism etc. It is not.
I don't know who told you that (David maybe?) but yea they were right. It is
mysticism. I like the mystics
It is simply taking on
> board a role made possible for us because of our intelligence. If we do
> not take on board this role we will (a) fritter our achievements,
> technological etc, away on baubles and (b) allow the sensible
> management of life and the planet itself go amiss by default.
Genesis: Man's has dominion... Would make a nice metaphor.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- References:
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: downinthefolds
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: David V.
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Mani Deli
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Roger Johansson
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- From: Joseph H
- Re: Humanism in 2006
- Prev by Date: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by Date: Re: Pope says humanists can't truly "love"
- Previous by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Next by thread: Re: Humanism in 2006
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|