[extropy-chat] Secular worship

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 pgptag at gmail.com
Fri Nov 5 07:32:38 UTC 2004


Unfortunately I don't think there can be a secular worship as these
two concepts do not fit together but are radically opposed.
I am reading a very interesting article on "weak theology":
http://www.jcrt.org/archives/05.2/robbins.pdf
On secularism as weakening of thought: "Weak thought is not a term of
derision, but a positive term of praise that can be used as a tool for
political emancipation and a more democratic philosophy. It produces
"a desirable humility about our own moral intuitions and about the
social institutions to which we have become accustomed. This humility
will encourage tolerance for other intuitions, and a willingness to
experiment with ways of refashioning or replacing institutions."
Now if this is "weak thought", I am happy to be a weak thinker and I
am sure many on this list will agreee. But why is it called weak?
It is called weak in opposition to "strong thought": thought based on
absolute truths, unity, totality, strong categories, ultimate
foundations, aiming at providing absolute foundations for knowledge
and action. These terms have neen often used by the contemporary
philosoper Gianni Vattimo.
Now, as weak thinkers, I am afraid we have to acknowledge that strong
thought is, well, stronger than weak thought in terms of its immediate
appeal to the majority of people.
Secularism is weak, worship is strong. Rights are weak, duties are
strong. Tolerance is weak, righteousness is strong. Thinkers are weak,
warriors are strong. Negotiation is weak, attack is strong. Love is
strong, hate is strong, but understanding is weak. In other words:
reason is weak, religion is strong.
According to the last political news: a fundamentalist elected US
president, a fundamentalist kicked out of the European Commission,
most Europeans are weak thinkers, and most Americans are strong
thinkers. Perhaps this is because in Europe we have already fallen in
love with strong ideologies in Germany and Italy before the second
world war, and have seen the catastrophic consequences.
But going back to religion, perhaps the reason why it is still an
important factor after centuries of scientific advances is that it is
strong thought, and this is what most people still want: absolute
certainties and strong truths.
Is transhumanist strong or weak? Well it is clearly weak: it is based
on calm logical reasoning, tolerance for diversity, etc. This is also
evident from our linguistic habits on this list: we say too often "I
think that", "in my own opinion", "I understand your point but", ...
these are all weak statements that do NOT appeal to those who want
strong certainties.
Face it, they want strong systems of belief and messianic leaders.
My question: can transhumanism be presented as strong thought? And who
wants to be a charismatic leader?
G.


> Damien: Time for humanism and transhumanism to
> start thinking seriously
> once again (as Bertrand Russell and Wells and others
> did nearly a century
> ago, without getting anywhere) about some sort of
> secular equivalent of
> worship (ugh; whatever) and mutually supportive
> emotionally enriched
> fellowship.



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list