I wish I had read this first before wasting time replying to your earlier comments. At the end of the day, I can’t help but think you’re just interested in point scoring, and not in an honest discussion.
Honest discussion
is point scoring, in my book, in both directions. But perhaps you
are mistaken on my goals here. If you read where I parachuted in, unannounced and uninvited, it was to challenge the thrust (as I understood it) of Spock’s OP. Rather than some kind of assault on superstition, the bit of correction I had to offer was to a fellow atheist, and I believe a fellow materialist. I simply thought either he had overlooked a fairly substantial bit of current science, or was using “moral code” in a much more “high functioning” sense than I’m accustomed to.
I understand the use of “superstition” wigs out many Christians, but that is really just an artifact of the special treatment Christians have gotten used to in their traditional position of cultural power (see
here, for example, where a Christian suggest to me that Christianity is some
antidote for superstition – hah! the dominant form of magical thinking supposes it’s beaten the rap because it’s culturally dominant, and looks down its nose hypocritically at its fellow superstitionists.
If you read the way I started, my issue was with the atheist, though, and on science matters.
Your constant use of the word ‘superstition’, and analogy with astrology indidcates a deep and profound prejudice, verging on hatred, which is unanswerable.
It’s not the least bit prejudiced. It’s a razor I can and do apply consistently across the board
You claim to have ‘a lot of experience and reading behind’ you on the topic, but frankly, I’ve seen none of it. My first year students come up with more compelling insights and comments than I’ve seen here. You’re good at name dropping, but most of it is just non-sequiturs with little bearing on the discussion at hand.
I think you’re just expecting our exchange to be something way different than what it is. I’m not looking to establish any
bona fides on the various streams of historical thinking on natural, but rather just to point that for the point I was making, they are all of a piece – exercises in superstition. I’m not at all surprised to hear that’s not a particular attractive context for the points you apparently want to make, but that’s OK. I didn’t come to you with that, remember?
My claim was much more narrow than you want, I guess; I’m just saying I’m experienced enough to understand that despite all the diversity of thought on natural law over centuries, it all coalesces on a superstitious foundation. That’s all. I know you find that dismissive. So does my astrologist friend who wants to regale me with the finer points of cosmic destiny via the zodiac.
What is it you’re really looking for? You’ve already made it clear that you have no interest in academic honesty or a quest for truth.
OK, now you’re very seriously overreaching. I understand your hackles are up because you dislike owning your superstitions, but that’s getting way out over your skis, as they say here in Minnesota.
But something must be keeping you here. I’m not sure I’m the person to help you find it. I come here because I love philosophy and theology. I think I’ve made a mistake in thinking you shared that interest?
I love philosophy, and I love science. I generally disdain theology as something completely oversold and disingenuous about itself and its… gravitas, intellectually. But I’ve spent a whole lot of my adult life absorbed in it, so there’s still a lot of 'interest inertia" in it.
Look at my post to Spock, though. He was who I was addressing, and it was on matters of science and grounded epistemology. That’s a primary interest for me. If that’s not your cup o’ tea, I don’t want to waste your time.
-TS
).
