Ed, Let me cut down to one or two of your points: (EW) <<<< I would agree that this is the kind of question that an Existentialist would ask, but I really don't see it linkable to original sin. The latter requires a God to judge and punish us. The Existentialists, and perhaps Heilbroner, see man as alone in the universe, responsible for himself and to himself. If he screws up, it's his problem. He has no one to blame. >>>>
I wasn't very clear. I was meaning that both Christians and Existentialists place a handicap on man's efforts which tends towards a pessimistic view of what's achievable here. Both put mankind down, as it were. Neither view has that sense of stewardship (to use the metaphor of the environmentalists) or that sense that we are an indissoluble part of the universe (to use the metaphor of quantum physics) or that sense that everything matters (to use the metaphor of pantheists or taoists). (EW) <<<< I agree. It's chickenandeggs. I do recall reading somewhere that Neanderthalers, human but not like we are, had large brains, perhaps even larger than ours, but they didn't prove especially innovative. I also recall reading in several sources that something happened to our brains some sixty or seventy thousand years ago. Summarizing research on the subject, Thomas Homer-Dixon (The Ingenuity Gap) puts it this way: " ... the mind jumped from being a cluster of specialized intelligences ... to a highly flexible and generalized problem solver..." It makes one think of God reaching out and touching Adam's hand in the Sistine Chapel fresco. >>>> Neanderthal man also had a larger, more muscular, body -- and by far the largest part of our brain has to do with perceptions and bodily control. I believe that most of the human brain's rapid expansion occurred before 100,000 years ago. (KH) <<<< I suggest that we need to innovate further -- and in two main directions. Firstly, we badly need to develop non-polluting energy technologies. Secondly, we badly need to develop new systems of governance which are more suitable for a highly complex world. (EW) I would add to this by suggesting that we need a system of ethics that gets us away from "looking after number one", conspicuous consumption and valuing the material. I think there's a widespread awareness of this. People are searching. They've discarded much of the old, as conveyed by the established churches, but haven't really found anything satisfactory to replace it with. >>>> I don't think we need "systems of ethics". Yes, each of us is selfish, but each of us is also capable of altruism. The latter may not be very strong, and it may tail off quite steeply when directed outside our immediate family and group but, nevertheless, the predisposition is still built into our genes, as it is in all social mammals. If there is a *system* of ethics then it is the way in which we build on and generalise our basic natures by inventing institutions such as governments, constitutions, courts of law and trade. What I'm suggesting is that we have to constantly re-invent these institutions from time to time according to new conditions brought about by innovation but that, in order to work properly, they must always build upon a realistic idea of what human nature really is, not an idealised version. (EW) <<<< I gather that by research in genetics you mean addressing the issue of whether the newborn is some kind of tabula rasa onto which almost anything can be written, or whether he or she already comes pre-programmed to a considerable degree. Would we ever really be able to find out in time to really make a difference? >>>> I don't see why not. The scientific exploration of human nature and its genetic basis has really only just begun in the last couple of decades The romantic view of human nature, which has been the prevalent one among intellectuals in the last 150 years, has not succeeded in overcoming traditional religions (hence the resurgence of fundamentalism in both the east and west) but it is still strong enough to prevent sufficient funding for scientific research in the human sciences (compared with funding for research in the physical sciences). (I think part of the reason for the relative lack of funding is that there is a strong reaction at present against the prevalence of sociology -- another of the "human sciences" -- in the last 40 years or so.) But this is changing -- and quite quickly, too. Many of the very best young minds are now going into biogenetics, evolutionary psychology and allied areas. (EW) <<<< And if we did, how would we prevent the madrassas or Southern Baptists or any other especially holy and fundamentalist group from getting hold of the kid anyhow and doing their programming? To me, the most important problem currently, and probably historically, is how to combat fundamentalist theologies and ideologies and tone down the level of hate and prejudice awash in the world. The less people hate, the more they are able to talk, and perhaps even to agree. >>>> I agree totally with your sentiments, of course. But I don't think we should try to combat fundamentalism by suppressing it. Yes, the Jesuit tag, "Give me a child for seven years and he's mine for life", has some truth in it and the conditioning can be very powerful in some individuals but the reality of life, and the subsequent influence of one's peers, can successfully erode early conditioning to a considerable extent in most cases. I was very struck a week or two ago to read (or hear) an account by a BBC reporter who found herself in an eastern Saudi Arabian city (being allowed there was quite unusual, it seems) and saw a spontaneous demonstration of young people (girls as well as boys) dancing in the street. There were so many of them and it was so sudden that the enraged imams (and the religious police) could only look on helplessly. Then the young people quickly melted away. I've also heard of this happening in Iran, too. Despite the apparent anti-Americanism that appears to be universal in the Muslim countries, many of the really energetic and imaginative young people of the Arab countries are voting with their feet -- trying to emigrate to the west. Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
