Davidson Loehr

Ursula and Ed,  This alleged “raging debate” is what I mean about two very different discussions, one scientific and one decidedly not. And I still think it’s worth considering that what is driving the “intelligent design” discussions is a desire to “find a Home” or “feel like we Belong” in the vast universe. Very human — yearnings religions and…[Read more]

Your friend’s comments are helpful, Ursula. There have been two categorically different discussions going on, presented as scientific — or “scientific”. One is among people who just want to know what’s out there. The other is among people who want to feel connected to things like “the Universe.” The first is scientific. The second is not in any…[Read more]

Ed, are you the Ed Lantz with Vortex Immersion Media? If so, is there any of your “immersive media” in the Austin, TX area? Or San Antonio, Houston or Dallas area? Davidson Loehr

I want to revisit my original post, where I said that what Duane was doing was “sheer mysticism.” By “mysticism,” I mean emotional needs or certainties are driving the discussion, not intellectual data. Mystics — in religion, science, or anywhere else — start with their conclusion, then can see only the cherry-picked data that support it. This…[Read more]

Jon et al, There is something about a few people on a planet so small we can’t even imagine imagining its size relative to the universe — something about a few in this species treating the universe with reverence that is at least comical, isn’t it? On the other hand, I guess it’s like traditional believers extolling the virtues and infinite…[Read more]

Two points seem to belong here. First, it’s useful to remember — as Wittgenstein so tersely put it — that “Certainty is only an attitude.”  Second, it’s useful to know the background of those posting opinions and comments in these discussions. Not all of us are scientists, and shouldn’t have our comments valued as though we were. To name just t…[Read more]

Duane, I know you’re heavily invested in this, but the things you’re citing are neither scientific nor evidentiary for the argument that the universe is “living.” It’s a misuse of language, and an important one to clean up. “Living” and “Dead” are biological terms. Used elsewhere, they’re being used as metaphors. You use words in senses far more…[Read more]

Other important clarifications are needed in the “science vs. religion” debates. Some current books and articles are on the theme of a “God-gene,” or the idea that we’re hard-wired for “religion” or “God.” No. We need an abiding sense of identity and purpose. Traditionally, religion and philosophy have claimed this discussion, but they are only…[Read more]

It’s both encouraging and humbling to learn that Dr. Montessori saw all this so clearly, and so long ago! I’m interested in religion and ethics (Who we are, and How we should live), and can easily map my thought style onto this:

1. Who we are: We can see this most easily through ethology, where we are one of the world’s Social Species. All ethic…[Read more]