I really appreciate your nuanced approach to including ID (or CD) in systems of education. I have had the experience of trying to argue this philosophical position with a medical professional. In spite of what I considered to be his great intelligence and creativity, he was unable to look past the association of.Intelligent Design with Christian fundamentalism to what I was actually saying.
Yes, and this is a much more general problem on which I would like to write something in more detail next. Despite all the good intentions filled up with words like “multi-(inter-/trans)disciplinarity” and the ideal to think in “integral” terms (let alone that of becoming integral), also the smartest minds often seem to be utterly unable to think “trans-culturally” and step beyond the belief system with which they were raised up as children. For example, there are professors of biology or biochemistry that, indeed, work on hypotheses of ID (or CD), but ignore (and some even deride) anything metaphysical that isn’t centered on the Bible or, at best, on a strictly Christian-centered spirituality. And I’m not sure it has anything to do with religion. For example, also Western atheists, whenever they argue against the notion of God, they always assume that of the Abrahamic religions (Dawkins is a primary example). Another example are the modern Western philosophers of mind open to a post-material worldview. Recently (say, a decade or so) they began to speculate about a universal consciousness as a viable hypothesis, and are now building upon this seemingly novel and original idea, huge theoretical castles publishing lots of papers. Words like “cosmopsychism,” “Mind at large,” “panpsychism,” “pantheism,” or “panentheism” returned in great fashion. But guess what? Everything is seen exclusively from the lens of Western philosophy/religion. No mention of Eastern philosophies (let alone Sri Aurobindo). In other words, they are actually reinventing the wheel. Schopenhauer was much more open to Eastern philosophies two centuries ago, than modern Western philosophers are, despite being equipped with the internet and Google. And for some reason I can’t explain, the evolutionary perspective remains anathema. I could give countless examples of this kind of attitudes. I can only speculate about the deep psychological reasons standing behind this. There seems to be a fundamental subconscious inability to see beyond the little boundaries of one’s childhood education and cultural environment.
Oh, now this is fascinating! I hadn't seen the broader picture here, that of cultural blinders on top of physicalist blinders. So you're saying that, even when the "great minds" can begin to pry off the chains of material causation, they're still bound by the cultural monotheism of the Judeo-Christian world-view! I get it - it's as if they are only able to break out of one box at a time.
And, as I contemplate this, it begins to make sense. After all, to begin to adopt a more universal world-view that encompasses a Hindu or Eastern philosophical structure in addition to the Western J-C one, it's a bridge too far. Putting myself in their shoes, I could see that, to do so would be treading on completely unfamiliar ground, thus opening myself up to any number of philosophical land-mines due to being in completely unfamiliar territory. How potentially embarrassing [and career-damaging] to unknowingly commit a beginner's error while trying to break new ground beyond the materialist mind-set! Better to stick to stick to one's home territory, however limiting, but safe.
It is fascinating, indeed, once one sees that. Because it unveils the unconscious mechanisms we are subjected to. I guess these tendencies are the habitual thinking patterns of the physical mind that, once programmed at a young age, continues to circle around in its little bubble. As I said, this can be seen well beyond religion. Another example: All biologists know perfectly that the DNA is not a blueprint for life, yet they continue to behave as if it were, and spend billions in research that assumes a gene-centric view. Here an interesting take of D. Noble review of P. Ball's book: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x
The only solution I can see is to learn from childhood that “treading on completely unfamiliar ground, opening up to any number of philosophical land-mines due to being in completely unfamiliar territory” is not embarrassing but highly desirable. It is a lot of fun! 😊
I really appreciate your nuanced approach to including ID (or CD) in systems of education. I have had the experience of trying to argue this philosophical position with a medical professional. In spite of what I considered to be his great intelligence and creativity, he was unable to look past the association of.Intelligent Design with Christian fundamentalism to what I was actually saying.
Yes, and this is a much more general problem on which I would like to write something in more detail next. Despite all the good intentions filled up with words like “multi-(inter-/trans)disciplinarity” and the ideal to think in “integral” terms (let alone that of becoming integral), also the smartest minds often seem to be utterly unable to think “trans-culturally” and step beyond the belief system with which they were raised up as children. For example, there are professors of biology or biochemistry that, indeed, work on hypotheses of ID (or CD), but ignore (and some even deride) anything metaphysical that isn’t centered on the Bible or, at best, on a strictly Christian-centered spirituality. And I’m not sure it has anything to do with religion. For example, also Western atheists, whenever they argue against the notion of God, they always assume that of the Abrahamic religions (Dawkins is a primary example). Another example are the modern Western philosophers of mind open to a post-material worldview. Recently (say, a decade or so) they began to speculate about a universal consciousness as a viable hypothesis, and are now building upon this seemingly novel and original idea, huge theoretical castles publishing lots of papers. Words like “cosmopsychism,” “Mind at large,” “panpsychism,” “pantheism,” or “panentheism” returned in great fashion. But guess what? Everything is seen exclusively from the lens of Western philosophy/religion. No mention of Eastern philosophies (let alone Sri Aurobindo). In other words, they are actually reinventing the wheel. Schopenhauer was much more open to Eastern philosophies two centuries ago, than modern Western philosophers are, despite being equipped with the internet and Google. And for some reason I can’t explain, the evolutionary perspective remains anathema. I could give countless examples of this kind of attitudes. I can only speculate about the deep psychological reasons standing behind this. There seems to be a fundamental subconscious inability to see beyond the little boundaries of one’s childhood education and cultural environment.
Oh, now this is fascinating! I hadn't seen the broader picture here, that of cultural blinders on top of physicalist blinders. So you're saying that, even when the "great minds" can begin to pry off the chains of material causation, they're still bound by the cultural monotheism of the Judeo-Christian world-view! I get it - it's as if they are only able to break out of one box at a time.
And, as I contemplate this, it begins to make sense. After all, to begin to adopt a more universal world-view that encompasses a Hindu or Eastern philosophical structure in addition to the Western J-C one, it's a bridge too far. Putting myself in their shoes, I could see that, to do so would be treading on completely unfamiliar ground, thus opening myself up to any number of philosophical land-mines due to being in completely unfamiliar territory. How potentially embarrassing [and career-damaging] to unknowingly commit a beginner's error while trying to break new ground beyond the materialist mind-set! Better to stick to stick to one's home territory, however limiting, but safe.
It is fascinating, indeed, once one sees that. Because it unveils the unconscious mechanisms we are subjected to. I guess these tendencies are the habitual thinking patterns of the physical mind that, once programmed at a young age, continues to circle around in its little bubble. As I said, this can be seen well beyond religion. Another example: All biologists know perfectly that the DNA is not a blueprint for life, yet they continue to behave as if it were, and spend billions in research that assumes a gene-centric view. Here an interesting take of D. Noble review of P. Ball's book: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x
The only solution I can see is to learn from childhood that “treading on completely unfamiliar ground, opening up to any number of philosophical land-mines due to being in completely unfamiliar territory” is not embarrassing but highly desirable. It is a lot of fun! 😊