Science v. Philosophy

The following is a paragraph defending or approving of homosexuality.
It is written by a scientist who is defending the behaviour on scientific bases.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take homosexuality, for example.
Iron age scriptures might argue that homosexuality
is "wrong", but scientific discoveries about the frequency of homosexual behaviour
 in a variety of species tell us that it is completely natural in a rather fixed
fraction of populations and that it has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts.
This surely tells us that it is biologically based, not harmful and not innately
"wrong".
In fact, I think you actually accede to this point about the impact of
 science when you argue that our research into non-human cognition has altered
our view of ethics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where to start in terms of a reaction to this paragraph?

i) First - is it really true that there is a great deal of homosexual behavior among other species?
Many would instinctively say that it is true. And if they are asked as to why they are so sure they would perhaps say something like : "I read it somewhere."
Yet is it really true? Where is the evidence?

So - straight away we are possibly dealing with a simple factual inaccuracy. Even maybe a deliberate falsehood.

This is far from what "science" is supposed to be.

ii) Second. The Iron Age scriptures referred to are a problem for the writer seemingly because of their distance in time from us and not because of their "arguments" - which are referred to but not revealed to the reader at all.


Related Comments:

Since when did Philosophy accept any kind of defeat at the hands of "Science"?. Science was called "Natural Philosophy" not that long ago.
Philosophy will never "hand over the reins" to "Science", and never can. And it worries me that you think it ever could. We're all philosophers. Everyone with a Ph.d is supposed to be a filosofer of a kind, are they not?
This piece worries me. The quality of the reasoning - notably with regard to the defence of certain behaviours - is simply not good enuff. And this is why we always need Philosophy - to make sure we can reason well - as we have to in almost any endeavour.

A reply:

It is a such a pity that science went on its own merry materialistic way and severed ties with philosophy - surely to gain an understanding of our complete reality both disciplines are pivotal? for are not physics and metaphysics two sides of the same coin? What's needed is the reconciliation of both disciplines and perhaps with a united front we may make much greater progress.

My reply:


Thanks for reply. Let's hope the talks between Science and Philosophy bear fruit.
Science is a nice guy - and Philosophia is a very lovely lady!

No you are right. In the 20th century the Logical Positivists and such like in the Analytical rather than "Continental" tendency tried to give science and maths a logical basis and rejected much of the filosofy of the past! To be honest I don't think Physics and Metaphysics are exactly "two sides of the same coin" but something like it! And it will be something to discuss in the peace talks. Long may they continue!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another comment:

"Philosophy is useful, but it must be informed by science, because science tells us how things really are. Any philosophy that doesn't take that into account is worthless."

My reply:

Great comment.
In Spanish the word for "Science" - "Ciencia" - stil also connotes what the Anglosphere would simply call "knowledge".
So if you read things back replacing the word "science" with "knowledge" it is very interesting.
The concept of "Science" has maybe taken on a monolithic meaning in English-speaking culture - always seemingly opposed to other things.

.

The relieving of "Spiritual Poverty"

"Blessed are the poor in spirit".

Benedictine European Monasticism's three basic principles -
and they have meaning for all Christians of course - were and still are -

POVERTY
CHASTITY and
OBEDIENCE.

I discuss these previously in this "THINK TANK".

I was thinking that particularly in Europe and North America many, many human beings have no material wants of any kind. On the contrary many, many have far more than they need! etc....

Hence Christianity's and Monasticism's imperative to feed, clothe and satisfy the material needs of others is quite superfluous often.

One of Christianity's original reasons for success was it's loving care for everyone, its explicit sharing, its explicit rejection of property, its holding things in common, its effectively (Non-Marxist) communism.

The beginnings of what could maybe be called Christian socialism - though this would be on a societal level.

Christian communities and churches were "mini welfare states with no bureaucracy"!

This was very unusual in the Eastern Mediterranean cities of the first century!....
And a reason for the growth of the new religion!....
The holding of things in common spoken of in the New Testament was applied and practised quite strictly!
It would MAYBE now be similar to what is called libertarian socialism of a kind. It was new at the time.
Property was renounced by Jesus and this tradition has continued throughout Christian history.
The point to make is that there is so much "property" owned by so many people nowadays that renouncing it becomes meaningless because there is so much of it available!... :).....

What we have in Europe and have had for some time is perhaps "SPIRITUAL POVERTY".

I am reminded at this point of Andre' Malraux's (should be far more) FAMOUS words --

"The 21st Century will be spiritual or it will not be a century at all."

"Man cannot live on bread alone" and if everyone is fed and clothed and housed etc. - and many people have food, clothes and housing enough SEVERAL TIMES OVER - then people and societies are unhappy and troubled for OTHER reasons.....

A much more up-to-date cultural Christianity should thus address a "SPIRITUAL POVERTY"

................................................

Monasticism requires the monk or monastic or simple-liver to
LIVE in poverty but also RELIEVE the poverty of other who have need of its relieving!....

Living in poverty does not just mean living in MATERIAL poverty!
It means being "poor in spirit!"....

RELIEVING MATERIAL POVERTY is less required nowadays.......

RELIEVING a "SPIRITUAL POVERTY" is maybe more required nowadays!

Helping people to appreciate NATURE alone is one thing that I would suggest!

Rather than cars and motorways etc.!......
Not caring that you haven't had an expensive extravagant holiday for years even though everyone else seems to have!.....

I have a friend who drinks all day because he is unhappy or unsatisified.
He has enough money to satisfy ALL his needs for food, clothing, housing and then some.

BUT he chooses to drink all day and hence probably to an early grave! WHY?

He needs relieving of a SPIRITUAL POVERTY, I would say!
The modern friar can and should help with this!.....

The society around us can be OVER-CONSUMERIST (Advertizing culture, "JOBISM" etc.) which can contribute to general unhappiness.

Maybe the man who drinks all day is feeling guilty or regretful.

A modern friar can let him know he has a brother and that his mistakes are forgiven and that there is more to life than the deadly dull routine of daily drunkenness!.....

2016.

I am no longer a Christian of any kind but I leave this here as it is still very relevant to my views.
When I refer to "spiritual" it should be born in mind that in my case I mean spiritual but not religious.

Douglas Adams

"I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing. 
Oh, says man, but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? 
It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't. Q.E.D.
Oh, I hadn't thought of that, says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

Douglas Adams.

He was to science fiction what Miguel Cervantes was to chivalric literature!

-----------------------------------

The Green Golden Rule?

Is there a Green Version of the Golden Rule? Of course!....

Karen Armstrong - and yes she is a living saint, isn't she? - discusses quite often the link between Compassion and the Natural Environment in her books!....

It is all the more relevant today!

What would be a Green Golden Rule?

Don't do to the Planet / Natural Environment etc. what you wouldn't want other humans to do?.. perhaps....

Well the Golden Rule is itself about care.

Christianity is not against environmentalism in my opinion!...

Yes we have been given Stewardship but this means we should look after what we have.
The Bible is full of references to the Natural Environment.....

In Defence of "The Da Vinci Code."

Sunday, May 21, 2006.

In Defence of "The Da Vinci Code."

I will write something here at some point. Here goes. The film of the "Da Vinci Code" is being universally panned. Everyone is saying how awful it is but still everyone is going to see it and writing about it. I would like to slightly leap to its defence. Yes it might be a pretty one dimensional piece of cinema but are the 5 or so other films on at your local multiplex really any better? I really quite enjoyed this film and quite enjoyed the book. They're not the kind of thing I usually like but I did quite like them.

Why? Because they had ideas in them. The Da Vinci Code is not an "inconsequential piece of writing" as an Independent journalist wrote. One consequence it had was her article but anyway. Why is it not inconsequential? Because it deals with questions of religion and of the meaning of European history and culture.

It may do so in a very slap-dash and inaccurate way but it nonetheless deals with these questions.

I don't like to call it "Western" history and/or "Western" culture because I regard this word "Western" as in a sense meaningless.

Also "Western" can often nowadays mean "The USA and England" or "the English-speaking world". Sometimes unconsciously so.
This is the height of deceit.

"West" or "Western" can also imply senses of superiority or otherness or separateness which are all just inaccurate.

The phrase "the Western bombing of Iraq" or "the Western bombing of Serbia". This is annoying.

The "West's" attack on Iraq was never the attack of the "West" if there is such a thing. It was an attack by the USA and England.

The "West" if it means anything, does not and should not mean "The USA and England."
Too often it seems to be allowed to mean this.

Similarly Latin America is perhaps part of the "West" if there is such a thing and should not be excluded in an ethnocentric way as it is by some. It incorporates in its world a lot of what we call Western culture.

This Samuel Huntington conception that the world is sort of split up into distinct civilizations with discrete areas on a map is like something out of a Dungeons and Dragons game for teenagers.

Surely in one sense civilisation is meant as a sort of quality that any part of the globe can possess. Anyway this splitting up of the world is silly. We're all humans.

In the front of the book "The Clash of Civilisations" by Huntington there is a map with the world divided up into various different "civilisations." What a load of childish piffle.

"Western Civilisation" does not occupy a space on a map commensurate with a group of specific countires or states. The same applies to any other "civilisation"..
You can talk of "Islamic civilisation" or "Persian civilisation" but they don't really occupy specific spaces on a map. You can in a sense experience them anywhere on the globe.
"Civilisation" is surely a concept as much as anything else which can exist anywhere where humans are.

I find the idea of a "Western cannon" ridiculous.

I don't know if the USA is part of "the West", if there is such a thing.

At the present time our culture has in a sense fractured off from its history. This is measured by the fact that many people can't tell you how much of the Da Vinci Code is history and how much twaddle because they don't have a clear idea of history anyway.

Anything that makes people engage with history in some way is a good thing, because it means to ask "What am I?", "What is life?".

I think the idea (if only just the idea) of the sacred feminine or divine feminine is of interest. It is true that the divine feminine or the female principle in religion was, if not supressed then diminished by the rise of certain religions.

I am not saying this was done by deliberate supression or deliberately at all. I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theory or in the interpretation of the paintings of Da Vinci in the book/film. Yes you could call it a "book/film", such is the similarity. The Holy Grail was entirely the invention of Cre'tien De Troyes; the word play "Sang Real" is just a coincidence. Anyway Baldrick is yer man for all that. Tony Robinson is on the case.

Nay he has it solved. I am an atheist; I don't particularly like the Catholic church as an institution.

At a stretch I might call myself a cultural Catholic of a sort because there are some things about Catholic culture that I like. I'm a rationalist, a humanist and an atheist.

Religions evolve and always have. Generally what religion people have, is what relgion works. Defining religion very broadly. I don't necessarily think that humans have to have a religion in the conventional sense of the word.

So if this film helps religion evolve then that's fine by me. Let's be honest though - the Catholic Church is probably absolutely ecstatic about the Da Vinci Code because it actually makes it seem interesting and sexy when it isn't really. It's a load of (sometimes harmful) nonsense.

The scenes where they "broad brush stroke" by flashback events in European history as if it was a Lord of Rings fantasy legend were I think enjoyable and I believe not entirely inaccurate.
If people are made to think about European history, if only to debunk all of this film then that is a good thing.
A thriller with a few ideas and a bit of history. That's a good thing in my view.

If the people consuming it have their critical faculties intact. That's where we're having the problems. But thre are ideas in this. However few.

"HOMO SUM, HUMANI NIHIL A ME ALIENUM PUTO."

"HOMO SUM, HUMANI NIHIL A ME ALIENUM PUTO."

"I am HUMAN. Nothing that is human is alien to me."

ROMAN POET - TERRENCE.

Another great motto for America...... :)

History's most famous gay.

If homosexuality exists as an "intrinsic tendency" then how (the feck) and why (the feck) did history's most famous gay - Oscar Wilde - have a loving wife and children?

Also Wilde's "homosexuality" as expressed in his writing is arguably sexist in that it seems to say that "homosexuality"  - specifically male homosexuality - is in some way special.

Wilde never defended the nobility of Lesbianism in his speeches.

There is no more of an intrinsic tendency in humans to "have sex" with members of the same sex - which of course is not really possible - than there is an intrinsic tendency in humans to "have sex" with sheep or horses.

A substantial number of homosexuals admit the truth - that the behaviour they engage in is a choice. Please see www.queerbychoice.com

I fully and compassionately tolerate this behaviour - if it is fully consensual. Indeed the society that I am in now demands that I tolerate this behaviour. But I don't approve of it - nor do I see why I should have to.

I sincerely hope the above posting is tolerated and tolerable.

------------------

I would also like to highlight that it is a myth and a lie that animals exhibit homosexual behaviour of any kind. It is an example of the flagrant manipulation and faking of science to maintain otherwise.

"The Myth of Animal Homosexuality" is the title of an excellent article that is usually available somewhere on-line.

I think it is obviously the case that "homosexuality" does not really exist in nature.

------------------

Any consensus as to when it ended though?

"Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three."

PHILIP LARKIN.

Discussion about issues brought up the poem that this is from:

Do we have a consensus as to when it ended?
My vote is somewhere between '97 and '01....

"BLAME" entry from "A Dictionary of Green Ideas"

Another extract from one of my favourite books of all time.

From "A Dictionary of Green Ideas" by John Button (1988).

"
Blame
[13c. L. blasphemare, to reproach, blaspheme]

The belief that someone has deliberately and maliciously done something to hurt you or others, and should therefore accept the guilt of that action and (frequently) that they should be punished for it. Many green-thinkers make the distinction between "fault" and RESPONSIBILITY, preferring the latter with its positive and powerful connotations. Some go even further, seeing blame as totally futile and unnecessary: "Every single human being at every moment of the past, if the entire situation is taken into account, has always done the very best he or she could do, and so deserves neither blame nor reproach" (Harvey Jackins, 1983). This approach stresses that we are all responsible for what happens in the world, and that much behaviour - whether it be the atrocities of the Third Reich or a sexual assault on a child - which is commonly seen as "evil" or "criminal", while reprehensible cannot be blamed on any one individual. It is OPPRESSION, not innate "fault", that lead people to inhuman behaviour. At the same time, to deny fault is not to deny responsibility - Adolf Hitler was uniquely responsible for his actions, as is the man who assaults a child, as we all are. Such antisocial behaviour cannot be tolerated, but it is only understanding and the fulfilment of basic needs that will help a person to change, not punishment and revenge. In a green and oppression-free society, however, there must always be the space to make individual mistakes, mistakes which are important lessons and which do not deserve blame: "I have the right to make mistakes" (Anne Dickson, 1982). Blame is the perfect way of not dealing with your own FEELINGS, and in a society where feelings are denied it is hardly surprising that blame is so rampant. Blame frequently results from the PROJECTION of ANGER, FEAR and FRUSTRATION, and the confusion between blame and responsibility is so rife in our society that even the most aware of people often prefer to blame anything and anybody rather than acknowledge their own feelings, their own responsibility, and their own power. The blame can even be couched in apparently RIGHT ON political terms, designed to prove the rightness of the blamer and the inevitable guilt of the blamed. When the denial of responsibility joins force with the denial of feelings, the result is VICTIM-blaming, a pernicious aspect of OPPRESSION particularly apparent in the rising tide of VIOLENCE against women. Thus prostitutes are fined, not their clients; rape survivors are told it was their own fault for being out at night.
"

[Words in capitals refer to other entries]

-----

Don't know how much I agree with it but it deserves a hearing.

Article by Tom Leonard

There is a piece available on-line called



"ON THE MASS BOMBING OF IRAQ AND KUWAIT,COMMONLY KNOWN AS "THE GULF WAR"

with

Leonard's Shorter Catechism

or

"And now would you please welcome St Augustine of Hippo, who's come along this evening to talk about The Concept of the Just Fuel-Air-Explosive Bomb."


It is available here:



http://www.tomleonard.co.uk/other_publications/mass_bombing-catechism.shtml

http://leonarduk.com/tom/other_publications/mass_bombing-catechism.shtml

-----



A quote from it, referring to media coverage surrounding the war, is:



"It is just another twist in the story of anti-Semitism: people tend to forget that both the Arabic and the Jewish peoples are Semitic."


-----

I saw and heard of examples of (Anti-Arab) anti-Semitism in England leading up to and during the so-called "war" of 1991.

e.g. "Never trust an A-rab". etc.


-----