Re: Humanism in 2006


"Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137969346.650375.166760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/feature2.htm
"It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special
relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less
farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three
minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning.. It is hard
to realize that this all [i.e., life on Earth] is just a tiny part of an
overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this
present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition,
and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more
the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." -
Steven Weinberg.

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> 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?

"In other word"


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... itself or came into existence without a cause. ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... Your god isn't needed. ... What is the exact process by which this new life added material to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chance or Design
    ... the existence of the other. ... universe will happen to have the settings right for life to evolve. ... You can observe quantum entanglement, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... itself or came into existence without a cause. ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... What is the exact process by which this new life added material to ... Several scientists believe life ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An atheist professor & his student
    ... You seem to consider 'god' to be a sentient ... :>>existence of a being who developed fully formed and conscious!! ... Why should a universe suddenly be? ... :>have so many constants that together allow for life on at least one ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: "Intelligent design"
    ... >> designer, but it's absurd to assume the designer ... >> believes life with all its complexity proves the existence ... >> even has noticed the existence of humans. ... > Intelligence and beings are things that occur in a universe, ...
    (alt.usage.english)