[FoRK] materialism vs. humanism

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi Lucas,

On Dec 29, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
> Hi Dr. Ernie,
>> I appreciate the attempt to frame things in a positive light.  Could
>> you perhaps elaborate a bit more?  For example, do you also consider
>> belief in things like "love" and "beauty" aspects of mysticism? Or do
>> you have a way to define so-called "transcendent" values in material
>> terms?
>
> I see love and beauty as arising from the natural world.  Anything
> real fits in just fine.

Hmm.  It seems like you're just begging the question then. Or else I'm  
totally missing your point.

> The material world is fantastically complex and subtle.  Our
> difficulties with quantifying things like love and beauty are
> artifacts of our own evolution.  They are our limitations, not the
> world's.

On Dec 30, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote:

> I dunno, Jef, I think you're crossing layers.  It's true that one
> could infer from my statement that I agree (or not) with your
> description of the real world, but I wasn't making an assertion about
> the nature of the real world.  What I am asserting is that atheism is
> equivalent to believing in the real world.  I am also asserting that
> religion of any kind is the same as not believing in the real world.

But, what is your criteria for determining "what is real"?

Consider this list of so-called "transcendent" values:

* love
* beauty
* justice
* truth
* virtue
* mystery

Are those really attributes _of_ the "real world", or simply _human_  
affect projected _onto_ the real world?

And if the latter, then aren't you really a humanist?

Or am I completely misunderstanding your definition?

-- Ernie P.