Limits of Science v. Social Wisdom and Meta Intuition:
Re: “Science will win.”
Sigh. In what fields? The scientific method will advance our learning about HOW to manipulate measurable and predictable relations among physical materials. What science will not answer is WHY or for what purpose we should choose to design or manipulate anything.
When single minded, single dimensional individuals say things like “science will win,” it gives aid and comfort to those who are so frustrated with the seeming indifference of the material world that they want either to destroy it with anarchism or to reduce humanity to nothing but organic robots for experiencing glandular pleasures. Given no higher meaning, why strive for anything other than to “eat, drink, and be merry?”
This attitude gives a hook for elites to say they have studied every moral problem and determined “scientifically” what is best for the rest of us. Many folks, to contribute to science, become singularly focused and thus out of touch with wider aspects of beingness. They can make great scientists, but as to what is needed to assimilate responsible citizenry, they may have little clue.
All the realms that make human life worthwhile – the realms of man-made law, politics, economics, purposefulness, religion, spirituality, music, and art – are not based primarily in science. They are “soft or dreary sciences.” They can be enhanced by empiricism, but the questions pertaining to why and what we should choose to do in such realms will best be addressed not by “empiricists who know best,” but by individuals who are wisely receptive to their responsibility for participating in making their own choices and being accountable to their own intuitive sense of a higher Source or meta Standard. Even Hawking participates in soft wisdom, implicitly, although he seems prone not to publicly recognize it. That is, something more than mere empiricism drives Hawking’s purposefulness.
As to the vastness of the universe being “evidence” of no higher Conscious Source: Lol! What about the infinite vastness of potential beyond what is presented to our present experience? What a grand, squint-both-ways, non-sequitur posing as “evidence!” It is hardly surprising that such a way of thinking has been appropriated by someone who has devoted his life based on an assumption … for which he takes his existential predicament to be proof. What a grand example of the fallacy of proof by assumption!
But what if spirituality is not a matter of scientific, empirical, materialistic proof? What if, so far as we are concerned, spirituality is an intuitively experienced receptivity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It sure seems like party and pleasure time for the law givers of the lower levels of purgatory.
Time was, it was not uncommon for Americans who loved law to also love guiding the unfolding of new law, subordinate to a polar star: to conserve and advance that law which disciplines decent respect for the freedom and dignity of civic minded people. Most adults were expected to conduct themselves consistent with civilizing norms, and children were expected to follow adult exemplars.
But it has come to pass that those who enter upon the practice of governance and law (along with “progressive-minded” politicians, journalists, professors, and ministers) see man-made law as part of an inescapable pagan, darwinian, and materialistic competition – to reduce the weakest in body, mind, and spirit to pleasure, and serve under the heels of, those who are most sociopathic and cunningly deceitful.
In this swamp of competing depravities, “Progressives” consider: that the efforts of all are morally equal; that all merit equal financial support from Big Gov; that all should be celebrated in splendid diversity, including the multi-culti efforts of:
Sharia law boosters, Hamas funders, ground zero mosque facilitators, Jew bashing travelers, child marrying perverts, genital castrators, wife beaters, fetus killers, activist fomenters of terror, civilization burning anarchists, San Francisco street parade fellatio performers, border jumpers, thug community organizers, stealing redistributors, Cloward-Piven liars, Gaia cult worshipers, Big Gov whores, cult followers of psychopathic Mao-like personalities, Ivy league definers of new morality, thought police, haters of individual responsibility, norm defilers, morality deniers, and God spiters. It’s a party right out of Blazing Saddles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoM-ZC7uNnc&feature=related
So, the party hearty political base for Progs and Obamanauts can take a bow. Thus it has come to pass that a swarm of lawyers and Yal-ard cohort, skilled in greasing and “Obama-fying” every conceivable depravity, has been released upon America – and the world. Most anyone can defend decency, except against hell hounds that can evoke sympathy and guffaws for every depravity. Is the real, can-do, Uncle Sam through?
Post a Comment