[John]
From a Theism that is rejected by science, we turn to human explanations for
the world and the faith I'm talking about, is faith in intellect. Faith in
intellect is not scientifically supported.
[Arlo]
If you reduce everything to equivalent "faith", the term is meaningless. I know
this is a common tactic about those who advocate things like 'creationism' and
'evolution' being both 'faith-based' and equal 'theories'.
[John]
For instance, scientifically speaking, it's impossible to measure the age of
the universe - except that you pretend time is uniform and absolute to human
perspective. You have to put man as the center of the universe, to come up
with that - it's a religious teaching - some simple catechism we give to the
kiddies. Not much different from Sunday school really.
[Arlo]
Not at all, on either point. First, although yes, all time as we measure it is
(tautologically) a reference to 'our' (and hence 'human') experience, no one is
claiming that its anything but this. When I say "last year" of course I mean
"year" as socially understood and defined by our shared experience. Its
ultimately arbitrary, to measure rotations around the sun (although
historically its easy to understand why the species has done this nearly
ubiquitously across culture and history). Second, the estimation is one that
allows us to build ever-improving models of understanding experience. Much
different from Sunday school, these numbers changes as better numbers come in,
as models improve, as intellectual patterns evolve. To claim that this is a
"religious teaching" is just absurd, John, really, really absurd.
[John]
Since there is no more God, it's all ours and we can do what we want with it.
[Arlo]
"But suppose you do just what you like? Does that mean you're going to go out
and shoot heroin, rob banks and rape old ladies? The person who is counseling
you not to do "just as you like" is making some remarkable presumptions as to
what is likable. He seems unaware that people may not rob banks because they
have considered the consequences and decided they don't like to. He doesn't see
that banks exist in the first place because they're "just what people like,"
namely, providers of loans. Phædrus began to wonder how all this condemnation
of "what you like" ever seemed such a natural objection in the first place."
(ZMM)
If you need "God" so that you don't 'shoot heroin, rob banks and rape old
ladies', I think that says more about you than humanists.
[John]
But the "arrogance" of humanism is that we think we've got all the final
answers. Now we know what is actually objectively true through the working of
our human reason, forgetting that the universe is a lot bigger than we are.
[Arlo]
You've made an ipso facto comflation here of 'humanism' and 'SOM' ("actually
objectively true"). I'd argue that 'humanism' is, like any other
sub-metaphysical view, dependent on the over-arching metaphysics. If you want
to challenge 'SOM' ("final answers... actually objectively true"), that's good
with me, but if you're creating a dichotomy where 'theism' and 'SOM-humanism'
are the only options, you're barking up the wrong tree.
[John]
From a larger perspective, it's impossible to say who is revolving around whom,
really. It's all just a twirling in space. But the human perspective says the
moon revolves around the Earth because we're ON the Earth.
[Arlo]
Yeah, this is the story about William James and the squirrel. Its important,
philosophically, to understand the relational aspects of our ideas. But,
importantly, saying "the moon revolves around the earth" has allowed us to
deploy satellites, understand (and provide early warnings) of weather patterns,
etc. Its a very high-quality experientially-bsaed observation, much higher
quality than 'everything revolves around the earth' (which, I point out, is far
more arrogant and anthropomorphological, and was considered much more a 'final
answer' and 'true', than what we use today).
[John]
Too often it seems that the MoQ focuses upon the aspect of resisting social
controls without doing anything constructive or coming up with creative social
patterns.
[Arlo]
I think intellect has come up with a whole host of constructive and creative
ways to structure social patterns (freedom of assembly, freedom of speech,
e.g.) We (should) live in an ere where, say, determining speed limits to
improve mobility and flow at the social level are based on intellectual inquiry
and reason. We are at a point where things like 'who can I marry' are being
answered, intellectually, with reason and intellect rather social convention or
'god'. It is intellectual dominance of social patterns that has created the
public art museums, green spaces in cities, and has improved farming practices.
Certainly, there are ongoing revisions that we need to attend to (does this
park work? how can this museum better serve the local population? when does
genetic manipulation of plants become intellectually undesireable? should our
social inheritance laws be revised? etc. etc.)
[John]
I will just hold to the claim that the purpose of all this intellect is, as you
say, better traffic patterns - that is, a more successful, informed and just
society that bumps together more gently.
[Arlo]
And I agree with this, perhaps with the caveat that this is one purpose of
intellect, or as part of a larger evolving understanding of experience.
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/md/archives.html
