Re: Humanism in 2006


"Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137805923.240764.155750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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? .

If existence is meaningless as atheists scientists believe then your "unique
place" is fantasy and only exists in your mind.


>>
>> 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

IOW would make an appropriate metaphor for you. See? you are into mysticism.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... specific religion, is that, if there is a God who created the universe, ... be consistent with the nature of its Creator. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • 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. ... Sorry, Scott, not mystical. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... specific religion, is that, if there is a God who created the universe, ... be consistent with the nature of its Creator. ... created with a minimum of 40 bacterial genes within their genome, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Ann Druyan talks about science, religion...
    ... > opposed to the idea that what science has shown us about the Universe, ... like an alien and insignificant entity in this universe. ... fabric of nature", or how and to which extent you have overcome the ... further down you yourself admit that religion is providing ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • 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)