DWill wrote:Robert Tulip wrote:
Yes, this stardust melody of human life, what
Hoagy Carmichael called ‘the memory of love’s refrain’, is central to the story of science. Earlier in this thread I said “in scientific thought the universe reflects upon itself in symbols, and this complex activity means human flourishing is intrinsically good.”
You're going to think me cynical, but this attitude of seeing human flourishing as intrinsically good is just what we'd expect if natural selection had equipped us with mental structures that would effectively increase our numbers.
I take a Biblical view on what is required for human flourishing, based on the core ethical axiom of Jesus Christ that the last are first in the Kingdom of God. That means that human flourishing, creating heaven on earth, intrinsically requires a focus on the least of the world, ranging from soils, bacteria and all biodiversity up to concern for the hungry, thirsty, poor, sick, imprisoned and refugees. Without climate stability humans cannot flourish, and without an ethical focus on the least of the world the climate will produce a repeat of the Permian Great Dying. Rev 11:18, the Bible saying that the wrath of God is against those who destroy the earth, means that human flourishing involves ecological concern.
DWill wrote:
Also, that our species has a significance on some "cosmic" level is an impulse that can give us license to do whatever seems to be best for our species, regardless of what would promote the welfare of the rest of life.
Cosmic significance is an idea that goes back to the Genesis theme of dominion, commonly misinterpreted to mean that human distinctiveness arising from language means spirit is above nature and we have a right to destroy nature. Rather than such a destructive concept of domination, the Biblical vision is about wise stewardship, nurturing resources to sustain growth and complexity. It may “seem to be best for our species” to add ten cubic kilometres of carbon to the air every year, treating the atmosphere as an open sewer, but it is not best, since keeping along that line will stratify the sea and kill us all. Not flourishing.
DWill wrote:
I think we need to be less full of ourselves. That's a reason I'm attracted to Thoreau and Robinson Jeffers.
Yes, excellent point. I have not heard of Jeffers though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Jeffers#Context says “Jeffers believed that transcending conflict required human concerns to be de-emphasized in favor of the boundless whole.” How I would react to all that is to say we need to distinguish between conscious ego and subconscious id in considering our selves. We need to be less full of conscious ego and more full of subconscious id, which is where we connect to what Jeffers calls the boundless whole. As the Indian mystics beloved by Thoreau would say, thou art that.
DWill wrote:
Don't worry, we can still celebrate humanity, but we need to beware of species chauvinism.
Good point, but it remains the case that humans have dominion and stewardship on our planet, a power conferred by language, and face the challenge of using our talents and gifts wisely or going extinct.