Emerson wrote:
“…The noblest ministry of nature is to stand as the apparition of God. It is the organ through which the universal spirit speaks to the individual and strives to lead back the individual to it.”
Do we, or do we not, have the freedom to give meaning, value, and purpose to our lives by our own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity? This value of humanism was proclaimed by Steven Schaferman. Why would he oppose the teaching of creationism?
Giving meaning is different than creationism. Your question needs some work.
Giving meaning to our lives does not necessarily imply a collective enterprise. To each his own; individual freedom to live alone and among one’s like-minded peers within the greater society.
You get it now?
You get it now?No. It's your question that I don't get. I have lots of thoughts on meaning. Let me break it down like this:
Do we, or do we not, have the freedom to give meaning, value, and purpose to our lives by our own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity?Yes.
This value of humanism was proclaimed by Steven Schaferman.Don't know this guy. Don't know why it matters.
Why would he oppose the teaching of creationism?Because he's a scientist. You can teach creationism, just not in a science class. What does this have to do with humanism?
To each his ownExactly. So why would anyone want to teach something non-scientific in science class?
Lausten, you are mechanically breaking down the whole organic theme of this topic into discrete parts. Your approach obliterates the spirit of the conversation. The human being is not a machine. Obviously, you have a different understanding of humanism. I am not saying you are wrong. Just different, that’s all.
You can take apart a gun, a car or a computer and put it back again. It will work. You cannot do that with a human being.
Lausten said: “Don’t know this guy. Don’t know why it matters.”
Of course, it matters. Every individual member of society matters. This is the whole point to humanism. Society is a holistic organism. We need to listen to each other and pull together.
Lausten said:“Because he’s a scientist. You can teach creationism, just not in a science class. What does this have to do with humanism?”
The problem lies in our narrow definition of creationism. At any rate, just because somebody’s dad is stupid to you, does that give you the right to bar that idiot from teaching his kids?
The scientists did not come into Sunday school. The creationists tried to come into science class.
Lausten said: “The scientists did not come into Sunday school. The creationists tried to come into science class.”
It is unfortunate that folks of different stripes are thrown together in society and allowed to fight it out. Even birds of a feather know how to sensibly flock together in public parks.
Even birds of a feather know how to sensibly flock together in public parks.Have you done much bird watching? They often fight needlessly, just hormones telling them to not get too close to a potential threat. Herd animals are usually smarter, and for a long time, after that nasty business in 1277, religious people let science do its thing. But some people just couldn't let it go.
But you started this thread saying the opposite. Are you ready to change your mind?
Why would he oppose the teaching of creationism?To start out: Because Creationism is founded upon and dependent upon misrepresenting scientific findings and understanding.
Because Creationism isn’t about learning - Creationists are all about advertising and proclaiming a self-constructed self-certain “immutable” truth, one that requires them to reject new information by totally refusing to absorb known physical facts, since those facts don’t align with their understanding of Creationism.
How am I doing so far?
Lausten said: “Have you done much bird watching?”
All the time, my dear Lausten, all the time. Birds are constantly alert and on the lookout. What a horrid karmic existence, continuously anxious, watchful and suspicious. I try to inhabit bird-consciousness whenever I am in my car going somewhere. I would look in every direction like a bird, changing focus every second or two; straight ahead, rear-view mirror, left side mirror, right side mirror, straight ahead again. You have no idea how the heightened awareness protected me from idiots appearing from nowhere in places I least expected. You should try it.
My thread was inspired by Barbara Novak’s book “Nature and Culture”. It’s about the Hudson River school of painting and America’s incredibly beautiful landscapes, they invoked an awesome spirituality that shaped our culture and national psyche.
Although, believe it or not, in the early '90s during my various studies into Evolution through the finds scientists were making, I was struck with a mantra that keeps coming back into my thoughts, usually totally unbidden, to this day, and I imagine to my death.
God Is Creation, Why Rob God Of God's Creation By Slamming Our Origin Story It Into A One-dimensional Freeze-frame?Creationists and ID's always turn it back to trying to proping up their chosen ancient tribal texts, with arguments and endless science-by-rhetoric rather than by observation and learning.
Might I suggest Sree is missing a fundamental distinction. For starters think about his glib title:
Can Nature and God be the same thing?As a matter of fact, nature and god are two very different things. The one is Physical Reality, the other is a product of the Human Mindscape.
Any thoughts Sree?
Most people love nature, the more they safely experience of it. But nature is not supernatural. It is natural.
But you started this thread saying the opposite. Are you ready to change your mind?
My mind is ever changing, Lausten, like the flowing waters of a stream. I hold on to nothing.
I’ll take that as a “yes”
Citizen said: "As a matter of fact, nature and god are two very different things. The one is Physical Reality, the other is a product of the Human Mindscape.
Any thoughts Sree?"
Of course, I have but they may not fit into your conceptual paradigm. To you, Nature is physical reality, that world of flora and fauna on a landscape within the dimensions of mass, time and space. God, on the other hand, is a supernatural diety of one kind or another. Now, let see if I can get us “out of the box” into my paradigm.
To me, reality is inherently perceptual in nature because the field of consciousness, prior to cognition, has no material qualities. At the onset of cognition, everything takes on a form, color and texture informed by knowledge to generate an illusion of Nature. Is this supernatural or what? To me, that is God in action.
“The future is rooted in subjective external reality”
