Chris Hedges is also the author of American Fascists: Christian Right and the War on America. In this book, he is arguing something that I have thought for a while now, that the new athiests are religions fundamentalists in many ways. I'm reminded of Dawkins' "Brights". In the introduction he asks the reader to reject the 'utopian' visions that fundamentalists of all types share, and face the coming reality.
I find myself deeply interested in the works of a person who can argue against both Christian and atheist fundamentalism. It shows deeper intelligence than most people display, and mirrors many of my own beliefs.
I'd buy that.
but they're not likely to martyr themselves, so it's not too bad. :lol:
Don't be too sure bout that, Ippy. You should check out some of these less-fluffy atheists. Their splinter movements in politics are rather insteresting. I saw a documentary on that woman who spearheaded the movement here in the US in the 70's and 80's vis a vis suing the government, etc....yeah, that shit was wild. O'Hair her name was.
Kai, great selection of reading. Reminds me to get less fluffy myself in materials I peruse these days.
Hedges is a believer, IIRC, though of a generally benign and somewhat metaphorical bent. That was how he found it so easy to get inside the headspace of the would be American Phalangists, and why they frighten him so much.
I'm with Iptuous, the new atheists are annoying, self-important and abrasive jerks with all the sophistication in thinking of your average pre-schooler, for the most part. Unfortunately, they are mostly correct in their beliefs and as annoying and counterproductive as they sometimes are, they mostly do little harm.
However I would be interested to hear more about the book and his thoughts on the matter.
One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect."Human individuals make moral advances, as do human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal collective is not linear." He also points out that moral arguements based on science are as scary as those based on religious fundamentalism.
Some stuff I am agreeing with, other stuff I am not. He focuses on the word "sin", though I think by sin hes just using a cultural epithet for the flaws in human nature.
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 04:57:13 PM
One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect."Human individuals make moral advances, as do human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal collective is not linear." He also points out that moral arguements based on science are as scary as those based on religious fundamentalism.
Some stuff I am agreeing with, other stuff I am not. He focuses on the word "sin", though I think by sin hes just using a cultural epithet for the flaws in human nature.
Huh. Wow. I wonder what he sees as a "moral reversal." Been my understanding what's perceived as a "reversal" is just suddenly revealed knowledge that was heretofore unknown or hidden.
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 04:56:07 PM
Hedges is a believer, IIRC, though of a generally benign and somewhat metaphorical bent. That was how he found it so easy to get inside the headspace of the would be American Phalangists, and why they frighten him so much.
I'm with Iptuous, the new atheists are annoying, self-important and abrasive jerks with all the sophistication in thinking of your average pre-schooler, for the most part. Unfortunately, they are mostly correct in their beliefs and as annoying and counterproductive as they sometimes are, they mostly do little harm.
They are rather annoyingly rabid in their own way, :lol:
I think the fervor of their cause has dampened down in recent political times. I think they were more active in the 80's. I am surprised with the surge in religiosity in US politics they didn't come out of the woodwork more.
The cause(s) of which is/are probably numerous.
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 04:56:07 PM
Hedges is a believer, IIRC, though of a generally benign and somewhat metaphorical bent. That was how he found it so easy to get inside the headspace of the would be American Phalangists, and why they frighten him so much.
I'm with Iptuous, the new atheists are annoying, self-important and abrasive jerks with all the sophistication in thinking of your average pre-schooler, for the most part. Unfortunately, they are mostly correct in their beliefs and as annoying and counterproductive as they sometimes are, they mostly do little harm.
However I would be interested to hear more about the book and his thoughts on the matter.
He is a believer, but by the way he writes about god it seems much more nebulous than any Christian I have heard before, barring Bishop Spong. Right now he is talking about divinity and trancendence going beyond a personal god concept.
QuoteThe danger arises when the myths we tell about ourselves endow us with divine power, when we believe that it is our role to shape human destiny, for then we become gods....The result for those who defy us, is the same -- repression and often death. The refusal to acknowlege human limitations and our irrevokable flaws can thus cross secular and religious lines to feed both religious fundamentalism and the idolization of technology, reason, and science.
Jenne, I'm not sure what constitutes as a moral reversal, but by the way he talks I think he is referring to extreme examples, like genocide.
Also, a prominent athiest hack (who otherwise does good scientific work IIRC) is Myers of Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/))
Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass. He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century. It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:10:41 PM
Jenne, I'm not sure what constitutes as a moral reversal, but by the way he talks I think he is referring to extreme examples, like genocide.
Also, a prominent athiest hack (who otherwise does good scientific work IIRC) is Myers of Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/))
1) Gotcha--guess that sort of makes sense...
2) So yoinking and sending this! thanks!
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 05:13:01 PM
Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass. He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century. It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).
Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.
Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:25:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 05:13:01 PM
Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass. He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century. It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).
Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.
Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.
Kai, that is a beautiful motorcycle.
Every solider should be followed by a hunchback...
!?!?!?!?!?!?...
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:25:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 05:13:01 PM
Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass. He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century. It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).
Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.
Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.
Rata's right--great summation. Fundies of any type are abhorrent. I think those of us like myself holding very strong opinions can fall into this easily...and I remember how hard it was to "fall out" of the fundi-ness I'd been brought up to "believe" in as well.
Hedges points out that Sam Harris makes the same "all muslims are terrorists" lumping that other fundamentalists do. He also points out that while the Enlightenment had some good ideas it also brought about the idea that western civilization is superior, leading to blacks and aborigines being deemed inferior races and other incidences of scientific racism.
There is this claim that the Enlightement served as the basis for Soviet gulags but I don't know how that fits.
There seems to be much talk about how religion or spirituality has no more use these days. Hodges says that athiests fill this gap with science and create a new sort of faith with utopian visions of technology and wonder, a "glorious future". I like how he talks about religious understanding taking time and effort, and is often belittled.
The three Athiest figures that he continually brings back are Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, btw.
Edit: I didn't realize before that Hitchens called for a first strike nuclear attack on the "Islamic" world.
Quote from: Jenne on November 25, 2008, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:25:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 05:13:01 PM
Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass. He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century. It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).
Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.
Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.
Rata's right--great summation. Fundies of any type are abhorrent. I think those of us like myself holding very strong opinions can fall into this easily...and I remember how hard it was to "fall out" of the fundi-ness I'd been brought up to "believe" in as well.
I agree totally... It's been an exhauting process trying to rid myself of true belief and I still occasionally find it popping up in an attempt to help me TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS RIGHT.
Stupid prison ;-)
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:10:41 PM
Also, a prominent athiest hack (who otherwise does good scientific work IIRC) is Myers of Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/))
What specifically do you have against PZ? I've read his blog on a regular basis for months and have only seen one or two things that I would call egregious. The Cracker incident ruffled a lot of feathers, but I see exactly why he did it and don't think he stepped over the line.
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:52:56 PM
The three Athiest figures that he continually brings back are Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, btw.
Edit: I didn't realize before that Hitchens called for a first strike nuclear attack on the "Islamic" world.
Yeah, Hitchens is an ass and Harris makes some hasty generalizations about moderates and liberals enabling right wing crazies. I don't see why so many people have problems with Dawkins though. The only criticisms I've seen are of him being "arrogant" and "full of himself". I've never seen anyone point out where they think he is wrong.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 25, 2008, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:10:41 PM
Also, a prominent athiest hack (who otherwise does good scientific work IIRC) is Myers of Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/))
What specifically do you have against PZ? I've read his blog on a regular basis for months and have only seen one or two things that I would call egregious. The Cracker incident ruffled a lot of feathers, but I see exactly why he did it and don't think he stepped over the line.
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:52:56 PM
The three Athiest figures that he continually brings back are Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, btw.
Edit: I didn't realize before that Hitchens called for a first strike nuclear attack on the "Islamic" world.
Yeah, Hitchens is an ass and Harris makes some hasty generalizations about moderates and liberals enabling right wing crazies. I don't see why so many people have problems with Dawkins though. The only criticisms I've seen are of him being "arrogant" and "full of himself". I've never seen anyone point out where they think he is wrong.
Myers is a partistan hack. What bothers me is that he claims to be for science but in many ways is just a blind follower. I got tired of him after an incident where I claimed all the elected democrats to the senate was a pyhrric victory due to the passage of gay marriage bans in several states, if even that, and I got jumped on. These people are just as selfish and shallow as everyone else but they don't see it because they are so blinded by science and their vision of idealized utopia.
Dawkins is probably not so bad, but he did coin the term Brights, and he has Athiest fundie followers.
Just because people do good science doesn't make them deep, introspective, moral, or plesant. They have all the flaws of everyone else but they don't recognize it and they should
know better.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 25, 2008, 06:02:34 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 25, 2008, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:25:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 05:13:01 PM
Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass. He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century. It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).
Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.
Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.
Rata's right--great summation. Fundies of any type are abhorrent. I think those of us like myself holding very strong opinions can fall into this easily...and I remember how hard it was to "fall out" of the fundi-ness I'd been brought up to "believe" in as well.
I agree totally... It's been an exhauting process trying to rid myself of true belief and I still occasionally find it popping up in an attempt to help me TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS RIGHT.
Stupid prison ;-)
Heh, I don't think it's bad to do that, just bad to not consider you might be wrong somewhere. And that what's right for you might not always be right for someone else, but then, I guess you wouldn't be so "right" if there were all those caveats, eh?
Quote from: Jenne on November 25, 2008, 06:51:15 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 25, 2008, 06:02:34 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 25, 2008, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 05:25:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 25, 2008, 05:13:01 PM
Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass. He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century. It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).
Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.
Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.
Rata's right--great summation. Fundies of any type are abhorrent. I think those of us like myself holding very strong opinions can fall into this easily...and I remember how hard it was to "fall out" of the fundi-ness I'd been brought up to "believe" in as well.
I agree totally... It's been an exhauting process trying to rid myself of true belief and I still occasionally find it popping up in an attempt to help me TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS RIGHT.
Stupid prison ;-)
Heh, I don't think it's bad to do that, just bad to not consider you might be wrong somewhere. And that what's right for you might not always be right for someone else, but then, I guess you wouldn't be so "right" if there were all those caveats, eh?
Purrzactly (see, that's me overcoming my furry brick) :fnord:
I think the problem with guys like Dawkins is that they draw conclusions:
"Blah and Blah and Blah Therefore, Religion is Wrong, Stupid and if you teach it to your kids its worse than physical abuse"
See thats much like:
"Blah and Blah and Blah Therefore, being Gay is Wrong, Stupid and if you allow your kids to be gay they will burn in Hell and it will be your fault."
"Blah and Blah and Blah Therefore, Belief is Wrong, Stupid and if you teach it to your kids its worse than being stuck in the Land of Thud during coleslaw season!"
:lulz:
I have to warn my husband against this--he's the WORST. He's a reformed Muslim...and he's a Westernized Afghan. Goddamn but he had to overcome a LOT of prejudice, ignorance and preconceived "ideals"...and some of them are so in-grained (and I believe culturally so) that they pop up in bizarro areas.
I have warned him that he may be sooo far on the atheist side that he might drive his children to religion just by sheer will of his intolerance of it.
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 06:28:31 PM
Myers is a partistan hack. What bothers me is that he claims to be for science but in many ways is just a blind follower.
Yeah, I was kinda put off on how he covered politics over the last couple of months. There's a way to root for your team that is still civil and he didn't even try to do that.
QuoteI got tired of him after an incident where I claimed all the elected democrats to the senate was a pyhrric victory due to the passage of gay marriage bans in several states, if even that, and I got jumped on.
I will try not to jack this thread but the Democrats winning Congress and the presidency will be good for people in favor of gay marriage in the long run. The only way to get gay marriage approved in ALL states is to go through the Judicial Branch. And guess who gets to stack the Judical Branch for the next 2-8 years...
QuoteThese people are just as selfish and shallow as everyone else but they don't see it because they are so blinded by science and their vision of idealized utopia.
Blinded by science?
(http://www.vh1.com/shows/series/the_greatest/one_hit_wonders/quiz/img/1.jpg)
You are going to have to explain what you mean by that one. I do agree with you on the utopian ideals though. There is no possible way to get rid of religion completely. People have a need to believe in the illogical. Attempting to legislate belief is like trying to piss up a rope.
QuoteDawkins is probably not so bad, but he did coin the term Brights, and he has Athiest fundie followers.
Yeah, the whole Brights thing never made sense to me. It's like they never stopped to think about how people might react to the implication that everyone not in their group was a Dull.
QuoteJust because people do good science doesn't make them deep, introspective, moral, or plesant. They have all the flaws of everyone else but they don't recognize it and they should know better.
Agreed. The Cult of Personality is bad no matter who is in charge.
Blinded by science meaning in awe of technological development and their own ego gratification and research so much that they can fail to see anything outside their ivory tower, that humans don't operate by the scientific method, and that physics cannot derive the root of happiness.
Blinded by religion means in awe of sacred development and their own ego gratification and dogma so much that they can fail to see anything outside of their rectory, that humans live in a pluralistic society, and that morality is not absolute.
Its the same thing.
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 04:57:13 PM
One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.
Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on November 25, 2008, 11:14:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 04:57:13 PM
One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.
Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!
Roger would say: "I don't have to practice what I preach because
I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 11:50:53 PM
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on November 25, 2008, 11:14:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 04:57:13 PM
One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.
Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!
Roger would say: "I don't have to practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
He IS The Good Reverend
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on November 26, 2008, 04:04:55 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 11:50:53 PM
Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on November 25, 2008, 11:14:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 25, 2008, 04:57:13 PM
One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.
Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!
Roger would say: "I don't have to practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
He IS The Good Reverend
Where IS he lately? I MISS HIM. :cry:
I think I saw the 'lets nuke the middle east' guy speak. The Objectivist society at my Uni brought him in.
Have been reading more of this book. He just seems to be expanding upon the general premise with more and more examples, the general premise being fundamentalism (of any type) = bad. I need to finish the book before I can really synthesize any particular thought about it.
Also reading Born Digital right now, by Palfrey/Gasser, or more like skimming it. Most of the stuff they talk about, like identity, personal information sharing, internet dossiers, etc, are things we either take for granted or have talked about extensively.
Was sitting at the bar last night, reading IDBIA and trying to summarize the main points. This is just assuming Hedges has already put forward his points and the rest of the book (I'm more than halfway) is just more supporting evidence.
The major assumption Hedges starts off with is that human nature is flawed. Whether you call it sin, or something else, human beings are constantly afflicted by greed, for wealth and power, and temperment for violence. This is something that has been shown throughout the history of human civilization, cycles of wars and unrest. Hedges sees in this no moral advancement of humanity; we are still stuck with the same basic flaws we started with, and while individually we can work out this sin (or whatever you want to call it) through ethics, and tempering of our flawed nature, while collectively we are brutal and violent. Utopia, is by Hedges, impossible.
Now, generally, people can individually or at a collective level develop systems of ethics (either religious or nonreligious) that work in tempering human nature. Athiests and theists alike can do this, it doesn't require a believe in a personal god to be moral. All these ethical systems are still working on the basic concept that human nature is flawed, it has always been flawed and it will always be flawed, so we make "rules" for ourselves and others to temper these flaws.
However, if you go beyond that, and find believe in some sort of moral progress of humanity, and have a vision of a future utopia, then you have forsaken this idea of a flawed humanity. You see this utopian vision and the "ends justify the means". Whether this vision is of a unified people under science and technology or a glorious heaven, they are both false visions because they fail to accept the reality of human nature. This is something that both christians who believe in the rapture and visions of the second coming and athiests who see a technological utopia where all the wrongs of human society will be banished share. They are fundamentalists, in the sense that they hold to a fundamental vision that does not match reality and cannot be swayed from this vision. This fundamentalism leads to self-deification and the inability to do no wrong in their quest.
In shorter summary, human nature is flawed. Ethics can be used to check these flaws. Utopia is impossible, and those who have utopic visions are dangerous in that they have lost sight of flawed humanity, allowing them to justify any act in their efforts to make this vision a reality. Fundamentalists, either Theist or Atheist, are bad.
This is very interesting to me. Thanks for the analysis. I dunno if you would be interested in taking a look at the debates here:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-09-28.html
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html
2 of the debates are between Deepak Chopra & Michael Shermer, 1 is about science, the afterlife & the meaning of life & the other is about the value of skepticism.
I like the idea of skepticism but the practice sometimes falls short. I also like the idea of presenting other views besides Chritianity, especially the fundamentalist type of the kind most popular in the US.
Thank you. Skepticism is always good. What Hedges is advocating is not so much universal skepticism, however, but universal understanding that human nature is flawed. He doesn't advocate any particular religion in the book as far as I can see. He also wasn't about presenting other viewpoints, for example, he doesn't talk much about theology or belief aside from his main premise. He accepts that athiests and christians can have equally moral ethic systems, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with each view, but beyond that he focuses upon fundamentalism specifically.
I did read the essays. They seemed to reflect the MO's of these people as I know them. Deepak Chopra is a mystic of sorts that tries to bind science with religion but often looses sight of reality. Johnathan Wells is a crackpot; I've talked about him here before. Shermer is the only one I had not read previously, and he seems to be alright. Like Chopra he is trying to find middle ground between science and religion, and that is admirable. I especially like when people admit they just don't know.
Shermer is fantastic. I've only read a couple of things by him but have seen plenty of interviews, lectures, and debates. I'd recommend anything you can find by him.
You might like Steven Novella too, Kai. He's a neurologist, president of the New England Skeptic Society, does the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast and the Science-Based Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/) blog.
Hah! Was reading that blog in the above link, about anti-vaccine people. Thats really funny, yah know, or more aptly termed HORRORMIRTH because all it would take for something like polio to return in large numbers is to stop giving the vaccine.
So, in the last chapter of IDBIA, Hedges predictably makes his case for the usefulness of religion. I guess I don't mind it so much, since his whole book has been excellent overall, and he is working from that viewpoint so probably feels it needs to be said. I had to return Born Digital recently, it was about to go overdue.
At present, I have several journals including Cladistics, Science, Annals of the Entomological Society of America and others. I also have a book on loan from my adviser on systematics, several books on the philosophy of biology including one on Popperian philosophy, a book on biological morphometry, and the book on aquatic ecosystems I still haven't paged through.
Came across this quote (again) & thought of this thread & Kai.
QuoteThese ought to be the best of times for the human mind, but it is not so. All sorts of things seem to be turning out wrong, & the century seems to be slipping through our fingers here at the end, with almost all promises unfulfilled. I cannot begin to guess at all the causes of our cultural sadness, not even the most important ones, but I can think of one thing that is wrong with us & eats away at us: We do not know enough about ourselves. We are ignorant about how we work, about where we fit in, & most of all about the enormous, imponderable system of life in which we are embedded as working parts. We do not really understand nature, at all. We have come a long way indeed, but just enough to become conscious of our ignorance. It is not so bad a thing to be totally ignorant; the hard thing is to be partway along toward real knowledge, far enough to be aware of being ignorant. It is embarrassing & depressing, & it is one of our troubles today.
It is a new experience for all of us. Only two centuries ago we could explain everything about everything, out of pure reason, & now most of that elaborate & harmonious structure has come apart before our eyes. We are dumb.
This is, in a certain sense, a health problem after all. For as long as we are bewildered by the mystery of ourselves, & confused by the strangeness of our uncomfortable connection to all the rest of life, & dumbfounded by the inscrutability of our own minds, we cannot be said to be healthy animals in today's world.
We need to know more. To come to realize this is what this seemingly inconclusive century has been all about. We have discovered how to ask important questions, & now we really do need, as an urgent matter, for the sake of our civilization, to obtain some answers. We now know that we cannot do this any longer by searching our minds, for there is not enough there to search, nor can we find the truth by guessing at it or by making up stories for ourselves. We cannot stop where we are, stuck with today's level of understanding, nor can we go back. I do see that we have a real choice in this, for I can see only the one way ahead. We need science, more & better science, not for its technology, not for leisure, not even for health or longevity, but for the hope of wisdom which our kind of culture must acquire for its survival.
-Lewis Thomas
from The Medusa & the Snail 1983
QuoteThe whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell