Comments on: Science: Is it progressive? http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/15/science-is-it-progressive/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/15/science-is-it-progressive/comment-page-1/#comment-303 El Sordo Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:31:21 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/15/science-is-it-progressive/#comment-303 I would just clarify my term 'deconstructive atheist polemic'. By this I mean an argument from atheism that (as you suggest in another post) forwards the proposition that 'religion is harmful and should therefore be abolished' this is distinguishable from a an experience of atheism that can be argued for without reference to abolishing the experience of religion for other people. I would just clarify my term ‘deconstructive atheist polemic’. By this I mean an argument from atheism that (as you suggest in another post) forwards the proposition that ‘religion is harmful and should therefore be abolished’ this is distinguishable from a an experience of atheism that can be argued for without reference to abolishing the experience of religion for other people.

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/15/science-is-it-progressive/comment-page-1/#comment-302 El Sordo Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:03:26 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/07/15/science-is-it-progressive/#comment-302 I concur it was unhelpful of me to make references to the TOE and to the possibility that science may one day know everything. They are different things entirely. I shall pass over a detailed comment on TOE as your knowledge of it is better than mine. I would in my defence though point out that I was quoting and paraphrasing the arguments of others. "This is yet another example of turning the discussion away from religion and on to irrelevant issues" How so? There are a variety of concerns posited about deconstructive atheist polemic (not all voiced by religious persons). Does it leave a void? What should replace religion? Can atheism provide a moral framework or it outside of its remit? These are just some vague top of the head propositions, and I think I know some of what your answers may be. The point I was paraphrasing, and a point which also arose in our discussions on Nietzsche was that having proposed to have demonstrated the falsehood of God and religion no attempt appears to have been made to 'fill the void'. This void may not be of any importance to RD and CH for whom there is no void to fill, but what of others for whom an atheism or scepticism has been foisted upon them? Jung and other Transpersonal psychologists talk of a phenomena known as the 'spiritual crisis' or 'spiritual emergency' some of these events are near psychoid in character (some are resolved by a religious experience, some are resolved by a break from religion) of this RD and CH say nothing. That is what I was enquiring of and I think it is extremely relevant. Religion and spirituality are not rational phenomena, but are often experiential, intuitional, preturnatural, pre-rational in there manifestation. It may be that Nietzsche's prescription that art can fill the void is correct, but RD and CH make no attempt to embrace this aspect of the conversation. I concur it was unhelpful of me to make references to the TOE and to the possibility that science may one day know everything. They are different things entirely.
I shall pass over a detailed comment on TOE as your knowledge of it is better than mine. I would in my defence though point out that I was quoting and paraphrasing the arguments of others.

“This is yet another example of turning the discussion away from religion and on to irrelevant issues”

How so?
There are a variety of concerns posited about deconstructive atheist polemic (not all voiced by religious persons). Does it leave a void? What should replace religion? Can atheism provide a moral framework or it outside of its remit?
These are just some vague top of the head propositions, and I think I know some of what your answers may be. The point I was paraphrasing, and a point which also arose in our discussions on Nietzsche was that having proposed to have demonstrated the falsehood of God and religion no attempt appears to have been made to ‘fill the void’.
This void may not be of any importance to RD and CH for whom there is no void to fill, but what of others for whom an atheism or scepticism has been foisted upon them? Jung and other Transpersonal psychologists talk of a phenomena known as the ‘spiritual crisis’ or ‘spiritual emergency’ some of these events are near psychoid in character (some are resolved by a religious experience, some are resolved by a break from religion) of this RD and CH say nothing. That is what I was enquiring of and I think it is extremely relevant.
Religion and spirituality are not rational phenomena, but are often experiential, intuitional, preturnatural, pre-rational in there manifestation.
It may be that Nietzsche’s prescription that art can fill the void is correct, but RD and CH make no attempt to embrace this aspect of the conversation.

]]>