--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > <snip> > Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay: > http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm > > I wonder if the following is at all relevant to the recent > Curtis::Judy religion debate? (I'm not sure because I'm not > clear as to how far Curtis wants his views about myths, > superstitions and fairy tales to be enshrined, "hard-wired" as > it were into *modern society*):
I don't know where or whether it fits into the debate, but he makes an excellent point! Thanks for the quote. I went and read the whole essay and recommend it. > << Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells-Delta- > Blues says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible > "for intelligent people", he is (for that instant) not talking > like an intelligent person. In other words, he is not talking > like a philosopher; because he is not even saying what he > means. What he means is, not "impossible for intelligent men", > but, "impossible for intelligent monists", or, "impossible for > intelligent determinists". But it is not a negation of > <intelligence> to hold any coherent and logical conception of > so mysterious a world. It is not a negation of intelligence to > think that all experience is a dream. It is not unintelligent > to think it a delusion, as some Buddhists do; let alone to > think it a product of creative will, as Christians do. >> > > And I really love this quote from Chesterton (but I doubt > Curtis will!). Like all good mysterians Chesterton upholds > the primacy of poetry over mechanics, of the "qualitative" > over the "quantitive": > > << All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' > 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really > unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as > describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, > 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the > arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit > because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is > bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny > altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may > have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language > about things is simply rational and agnostic. >> > > That should put the cat amongst the pigeons. (Or the bio- > chemical hunting and sleeping machine amongst the > robotic, aerodynamic, statue-shitters if you you prefer).
