Re: Humanism in 2006


Scott wrote:
> "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 am an atheist, but I do not believe existence is meaningless - which
is not to say that I believe that there is an inherent meaning in life.
Confused? Let me explain: I feel that the search for meaning is linked
with a pre-modern mindset, one that cannot conceive of existence
without either a creator or some preset "scientific" dialectic or
progress. I think even many atheists find it difficult to free
themselves of these preconceptions. There's always a hankering after
inbuilt purpose. I don't believe in any such purpose. For me the
inquiry is pointless. But to say that something has no inherent meaning
or purpose is not to say that it is "meaningless" That particular word
has a pajoritive connotation. It adds something to the neutrality of
the earlier observation. To say something is without inherent purpose
is not to say that it is without value. Life for most of us is full of
value. We cling to it for....dear life! Also, in a wider sense, we are
part of a process. An event occurred some billions of years ago - and
our existence is a consequence of that event. In my view it is a
far-reaching consequence. After some twelve billion years of ceaseless
permutation matter - within our brains - has finally been configured in
a way that allows knowledge of and reflection on the entiure process. I
say, therefore, that we are the mind of matter. It is not, of course,
literally true. Matter is not an entity with a mind. But it is true to
say that we possess the only known configuration of matter with the
properties we associate with "mind". Because of this I also say that we
are unique. I still can't say how this can be seen as mystical. It
might well be wrong. There may be other beings with minds out there. So
what? We are definitely unique on this planet; we are unique in the
solar system; and we seem to be unique in this corner of the universe.
How far do we have to go before we cease to be unique? Where does
mysticism enter into this simple observation?
>
>
> >>
> >> 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.


What's IOW?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IF
    ... With that in mind, perhaps you could tell me what you think time is. ... suggests was the state of the universe before the Big Bang occurred, ... the concept of distance is essentially meaningless. ... Similarly, time was a meaningless concept when there were no events, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: IF
    ... Nothing in the universe is observed as being eternal. ... necessarily exist in hte same state outside of the human mind. ... the concept of distance is essentially meaningless. ... Similarly, time was a meaningless concept when there were no events, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: IF
    ... Nothing in the universe is observed as being eternal. ... necessarily exist in hte same state outside of the human mind. ... the concept of distance is essentially meaningless. ... Similarly, time was a meaningless concept when there were no events, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 4 real periods
    ... which is more or less meaningless without some ... there you insulting me again ... ... what sort of convergence you have in mind. ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The Dialogue of Existence
    ... Some random strings look meaningless to me, ... universe were not a single computation since no computation would be ... I'm not saying that digital philosophy ...
    (comp.theory)