Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
A beautiful story and thank you for introducing me to Stuart Kauffman who has articulated beyond my ability to do so the thoughts I've struggled with for many years.
But while working on this reconciliation of the scientific and the spiritual I came to the conclusion that the nearest to what what Kauffman is talking about is what I came across in Indonesia, animism. Albeit a scientifically based animism.
"I think nearly everyone is an unbeliever."
Then you'd be wrong.
I suggest you read a good book on cosmology, such as "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose, or "Godel Meets Einstien" by Yourgrau.
Having a better understanding of the foundations of science and it's place within our rationality might make you realise the limiting and fundamentally false nature of scientism/positivism/materialism that seems so pervasive amongst new atheists.
"Having a better understanding of the foundations of science and it's place within our rationality might make you realise the limiting and fundamentally false nature of scientism/positivism/materialism that seems so pervasive amongst new atheists."
Materialism? Materialism is one of those things that suggest unbelief. Poll people going into a casino or a race track and ask them if they believe in Jesus as the son of God. Poll people in their McMansions and ask them if they believe the same. Them ask them how they reconcile Jesus refusing Satan's bribery of material wealth and their lusting and hoarding of material wealth. I don't even know how you can have an Internet connection and believe that you're connected to Jesus. There are hungry children right now. An alleged believer with an Internet connection must have a disconnect between their actions and their alleged faith. If you believe, you would only care about your allegedly immortal soul and you would shun all wealth, such as your computer, since the Bible asserts that rich people are damned.
And if you truly wanted to chat, you wouldn't sling so many fancy words. I think you want to impress. And argue, as you've done in all those gay threads.
. . . and suddenly disappear into the World Soul, and feel yourself at one with all of nature. This is well and good. But nature is not the source of that intuition. Worms and rats and weasels do not stare for hours at sunset, and marvel at it's beauty, and transcend themselves in that release--even though their senses are in many cases much sharper than ours, even though they see nature more clearly than we do! No, nature is not the source of this Beauty; nature is the destination. The source is transcendental Spirit, of which nature is a radiant expression.
Ken Wilber --
I meant "materialism" as in the philosophical sense, like positivism or scientism and unlike Platonism.
Sorry if these words are unfamiliar to you but they are pertinent to the discussion.
If you believe that science is conceptually complete, that "science" is interchangeable with the term "rationality", then you are indeed a materialist. This philosophy is really inconsistent with all the major religions.
Conversely if you are sympathetic with any form of Platonism, then I would ask you why the idealised concept of God seems so bizarre to you.
It's up to you whether or not you engage meaningfully...I'm just trying to inject a bit of rationality into the discussion.
The premises of this guy's viewpoint contain huge and unsupported assumptions.
The main premise is that the majority of scientists are reductionists who think everything's meaningless.
Says who?
What is a reductionist? Anybody who doesn't believe what you do?
Who does he think he is to tell us what the majority of scientists think? How does he know?
I don't even think "meaningless" means what he thinks it means.
He is trying to draw a link between science and philosophy that does not exist.
Scientists are free to subscribe to whatever philosophy works for them. Though it is unlikely somebody with a rigorous scientific mindset will subscribe to a religion that is based on myths and oral traditions from 2,000 years ago, scientists are free to form their own sense of awe, wonder and respect for nature. Nobody has ever shown that they do not. I would argue that scientists are the most well-equipped people to have a genuine awe of nature, since they tend to understand it much more than the layman does.
I also think this writer misrepresents Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is wrongly used as a whipping boy for ideas that I have never seen Dawkins express.
How about a little more journalistic rigor and honesty from Steve Paulson? It seems like you're selling us something rather than reporting it.
"I'm just trying to inject a bit of rationality into the discussion."
Yeah, that's what you always say. Your shtick is well-established.
Did you have any meaningful comments or questions about my post?
Before I was a "troll" for disagreeing with you, now I suppose I'm a troll for introducing new concepts/words.
If you want to degrade the discussion then go ahead. As I keep telling you, the choice is yours.
The author's honesty about the role of agency and its apparent conflict with reductionism and materialism is refreshing. His proposed new conception of God as conveyed in the article shares some similarities with the work of Catholic theologian Pierre de Chardin, whose work has influenced Catholic theology from Vatican II through to today. I would recommend it highly, along with works by de Lubac and others discussing it.
However, I would point out a missing step in the author's conception of God. Recognition of the universal creative force as God is one thing, but to take the next step of forming a global ethic based on the recognition of that fact requires something more. In particular, an ethic requires a shared understanding of right and wrong. This must go beyond the "food, poison" understanding, because what is "food" for an individual may be "posion" for society and vice versa. Moreover, what is "food" to the individual subjectively may be "poison" to it objectively; that is, "poison" may taste like "food" and only kill after many repeated ingestions over time.
So to create a universal understanding of right and wrong--a global ethic--would seem to require a method of deriving it beyond other than by the judgment of each individual. To go beyond the lowest common denominator (i.e., no murder) and to have any effect, would not this global ethic have to be decided upon and promulgated by some sort of body? And as disputes undoubtedly would develop about the understanding and practice of the global ethic, would not a final arbiter of such disputes be necessary to prevent unending splintering of the ethic and sectarianism among its adherents?
Of course, the ethic would not be forced upon anyone, but rather, each person could choose whether to accept it based on his or her free will, I would assume. I would also assume this freedom to accept or not accept this ethic would not affect the truth thereof, at least as far as its adherents were concerned.
Hmmm... sounds like this new global ethic might be in need of a Magisterium and a Pope. Come to think of it, it sounds like it only needs a founding prophet to develop into Catholicism...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
