Re: An insult
- From: Lance <LanceGary@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:56:16 -0700
On Aug 27, 10:42 pm, Dave Smith <da...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Aug, 07:56, Lance <LanceG...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Surely atheists contradict this claim? And note that atheism is not a
modern phenomenon - there were plenty in roman and Greek times.
Yes, I think in that quote Wilson gets a little carried away. Later
in the same chapter he discusses how science challenges religion:
" ..the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come
from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief
competitor, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to
survive as an independent intellectual discipline. But religion itself
will endure for a long time as a vital force in society."
The perseverance of religion is due to its emotional appeal and:
"The spiritual weakness of scientific naturalism is due to the fact
that it has no such primal source of power. While explaining the
biological sources of religious emotional strength, it is unable in
its present form to draw on them, because the evolutionary epic denies
immortality to the individual and divine privilege to the society, and
it suggests only an existential meaning for the human species.
Humanists will never enjoy the hot pleasures of spiritual conversion
and self-surrender; scientists cannot in all honesty serve as
priests."
I think science can be, and often is, driven by a passion for truth.
bertrand Russell thought so.
I think social organisations can be driven by mundane things such as
the desire for profit, but they can also be guided a by a passion for
justice and an ethic of care and service. In my opinion I would rather
believe the pronouncements of someone driven by a passion for truth
than fronm someone serving a mysterious unobservable God to whom (he
thinks) he has some kind of priveledged access. Ditto justice and
service.
Lance
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An insult
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: An insult
- References:
- An insult
- From: Peter Brooks
- Re: An insult
- From: Lance
- Re: An insult
- From: Richard Corfield
- Re: An insult
- From: Lance
- Re: An insult
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: An insult
- From: Richard Corfield
- Re: An insult
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: An insult
- From: Lance
- Re: An insult
- From: Dave Smith
- An insult
- Prev by Date: Re: An insult
- Next by Date: Palms up!
- Previous by thread: Re: An insult
- Next by thread: Re: An insult
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|