Hmm. Responding to the full quote on Ken MacLeod's blog... well, I kind of have the same reaction to Monod that I do to the Marxists. I often agree with Marxists' analysis of the problem -- I just get amused, bewildered, or creeped out when they start talking about solutions.
Marxism is not, technically, a theism -- but sure, it's a religion in the broad sense. It takes the brute and random facts of the world and tells a story where they all make sense, and All Your Sufferings Are For A Higher Good. As Nick Mamatas said about other religions, it's an Imaginary Friend Game. It gives you a close-to-all-powerful Imaginary Friend called History, who is on your side (if you're on the right side).
But:
"The ancient covenant is in pieces; man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance."
That's awfully dramatic, though, isn't it? In what sense are we alone? (If I'm alone, who am I typing at now? How about the people I see in the park going for a run with their dogs, are they alone? How about the moon -- look, there it is in the sky, all shiny. We're not alone.) What does it mean to call the immensity of the universe "unfeeling" (when was the last time you referred to a chair, potato, or vegetable peeler as "unfeeling")? And how did we get from there to man having a "unique and precious essence"? (Tell it to Flipper). And how did we get from *there* to requiring socialist institutions as a necessary condition of man's existential freedom?
It's all a little "O indifferent universe which scorns me! I shake my fist at thee! I, alone and abandoned by an uncaring cosmos, must forge my own destiny!"
You know, an Imaginary Friend you paint this kind of smiley on:
:-|
is not any less imaginary than one you paint this kind of smiley on:
:-)
"freed... from the misleading servitudes of
animism, man could at last live authentically"
Good luck there, buddy.
Hmm. Responding to the full quote on Ken MacLeod's blog... well, I kind of have the same reaction to Monod that I do to the Marxists. I often agree with Marxists' analysis of the problem -- I just get amused, bewildered, or creeped out when they start talking about solutions.
Marxism is not, technically, a theism -- but sure, it's a religion in the broad sense. It takes the brute and random facts of the world and tells a story where they all make sense, and All Your Sufferings Are For A Higher Good. As Nick Mamatas said about other religions, it's an Imaginary Friend Game. It gives you a close-to-all-powerful Imaginary Friend called History, who is on your side (if you're on the right side).
But:
"The ancient covenant is in pieces; man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance."
That's awfully dramatic, though, isn't it? In what sense are we alone? (If I'm alone, who am I typing at now? How about the people I see in the park going for a run with their dogs, are they alone? How about the moon -- look, there it is in the sky, all shiny. We're not alone.) What does it mean to call the immensity of the universe "unfeeling" (when was the last time you referred to a chair, potato, or vegetable peeler as "unfeeling")? And how did we get from there to man having a "unique and precious essence"? (Tell it to Flipper). And how did we get from *there* to requiring socialist institutions as a necessary condition of man's existential freedom?
It's all a little "O indifferent universe which scorns me! I shake my fist at thee! I, alone and abandoned by an uncaring cosmos, must forge my own destiny!"
You know, an Imaginary Friend you paint this kind of smiley on:
:-|
is not any less imaginary than one you paint this kind of smiley on:
:-)
"freed... from the misleading servitudes of
animism, man could at last live authentically"
Good luck there, buddy.