I do not consider myself either immoral or irrational, but I still can't see why human beings are necessarily significant. Of course, we consider ourselves significant, then our families, friends, communities, nations, and eventually mankind as a whole, in that order, but these are existential choices, not intrinsic properties. This is a prejudice we inherited from our ancestors, not a law of physics. If our ancestors had not felt that way we would not be here.
I feel people are more important than say, whales, because I choose to feel that way. I also choose to ally myself with others who feel that way. I'm sure the whales feel very differently about it. If we consider the possibility of intelligent creatures from other worlds, the whole moral argument collapses and all that remains is racial chauvinism. Who is to decide which of two intelligent species is more or less wothwhile, or important, or valid. The entire concept is ridiculous.
There is no reason why life cannot be worthwhile and fascinating even though it is strictly reductionist and mechanical. After all, a chessboard is very simple, the pieces are only a few in number and type, and the rules are easily learned by even a child. This does not mean the game is incapable of great complexity and beauty.
The reason science can make no statements about the soul may be simply because there is no soul. It's not that difficult a concept.
Space/Science » in reply to re: Science and the soul: Descartes loses force
Des cartes before de horse
The whole thread (45 posts)
- Science and the soul: Descartes loses force
- re: Science and the soul
- We are significant. We are rare, thinking, matter.
- Muddle-headed philosophy
- Narrow field scope
- re: Science and the soul: Descartes loses force
- Whatever the market will bear
- What Francis Crick called Biochemical Theology
- Welcome back. The "spark of life".