More zealotry, please.

I Pity the Fool!

I Pity the Fool!

Here’s a promotional blurb from a new book, by R.L. Park, entitled Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science:

“He examines recent controversies and concludes that science is the only way we have of understanding the world….Science is the only way of knowing–everything else is just religion.” [italics mine]

Just religion?  Just?  Wonderful.  That’s what we need: more reductionist thought.  More all-or-nothing thinking.  More zealotry


5 thoughts on “More zealotry, please.

  1. Now I’m wondering, my friend, are you turning into an ‘Anti-zealot’ Zealot by any chance?

    Seriously though – I agree 100% with you that we don’t need any more reductionism! I’m much influenced by some of Ken Wilber’s work … that science is useful in understanding many aspects of ‘everything’ – especially the tangible, measurable stuff. But there’s so much more than only understanding stuff. Experiencing ‘everything’ is just as important and science has very little to offer us when it comes to describing experience. Another short and to the point post! Many thanks. Ian

  2. Even pompous asses can sometimes have good ideas … though I’ve never met him personally so have no opinion about him as human being. But I hear, Bill that you don’t like him as person? Fine .. and I’m more curious about your opinion of his work though. Ian

  3. OK, I wasn’t going to say anything but…. I have a hard time with Ken Wilber too, I must say, though my knowledge of him is limited. The reason my knowledge is limited is that his writing turns me off. His speaking turns me off too. It leaves me cold. He is into concepts, systems, mappings, and …organizing things into categories. He loves categories. It’s “words, words, words,” as Hamlet would say.

    And yes, there are times I think he has fallen in love with the sound of his own voice. I would prefer to read some of Wilber’s spiritual and intellectual masters, like Ramana Maharshi, Shankara, Nisargadatta, Plotinus, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Maslow, or even the unadultrated, Freud or Jung, than to have to deal with Wilber’s derivative ideas. Sorry Ian, that’s just me. To each his own. Wilber does not speak to me at all.

  4. No need to apologise! What a terrible world it would be if we all liked the same things and learned from the same sources!!! Sorry for taking this discussion into digression away from your post! Ian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s