.
Some say science-ism is not religion. Do they mean it is never a religion, usually not a religion, or sometimes not a religion? The statement is either so trivial or so broad that I could not help but take it as somewhat arbitrary, unscientific, unreasoned, or faith based. Since the attack seems too broad based, I would address it more from a Judeo-Christian perspective. You're probably familiar with the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. I suspect you choke on the Great Commandment (and maybe you think the Golden Rule doesn't "really" say anything). Were I translating the Great Commandment in the language of secularists, I might phrase it this way: Find and devote yourself to that principle or vector of moral purposefulness that is even more important than the preservation of your own skin (i.e., stand for something larger than yourself). I might translate the Golden Rule in this way: Devote yourself to a moral compass that is principled and relevant in your dealings with other people (i.e., be fair).
.
I wonder: Do you "believe" such principles are supported in your secular philosophy? Do you find them to be signified in your reading of natural civilization? If yes: How is your finding/belief/faith really that much different from one who believes religious parables serve simply to illustrate translations of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule? If no: Why "should" anyone value any of your opinions or beliefs about the value of moral principles or spiritual faith?
.
Your use of the word "belief" is itself interesting. A religious believer does not tend to say he knows that natural science proves the legitimacy of his faith. He does not reason himself to moral or spiritual belief based purely on natural empiricism because nature is not suited for such purpose (unless you have found yourself to be "the one," i.e., the exception who has derived and proved "ought" from "is"). Rather, a religious believer looks beyond the limits of empiricism in order to reason about moral and spiritual values. He looks to the broadest aspects of his relationship with the cosmos, and he, in good faith and good will, tries to apply his best intuition and empathy. If you have a better way of reasoning about such concerns, please share.
.
I don't quite see how matters of "believe" and "not believe" are quite as simple as you suggest. Any needle that might be imagined to scale the attitude of conviction (belief) in each person would seem to vary throughout his life, even his day. A believer may push towards belief one day, towards doubt the next. Would such a person be a "believing doubter?" To doubt is also to believe, i.e., it is to believe one does not believe. Many people think moral and spiritual values are matters of likelihood. They seem to believe they have some empirical insight for weighing whether a moral or spiritual belief is "likely true" or not. It would be interesting to see them try to write a paper to clearly demonstrate such likeliness.
.
You seem to complain that concerns about faith are too important to many people who think at A.T. You would rather focus on measurables. Well all righty then! Measure that focus on measurables, sans spiritual inspiration: How has uninspired, dispassionate focusing on scientifically indifferent measurables worked out for you (and for America)? I wonder why all the empirical-minded folk somehow were unable to inspire, connect with, or save the day with the modern electorate? Last I looked, the election secured the federal government in the hands of cronies bent on using useful idiots to smash the political influence of the productive class.
.
As to empiricism and broad concerns about decent civilization: I wonder which empiricist has ever gathered viable "evidence" to refute what many people consider a common sense observation, i.e., that a Qualitative Immeasurable created the cosmic cone of measurable signification that we mortals share in common? Has anyone gathered empirical evidence that suggests a plausible alternative to the common sense empirical observation that the creator abides/abided in a way that is qualitatively immeasurable to mortals?
.
As to whether the Creator has "left the building": Well then, explain what guides or causes each result, when no one has the least clue to explain what determines each sequence in the unfoldment. Hint: Labeling a result as "random" does not explain its cause. Labeling whatever happens to survive or replicate as "the fittest" does not explain any cause at any particular time and place. Arguing that every thing that is possible to occur must occur in some cosmos is not an empirically testable thesis. It is just a faith to avoid an alternative faith: That God is with us, that God appreciates and rconciles us, that God's field of consciousness functions in cyclic, qualitative feedback with the apprehensions of particular mortal expressions of consciousness, that such relationship is signified in the cosmos in terms of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, that so believing and conceptualizing will tend to guide us towards more fulfilling civilizations that celebrate the dignity of human consciousness. Do you have evidence that an alternative faith would better guide us to human freedom and dignity? If not, how is your faith not of a religious quality? (Hint: Merely inventing and attaching yourself to a label for "belief in lack of belief" -- such as "atheism" -- does not make your belief meaningful, faithless, testable, empirical, civilizing, or worthwhile.)
.
Some say science-ism is not religion. Do they mean it is never a religion, usually not a religion, or sometimes not a religion? The statement is either so trivial or so broad that I could not help but take it as somewhat arbitrary, unscientific, unreasoned, or faith based. Since the attack seems too broad based, I would address it more from a Judeo-Christian perspective. You're probably familiar with the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. I suspect you choke on the Great Commandment (and maybe you think the Golden Rule doesn't "really" say anything). Were I translating the Great Commandment in the language of secularists, I might phrase it this way: Find and devote yourself to that principle or vector of moral purposefulness that is even more important than the preservation of your own skin (i.e., stand for something larger than yourself). I might translate the Golden Rule in this way: Devote yourself to a moral compass that is principled and relevant in your dealings with other people (i.e., be fair).
.
I wonder: Do you "believe" such principles are supported in your secular philosophy? Do you find them to be signified in your reading of natural civilization? If yes: How is your finding/belief/faith really that much different from one who believes religious parables serve simply to illustrate translations of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule? If no: Why "should" anyone value any of your opinions or beliefs about the value of moral principles or spiritual faith?
.
Your use of the word "belief" is itself interesting. A religious believer does not tend to say he knows that natural science proves the legitimacy of his faith. He does not reason himself to moral or spiritual belief based purely on natural empiricism because nature is not suited for such purpose (unless you have found yourself to be "the one," i.e., the exception who has derived and proved "ought" from "is"). Rather, a religious believer looks beyond the limits of empiricism in order to reason about moral and spiritual values. He looks to the broadest aspects of his relationship with the cosmos, and he, in good faith and good will, tries to apply his best intuition and empathy. If you have a better way of reasoning about such concerns, please share.
.
I don't quite see how matters of "believe" and "not believe" are quite as simple as you suggest. Any needle that might be imagined to scale the attitude of conviction (belief) in each person would seem to vary throughout his life, even his day. A believer may push towards belief one day, towards doubt the next. Would such a person be a "believing doubter?" To doubt is also to believe, i.e., it is to believe one does not believe. Many people think moral and spiritual values are matters of likelihood. They seem to believe they have some empirical insight for weighing whether a moral or spiritual belief is "likely true" or not. It would be interesting to see them try to write a paper to clearly demonstrate such likeliness.
.
You seem to complain that concerns about faith are too important to many people who think at A.T. You would rather focus on measurables. Well all righty then! Measure that focus on measurables, sans spiritual inspiration: How has uninspired, dispassionate focusing on scientifically indifferent measurables worked out for you (and for America)? I wonder why all the empirical-minded folk somehow were unable to inspire, connect with, or save the day with the modern electorate? Last I looked, the election secured the federal government in the hands of cronies bent on using useful idiots to smash the political influence of the productive class.
.
As to empiricism and broad concerns about decent civilization: I wonder which empiricist has ever gathered viable "evidence" to refute what many people consider a common sense observation, i.e., that a Qualitative Immeasurable created the cosmic cone of measurable signification that we mortals share in common? Has anyone gathered empirical evidence that suggests a plausible alternative to the common sense empirical observation that the creator abides/abided in a way that is qualitatively immeasurable to mortals?
.
As to whether the Creator has "left the building": Well then, explain what guides or causes each result, when no one has the least clue to explain what determines each sequence in the unfoldment. Hint: Labeling a result as "random" does not explain its cause. Labeling whatever happens to survive or replicate as "the fittest" does not explain any cause at any particular time and place. Arguing that every thing that is possible to occur must occur in some cosmos is not an empirically testable thesis. It is just a faith to avoid an alternative faith: That God is with us, that God appreciates and rconciles us, that God's field of consciousness functions in cyclic, qualitative feedback with the apprehensions of particular mortal expressions of consciousness, that such relationship is signified in the cosmos in terms of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, that so believing and conceptualizing will tend to guide us towards more fulfilling civilizations that celebrate the dignity of human consciousness. Do you have evidence that an alternative faith would better guide us to human freedom and dignity? If not, how is your faith not of a religious quality? (Hint: Merely inventing and attaching yourself to a label for "belief in lack of belief" -- such as "atheism" -- does not make your belief meaningful, faithless, testable, empirical, civilizing, or worthwhile.)
.
1 comment:
Of necessity, people are inspired to moral purposefulness by trivalent, analogical reasoning. What some call tired strawmen, others call sacred parables. It is impossible to inspire or communicate a moral direction without resorting to metaphors, i.e., what some people often call strawmen. For examples: As more sheeple are farmed and distracted by cheap-pleasure salesmen, fewer, of necessity, will remain informed about what it takes to sustain a decent, responsible living in a decent, responsible republic. When culture fails to rein in the excesses of capitalism, an indecent cult of commercialism will arise. Yes, we want free enterprise. However, we should also want a thriving middle class. We should not want to sell human freedom and dignity to the control of a few crony vultures who have learned how to entice masses with sugar-high distractions. It's not so much that many have lost their moral compasses. It's that they are being led to stomp on all moral compasses by militantly stomping on all decent producers. A great fall looms simply because it's easier to lead sugar-high amoralists into bouts or goosestepping and pillage than it is to lead people of independent competence. The hijinks of keeping Austin weird has morphed into keeping the demographic insane. The beast demands to be fed. (Count the "strawmen.")
Post a Comment