From: Russell Blackford (rblackford@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 13 2001 - 02:40:28 MDT
Samantha Atkins said
>A lot hinges on just what you mean by "rational" and
>"religious". I believe that it is not only possible but even
>necessary to have some handle on at least what I would call the
>"spiritual" if not the "religious" aspects of existence if one
>is to be not only "rational" but have much real "wisdom".
But what do you mean by "spiritual"? This seems to me an over-used word in
our contemporary culture and it's one that I deliberately avoid. I certainly
do accept the significance of the artistic, aesthetic, deeply personal,
moral, etc aspects of our lives. One or more of these is often meant by the
word "spiritual", but I can find no separate use for the word "spiritual"
and I dislike it, even as a kind of catch-all expression for all the above,
because it suggests, or at least insinuates or relies on the resonances of,
a supernatural realm.
>Although to be honest it sets even my teeth on edge to have to
>dance around these concepts at times. But I don't think the
>"religious" have any monopoly on "irrational" and generally
>boneheaded ideas and practices.
Granted. But I get tired of what are essentially religious or
quasi-religious objections to biotechnology. "Quasi-religious" objections
include those of a lot of professional bioethicists, such as Margaret
Somerville. In her case, she keeps blathering about how we must give "deep
respect" or "reverence" to life, including every embryo, even when it's only
a clump of 8-or-whatever cells. I can see no basis to give the same sort of
respect to an early embryo, which has no feelings, thoughts, prefences or
even nervous system, as we give to a fully-formed human person (or as we
give to, say, a late-term fetus or a new-born baby, but there are a *lot* of
issues here).
In any event, I am persuaded that
> > humanity and the human condition as we know them will be superseded
>within
> > the next few centuries, if not the next few decades, and that this is,
>at
> > least generally, desirable.
>
>It depends a bit on what we are superseded by, of what happens
>to us and how we grow and develop into or along with whatever is
>coming.
Exactly, which is why I said "generally".
I have a lot of room for humanity transcending its
>condition and definiing limits and thus becoming something
>other. I have much more of a problem with those that think that
>as long as what comes next is a LOT smarter (even if it is
>generally perfectly nasty) that it is perfectly fine if it wipes
>us out.
As above. <g>
Cheers
Russell
==================
Russell Blackford
rblackford@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:06 MST