It is one of the dishonest, or stupid, conceits of atheism that it is a means of achieving that absurd impossibility, objectivity. Human beings are the ones who are doing that, human beings cannot, in any way, escape the fact that their point of view is not and cannot be one that escapes all of the vicissitudes of that fact, it doesn't even do a particularly good job of escaping any of those by such humanly invented strategies as scientific method.
Someone didn't like me pointing out that materialism imposes human understanding as the limiting factor of the size and nature of the "reality" it declares.
One of the numbest things about materialism is that since materialists declare the limits of reality, those have to fit inside human understanding. If materialism is not limited in that way, it ceases to have any meaning, at all and they may as well not have bothered to express it.
What we conceive of as "the material universe" whether that is the original atomist abstraction of little particles of matter which are solid and indivisible or those who want to use the most up to date model of the atom as a more sophisticated and evidenced substitution for that original misconception we believe came from the Greeks but which, I'll betcha, they stole from uncited Semetic people in the middle-east or the Africans in Egypt, - anyway, all of that is a product of the human imagination, it cannot, as nothing we think, escape from the limits that human minds impose on what we can think. Some scientists, such as A. S. Eddington have understood that. I've used a passage from him before.
It is one thing for the human mind to extract from the phenomena of nature the laws which it has itself put into them; it may be a far harder thing to extract laws over which it has had no control. It is even possible that laws which have not their origin in the mind may be irrational and we can never succeed in formulating them.
That's the kind of thing that drove atheists nuts - enraging some, leading others like Russell into a bitter decades long despair. And the problem for them was, that was what current physics was up against, what I said I thought was the beginning of what John Horgan noted was the current decadence so much science has been brought to. Atheists who have to face that look into an empty dark abyss, Eddington didn't see an abyss because he was a Quaker, not an atheist.
I'm not one either which is why I don't have the dumb idea that people have the ability to limit the boundaries or character of reality. You've got to be a humanist to have the idea that man is the measure of reality and humanism is either religious (I'd still reject its central premise, then) or it turns in and eats itself.
That is something that idiotic 1930s era atheist religion, "Humansim" proves. As it became, especially as that idiot student of John Dewey, the trustfund Stalinist, Corliss Lamont made it after he bought it out in the 1950s, the modern "Humanists" prove the very thing they want to make the measure of all things is something their hatred of God requires them to debunk and destroy. A number of people those shameless fame-fuckers have given their "Humanist of the Year" award to have spent their careers trying to obliterate the human mind that can't be made compatible with their ideology, Daniel Dennett, Rebecca Goldstein, Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, B. F. Skinner, . . .
It was one of the central insights in the old fable of Adam and Eve and the the fall, that human self-aggrandizement, self-deification, leads to nothing but death. If you read those old stories for what they mean instead of mistaking them as biology or history, they're incredibly impressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment