Monday, November 15, 2010

What's the point?

I once said - very naively - that I "wanted to work it out before I died".  And what was the "it"?  Why, the meaning of life of course.  I think I am coming to the sad realisation that this might be a little beyond the potential scope.  If I can't then work out the "meaning of LIFE", then perhaps I might get a little glimmer at least of what 'life' has meant for me.  This one conscious bit of stardust.

But really, it is about the journey and being able to reflect on it as I go along.  Having started from a very conservative Christian viewpoint, I started to think (as in, think for myself rather than acepting what I had been told) and to read books that challenged Christian thinking and offered alternative perspectives of life.  It is some of these that I thought I might start sharing on this blog.  Its not that I have totally turned my back on my Christian history - but I do see things quite differently to what I once did - and still feel I have only started to scratch the surface on exploring this thing we call life.

The current book I am reading is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris (who also wrote 'The End of Faith').  Harris' viewpoint is that for too long scientists have abdicated their responsibility in the area of morality and ethics.  He argues that too many people on all sides say that science has nothing to contribute to these areas - that science can only deal in facts, and religion - or evolutionary psycology - is where the great moral and ethical issues are sorted out.

Harris builds his case around the idea that just as we have medical science around the notion of what denotes physical and psycological well being, that there is a science that needs to be built around what constitutes those morals and ethical choices that contribute to the wellbeing of people.  The idea of moral science - open to testing facts and revising them as more knowledge accrues - as opposed to ancient statements that may have little to do with the wellbeing of those involved (Harris argues that if these do contribute to wellbeing it is by accident rather than design!).  Or at least this is my take on it so far.

As I read more, I will describe what I am taking away from his book.  I will also start looking back over books I have read over the last decade or so and how they contributed to my thinking.

2 comments:

  1. "Scientific methods are not suitable to answer moral, ethical or religious questions. Polemic anti- religious campains like the ones from prominent socio-biologists are also not a suitable means to hinder interference from religious fundamentalists (Dawkins etc)".-I read that in the book from Dr. Joachim Bauer: "The cooperatively gene" - very interesting and it might link to what Harris says. Dr. Bauer says that nature in itsself can only exist because it is acting "morally" i.e. cooperative which can be observed on the genetic level already. Empathy is present everywhere in the natural world, so to speak, the law of god is written in nature. Unfortunately many modern scientists don't want to hear anything about these most recents findings in biology.
    Friederike

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Freddy - thanks for the feedback - sorry I didn't pick up on this earlier. Thanks for bringing it up!~ Jeff

    ReplyDelete