When Stephen Jay Gould, the great educator and geologist spoke of the relationship between the spiritual sphere and the scientific sphere, he said that science and religion were non-overlapping magisteria or NOMA as it now shorthanded. By this, Gould meant that religion and Science do not hold a competing view of reality, and one should not try to annex the territory of the other. Gould in what Hitchens described as an overcompensation for a misspent youth of Marxism alleged the two disciplines could be happy neighbours in an unentangled dualism. <\/p>\n
We still live with the turmoil created from the popular turf-war between the emotionally-satisfied believer and the dorky debunker: New Atheism still attempts to roll-back religion as the believer pleas for respect and equal time in classrooms. The immovable object and unstoppable force meet in a perpetual collision at School Boards around the US, at protests and counter-protests, and counter-counter-protests. However, the argument has evolved or at least mutated and I say this with only a tinge of irony. <\/p>\n
An order of social scientists on the political left blabber on about how we have entered post-modernity to a point of indulgence. Post-modernity means we have ventured from the mass-consumption of modernism where everyone gets a can of Coke, to the niche and self-tailored post-modern consumers who demand a double-espresso with cheese and vinegar, because they live such individual and interesting lives. People will demand more from their lives, more bangs for their bucks and more pyrotechnics for their pounds; we to take them to new and interesting directions: from areas as disparate as fashion to finance to finger-painting; oh yes, grown men finger-painting, it happens. People in postmodernity will throw-off the old metanarratives that tell you have to live life for a more thrilling and sexy story. <\/p>\n
Our spiritual lives have a comparable thirst for novelty; we crave the numinous and Marxs traditional opioids bore us. We want a new and better form of energy. Alas energy is channeled in our case via a kitsch crystal from Griselda the Wise: the rituals and consecrations of yesteryear are day-by-day replaced by the hip drum-circles of a newer and cooler spirituality, and like the shackles of older faiths we ignore the discord between the evidence reality and our feelings. Our secular life is increasingly dogged by the same faith-based arguments, but they are now shrouded in psuedo-academese and appeal to the high lords of uncredible gobbledegook, twaddle, and tosh, and even more unfortunately: they fool many of our so-called educated class. <\/p>\n
Spiritualism was a popular mythology in the early 20th century. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when he was not writing about the skeptical adventures of Detective Sherlock Holmes was himself a believer in fairies and a proponent of outliving death. Post-modernism whos very ugly step-child is Hipsterism has resurrected this mess of a movement with not just wood-headed hippie dippies, but with public officials whose belief that all truth is relative invades public life. <\/p>\n
The invasion of pseudo-science and psychic nonsense surfaced as far back a the Reagan administration. The culprits were and indeed still are charlatans at best and ignoramuses at worst. The novel cults of unreason interested Mr. Reagan and his wife Nancy; both were keenly aware of astrology and invited a California-based astrologer to advise her on numerous occasions. This same astrologer told the New York Times she had no influence over policy. However,I hold a healthy skepticism towards her claim. How could she not have a large influence if her advicewas truly heralded? If Reagan discovered more about his own psychic state: how his lifecycles, relationships and discovering and achieving his goals; then how can this possibly stayout of his political life? Surely he would feel he were doing a disservice to not share his mostpsychically-revealed self. <\/p>\n
Everyone is well-aware that the allegedly rational candidate for President Hillary Clinton is afollower and admirer of the waffler Deepak Chopra. Deepak is a man whose primary occupation is to sell books to the credulous and scientifically ignorant. A recent sparring matchbetween Deepak and science communicator Professor Brian Cox in the quantum soup Deepakwould call twitter sparked due to Deepaks meaningless statement that The universe isexperienced in consciousness, known in consciousness & made out of consciousness. <\/p>\n
Many of the more scientifically literate members of the public know to scoff at Deepaks bullshit (to quote Richard Dawkins),but the former first lady of the United States does not. Infact, Dawkins notes in The Enemies of Reason that Deepak was Hillary Clintons spiritualadviser. How can we trust a woman so ignorant of the rules of evidence to make good decisionson anything at all? Let alone Science! Yes, sure, she has a Science Advisory Committee, butshe is the one who appoints them. How long until quack pseudo-scientists and homeopaths getpromoted to counsel her? <\/p>\n
A post-modern society rejects the enlightenment and is the epitome of the feels overrealszeitgeist. Bleakly, this is the mentality of a large fraction of the college-aged and overly educated,and thus the same data deprivation translates neatly into the identity politickingmyself and others lament. When one places evidence as secondary to data there is literally norational argument that can be had. Is the answer for more scientists to go into politics? Do wehave to make politicians take science modules so they can be informed? Do we tell the college-agedto shut their whiny mouths if they cannot debate reason with reason? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the article here:<\/p>\n
Specious 'Scientific' Spirituality - Conatus News<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When Stephen Jay Gould, the great educator and geologist spoke of the relationship between the spiritual sphere and the scientific sphere, he said that science and religion were non-overlapping magisteria or NOMA as it now shorthanded. By this, Gould meant that religion and Science do not hold a competing view of reality, and one should not try to annex the territory of the other. Gould in what Hitchens described as an overcompensation for a misspent youth of Marxism alleged the two disciplines could be happy neighbours in an unentangled dualism. Continue reading