From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 30 2001 - 15:41:24 MDT
Greg Burch wrote:
>
>
> The conflict between these two points of view lies behind the three
> different strategies I described in that talk. The truth is that large
> portions of humanity probably aren't really polarized in their thinking
> about progress in general and the incremental augmentation of the human
> animal that marks the path to post-humanity. Thus, appeals to the "middle
> ground" is indeed the best strategy for the short term in seeking progress
> in the transhumanist agenda. And some periods of history evidence the
> success of cultural compromise, or at least the benign neglect of
> fundamental cultural contradictions. Look at the West in the 19th century:
> While the scientific world peacefully went about its business, the
> mainstream culture continued to be "religious", adopting the fruits of
> science and technology in a fairly peaceful, incremental fashion.
>
I would point out that the above seems to imply that the
scientific world does and must exclude religion. In point of
fact some of the greatest scientists and greatest supporters of
science were and are religious. There is no need to set up a
false dichotomy here. There is also a difference between
science and scientism. The latter claims that only
scientifically validated facts say anything of any value at all.
That notion is in conflict with religion, and with most
philosophy and with valuing much that we consider of great value
in our lives. That notion (scientism) is also not verifiable
within the closure of what can be verified scientifically.
In my opinion we do not yet have a worldview that unites all
aspects of the human condition that we value and that strongly
supports transhumanism. We should not pretend that scientism is
adequate to the task. And certainly not that all that is not
scientism is our enemy or at least fairly subject to disdain.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:23 MST