Re: so what?

Steve wrote:

"Since scientific humanism produced virtually
everything bad associated with
religion (intolerance, conformity,  inquisitions, etc)
and left out the good
(spiritual ectasy, art, communal rituals) why exactly
are we supposed to
believe it is THE path for the twenty-first century?"

I don't think that's right, actually.  There is plenty
of evidence that "scientific humanism" (if by that we
mean the state religion of the Socialist Bloc
countries, or something very close to it) included the
"good" elements of religion - there were certainly
communal rituals (the popularity of which is often
understated or ignored in the West and among Soviet
emigres), there was a large amount of world-class art
(either in the early stages, or, in the case of the
later periods, usually in more traditional pursuits
such as ballet, opera, symphonic music).  As for
spiritual ecstasy, we must understand under this
rubric not only sex, drugs and rock n' roll, but also
that which is sometimes called "the pursuit of Truth"
- in other words, all scientific research.  The
categorization of such as a merely practical, material
pursuit is a legacy of orthodox Christian theology,
though because they accepted it and propagated it,
proponents of "scientific humanism" bear a share of
the blame as well.

On the larger point - that there is no reason to
accept "scientific humanism" as THE path for the 21st
(or any other) century, Steve is, however, absolutely
correct.

Warren Wagar wrote:

"The
point is, to follow up on Steven Sherman's question,
what should our
world-view be in the 21st Century?  If not scientific
humanism, then what?
If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.  I think
the question is
important precisely because I believe that religion in
the sense of shared
beliefs about the good and the real and the ground of
knowledge is vital
to our mental health.  But reversion to Christianity,
Islam, Hinduism,
and the rest violates reason and promotes human
divisiveness.  Is there an
alternative?  People like Marx and T.H. Huxley and
Bertrand Russell and
Sigmund Freud thought so.  Were they so wrong?"

Why should there be a 21st century worldview which is
"ours" (who are WE, anyway?)?  Who will be in charge
of enforcing that this view will remain "ours"?  The
problem with "scientific humanism" as described above
is not that it fails to incorporate genuine religious
experience.  It is that it sees only certain, and very
limited types of such experience as legitimate,
specifically those types which are generally
associated with the 19th century.  This 19th century
religion is then counterposed to equally hypostasized
religions like Islam, which is assigned a century of
its own, the experiences of which it supposedly
fossilizes and carries into the present day.  But
Islam is very diverse, and as a living religion, it
incorporates a variety of religious experiences
through the ages - there is nothing "7th century"
about "Islamic" art, "Islamic" science, or Sufism.  It
is only when certain Muslims begin to prattle about
restoring the Medina Caliphate that Islam becomes
truncated (and not particularly religious).  The same
is true about a religion that exists on sacralizing
the experiences of Marx or Freud at the expense of all
others.  If that is what the legacy of Marx, Freud,
Russell and Huxley is, then one can only say that they
were, indeed, wrong, irrational, and divisive.  If
they are to have a legacy, it is as proponents of
democratizing religious experience - in undermining
the clergies which claimed a monopoly on it, rather
than in building up a new scientistic orthodoxy.  Can "scientific
humanism" become a living tradition and come to terms with other
traditions, instead of offering us a "humanistic civilization" obsessed
with 1848 or 1917?



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com