[p2p-research] Free flipper! argues scientist

[Ryan Lanham]

On 1/6/10, Ted Smith <teddks at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 16:45 +0700, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > the kind of atheism that destroys our connection and participation
> > with the natural world
>
> Who is qualified to say what is "natural" and what is not? Is there a
> way for natural beings such as humans to take action in such a way that
> is not participation in the natural world? What is the nature of this
> "connection"; how is it formed or maintained, and what effect does it
> have on the endpoints? Where are the endpoints?


I think the further messages  in the stream clarified this.  I don't think
it was anti-atheist.

There can be a number of views of continuity--molecularly, we are all just
clouds interacting at some level.  I think it is possible to marvel, as many
physicists do, that material in us must have been made in a supernova...as
nature has no way of formulating heavy elements without that sort of
energy.  To acknowledge that, celebrate it, and even be moved to spiritual
feelings by it is not unreasonable.  In a sense, there is oneness with the
universe in that regard.

Further, we can have allusions, points of wonder and cultural expressions of
marvel without giving in to old-styled metaphysics.


>
> it's simply part of human experience, and there is no obligation to go
> into it (like art and music, the life of the spirit is an option), but
> I do have the problem with those that are aggressively against it, and
> cannot make the finer distinctions between religious belief, religious
> power institutions, spiritual experiences, and bodymind technologies,

I don't see the distinction you're making between "religious belief" and
"spiritual experiences". Presumably, religious belief is a subset of
spiritual experiences, where spiritual experiences are any experiences
involving some sort of extra-natural majick-y phenomena.

? Not at all.  See above.


It seems to me that I am one of these atheists that you are
"critiquing". I certainly do not see irrational, evidence-agnostic "life
systems" like most New Age or imported Eastern beliefs as a part of
"human experience" that is to be desired. I certainly have my own
reasons for my opinions, as you do for yours, but I don't see how my
opinions are in any way misaligned with the desire for a peer-to-peer
society. It seems to me that you're implying this; is this indeed the
case? If so, why?


I really think it was clarified that Michel was not attacking atheists.  I
think he was critiquing the idea that people can be so "rational" as to be
closed off to a range of experiences and worldviews that rely on the
spiritual elements of cultures, feelings and anything that causes us to
approach the world with an ethic that is not purely mechanistic.  This
builds on a long discussion involving humanness and the advances (possible)
of robots.  I believe it is partially searching for ground that makes our
experiences and feelings distinct from the purely objective/mechanical.  It
was, I am convinced, not meant as insulting to atheists in the way, say, a
Christian is when they want to bar you from voting or something.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100106/68e863e7/attachment.html>