Hi DMB & all, My point was different than Deism. I'm still working on this idea that the basic difference between East and West is the West's elevation of the self (the individual) to highest importance. As I understand it, Eastern religions do not say that, and certainly do not say that the unique individual, that is, me, Mary, with my personal set of memories and foibles is the entity that achieves eternal life. In Eastern religions the self is temporary.
Starting from that idea, it seems logical to me to conclude that not only the obvious things like democracy and capitalism (both individualistic pursuits) but also western science and experimental method owe their roots to the idea that the self is the highest form. I say this because if you believe that, then you must also believe that the evidence of your experience is the only thing that has reality, and from there it's a very short step into experimental science. > Mary Replied: > Now I need to ask which (if any) philosopher has already come up with > the next logical conclusion I have drawn from all this; namely, that > all of modern science owes a big debt to monotheism and the attendant > idea of the sanctity of the individual for its very existence? > > > dmb says: > > I don't know about that but it's probably safe to say. Deism springs to > mind here. This is the position of the enlightenment thinkers like > Locke, Smith, Jefferson. Maybe it could be described as halfway between > theism and scientism. Even as far back as Spinoza you'll see this idea > that God IS nature, which is echoed in Jefferson's phrase, "nature and > nature's god". You know, this is the idea that God created the universe > the way a watch maker makes time pieces. Once it's built, the creator > just winds it up, gets things ticking and then his role is done. This > sort of imagery depicts reality as one giant mechanism and then > studying that mechanism becomes a way to understand the mind of the > creator. Scientism believes in the watch but not the watch maker. > Einstein famously said he believed in Spinoza's god. But I've never > been able to tell the difference between saying, "nature is God" and > "nature is nature". In Spinoza's equation the term "God" seems > logically meaningless although it does express a certain reverence for > nature. Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
