[extropy-chat] Transhumanism: Teilhard de Chardin - Truth or Dare

[cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net]

I read a book titled "The Omega Point" so long ago I don;t even remember the
author.
It often left me wondering if religions weren't created by our post-human
descendents who were capable of manipulating the past. Granted, time would
have to be linear which I don't believe to be the case. Still, the idea that
religion was created to keep us from reaching singularity faster than we are
capable of handling socially is a bit alluring. Maybe it could make for some
decent fiction.

I am close to finishing "The Spike" and I am searching for my next book to
purchase. I have a long way to go before I feel I am up to speed with many
of the conversations on this list. Should I read "The Age of Spiritual
Machines" or "THE PHENOMENON OF MAN " next? Or should I read something else
entirely?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at earthlink.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism: Teilhard de Chardin - Truth or
Dare


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <natashavita at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:49 PM
>
> > One such provoking and erudite thinker is Teilhard de Chardin.
>
> I, for one, was moved by his Omega Point notion in the early 1960s, when I
> was still a fervent if unorthodox Catholic. I must have been one of the
> first people to read THE PHENOMENON OF MAN in English. However...
>
> >  (de Chardin)
>
> [BTW, that's NOT his name, as the other citations show. It's properly
> shortened to Teilhard, not to de Chardin or Chardin.]
>
> > "It is perhaps not surprising that a leading advocate of Darwinism,
> Stephen
> > Jay Gould, has gone to work on Teilhard. Writing vehemently and
> > dogmatically, like the guardian of an established religion, Gould
asserts
> > that Teilhard's whole enterprise is illegitimate: Teilhard's essential
> > insights are incompatible with science.
>
> `Guardian of established religion' my foot. Gould, and more impressively
> still Sir Peter Medawar, showed why Teilhard's teleological and
God-dragged
> model of evolution is just plain incompatible with random mutation and
> natural selection. It's a form of divine Lamarckism. It *could* have been
> true, in some other universe; it might even be true to some extent in a
> Tiplerian Omega Point universe. But it doesn't jibe with what science has
> learned to date about how evolution works.
>
> > I don't think we need [religious dogma].  I think we need more love and
> understanding,
> > story-telling, poetry, imagination, laughter, fun and companionship, not
> > religious mysticism?
>
> Right on, as we said back then, or a decade later. :)
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>