Re: Humanism in 2006


Scott wrote:
> "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.

Relative, relative...that still doesn't mean that we can't have a
unique place. What possible relevance is "relative" to that? .
>
> 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

Sorry, Scott, not mystical.
>
> 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.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... I think religion, as you suggest below, more often ... >>> than not muddies the nature of existence. ... >>> potential as the eyes and ears and the voice of the universe. ... >>> being told this is mysticism etc. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... > than not muddies the nature of existence. ... > potential as the eyes and ears and the voice of the universe. ... > being told this is mysticism etc. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Nondual Nature of Consciousness?
    ... Seeing into one's nature and attaining Buddhahood. ... Bla bla. ... "unity experience" is gross realm (nature mysticism), ... talks of a unity experience while awake, ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... The universe is relative. ... > If existence is meaningless as atheists scientists believe then your "unique ... > place" is fantasy and only exists in your mind. ... mysticism enter into this simple observation? ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Is Dylan mystical?
    ... level is the mysticism in natural religion. ... If you look at nature and thing some divine being created it, ... I suspect people like Emerson, Thoreau and Dylan just think that nature ...
    (rec.music.dylan)