One of those quotations I really, really like and wish I had said comes from the
late Roy Mankovitz, scientist and nature-based illness prevention researcher,
who said:
The beauty of revering nature is that she provides the same
guidance to all living things, and we don't need self-appointed paid
intermediaries. We do not have to suspend reality or have an unrealistic belief
system. We just have to look out the window at the plants, animals, and soil and
there she is in all her beauty.
I got that from a comment he left on an old post concerning the conflict
between science and religion over at the Huffington Post.
In the same comment Mankovitz said he had "a deep reverence for that which
has caused everything in our universe (and probably others) to evolve and
exist." And he decried the "pathetic level of comprehension" that leads so many
to apply "anthropomorphic traits" to the "that which."
So do I. So do I.
It's strange, I think, the way so many mostly ignore what has been called
the "fearful symmetry" of nature. There is a depth there that fascinates me
beyond words.
19 comments:
My favourite post yet. :-)
For me, a lot of this appears to still have atavistic jargon & concepts:
(a) How does nature supply guidance?
(b) Depending on which window you are looking out, there may not be beauty.
(c) Is there really ONE THING that "causes everything in our universe"? (teleology?)
But certain, "self-appointed intermediaries" and "anthropomorphic traits" are good to question. But "guidance", "beauty", "purpose" -- these all sound very anthropomorphic to me. And do we really have to accept Monism?
Can't the universe be beautiful and ugly, pleasant and unpleasant, inspiring and disheartening and empty of purpose while full of us?
BTW, I see he passed away recently -- was he a friend of yours? (he has an amazing history)
Ah, fearful symmetry. I like the William Blake reference.
"... we don't need self-appointed paid intermediaries."
Hmmm. Do biologists count?
Nature fascinates and enchants the inquiring mind. Sometimes the observing mind, desirous of meaning over meaninglessness, order over chaos, may in its inner workings conflate conception with perception.
It is the task of critical thinking to try to minimize this tendency in order that perception may be more accurate. The critical thinking and poetic sides of my nature are sometimes in opposition.
I have trouble even if the God concept is softened or diluted down to merely 'that which'. This, to my way of thinking, validates the 'faith' thinking of Christianity, sharing as it does the belief in unseen, unevidenced entities. My outlook is something more on the order of what is called the null hypothesis.
Ah, well, this is likely just unprofitable rehash of what you already know about how I think! I see and respect how much you are trying to get it right, just as I am. I think that perhaps both of us tend to find things out there that support how we already think. This is a universal human tendency not easy to overcome.
Sabio said:
"Can't the universe be beautiful and ugly, pleasant and unpleasant, inspiring and disheartening and empty of purpose while full of us?"
For me, this lends to a nihilistic viewpoint, which I suppose is valid if that's the way one chooses to look at things.
Yes, it can be all of those things but again, for me, it depends on the assignment of purpose. Am I assigning purpose to a god or a hereafter? No. Purpose is that for which I make important; spouse, children, nature, leaving this place better than I found it.
I can see how nature provides guidance in that we learn from natural processes. Medicine, for example could be guidance obtained from nature.
"that which has caused everything in our universe (and probably others) to evolve and exist" doesn't necessarily imply to me a single "that", nor that "that" is a "who", nor that "that" cannot be known. Simply that we do not now know and that it is alright to be in awe of it anyway.
@ Zoe,
I'm so glad you liked this one.
@ Sabio,
I don't think we can discuss this type of thing without using some form of jargon & concepts, and I don't see why we must limit ourselves to nihilistic ones.
I'm amazed when I observe the insects and animals and realize none of us arrive with instruction manuals, yet spiders spin intricate and very functional webs without schooling, birds and other animals build adequate nests the same way. Instinct teaches a lot. Just the other day one of my cats was puny and not eager to eat the food I put out for him. He ate some grass and after a bit vomited, after which he felt better and ate heartily. The first real job I ever had was third shift. In short time I developed severe insomnia, digestive problems and a general mental depression. After finding a day job and getting more in tune with my natural circadian rhythm my health gradually but completely returned to normal. I'm just suggesting that nature's guidance shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Mankovitz didn't and certainly yours truly certainly doesn't think the cosmos revolves around humankind. I don't think it necessary to look at it that way in order to be amazed. Beauty and ugliness are very subjective things, very much in the eye of the beholder.
I think whether we see "one thing" back of it all (laws of nature?) or not is problematical. I do say for me it is very hard for me to study nature, to read about evolution and not think of intelligence. Perhaps it is intrinsic to nature. I wouldn't necessarily bring teleology into it. It's enough for me to be amazed at the way wings, for example, have evolved more than once and that eyes variously evolved from light sensitive patches, among other things that just blow me away. Even a confirmed atheist like Richard Dawkins admits that there is "apparent design" in nature. I'm not sure I know how we distinguish apparent design from actual design without first making some basic assumptions.
And to answer your question, no I didn't personally know Mankovitz, but I'm usually impressed by outside-the-box thinkers.
@ Ahab,
I'm a fan of Blake's and have mentioned him and used his art here on my blog in the past and likely will again in the future.
Good question about the biologists.
@ Exrelayman,
I simply refuse to let religious fundamentalists control the debate or how I choose to think about ultimate questions.
Of course, as your rightly point out, all of us are subject to confirmation bias. That should make us all a bit humble and more open minded, shouldn't it?
DMa,
I really enjoyed and appreciate your participation in this discussion.
You had mentioned an email, but I never got one from you. Let me give you my primary email account and if you want to contact me, you can do so there, okay?
karengogginsmiller@yahoo.com
Nihilism is annihilated when meaning is created by us. No need to attribute it to something supposedly bigger and better than yourself -- leaders, gods or nature.
But I understand how all those images and models can be comforting and inspiring for many folks.
@ Mildred Ratched,
I believe I used contact info from your profile page. I do like to check on my readers when I don't see them around on the net. I will save this for future reference. Thanks.
"But I understand how all those images and models can be comforting and inspiring for many folks."
Do you realize how condescending that statement appears?
"Nihilism is annihilated when meaning is created by us."
True, if one assumes meaning isn't there to begin with and nihilism is truth rather than an alternative way of looking at things.
"No need to attribute it to something supposedly bigger and better than yourself -- leaders, gods or nature."
And no need to go out of our way to avoid such attribution.
Well, this post criticizes anthropomorphic traits, and I am merely pointing out how they glaringly persist.
Then you say, "And no need to go out of our way to avoid such attribution." [that is, god-like things]
But your counter argument is exactly that used by all theists too. Christians would argue that I have no need to go out of my way to avoid attributing all-powerful, all-knowing and such to their god either.
But debating will not improve this discussion, I am pretty sure, for belief is a funny thing like that.
I believe man tends to think "anthropmorphically". I often find myself overthinking. I try to stop myself. If I am able to do that, I enjoy life much more.
@ Sabio,
Okay, I think I understand your point now.
But as I understand Mankovitz and of course myself, it is the "pathetic level" that is the issue. I think of God more as a metaphor and an "it" rather than a he or she. I think a certain level of pesonalizing language is almost inevitable. Just about everything we say, I suppose, comes as a matter of human opinion based on a human perspective.
I think theism is too specific a concept - at least for me it is. But I'm not totally closed-minded.
I do agree with what you say about belief being a funny thing. And as I rethink even some of the arguments I've made in the past here on my blog, I think I've sometimes been guilty of at least overly simplifying things. More agonizing is that I think I have been unreasonably uncharitable sometimes. That's why I appreciate oppposing viewpoints such as yours and Exrelayman's. And I want to try to do better.
@ Don,
Absolutely. I'm a survivor of adult orthodontics. I remember my orthodontist trying to impress upon me the importance of wearing my retainers after my initial treatment, because, as he explained it to me: "Teeth have memory and if you don't wear your retainers they will go back to their former positions." I didn't understand that literally, but his point was clear enough for me still.
Post a Comment