Hi Teotoniobab, Yes, such discussions are going on for a long time. But I am sure you will agree that from a scientific perspective the light is much brighter today. Most of the progress that has occurred since then is because of the discovery of new natural facts, methods and ideas. This is true in your field as well as mine.
As far as atheists are concerned, even today's defenders of enlightenment are not necessarily atheists. A lot of them are deists, as they were then, such as the founding fathers of America. But it is true that the majority of today's best minds are atheists. I think the percentage is something in excess of 90% for U.S. National Academy of Sciences members and science Nobel laureates. However, they might well be wrong about their beliefs. What applies to theists and deists applies to them. Hi Selma, I am pleasant surprised that you are pursuing the ideas that we discussed in the past in a substantive way. It is very rare that anybody takes what I say seriously in this lay public forum. Please beware! I may be deceiving you. Cheers, Santosh --- "Teotonio R. de Souza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I have been following your discussions with some > > interest. They date back to > > the days of 18th century enlightenment in Europe! > > And they are still going > > on because it is difficult to reconcile human > > interests? Were the ardent > > defenders of enlightenment necessarily atheists? I > > believe not. > > ----------------- -- Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recently I borrowed a copy of Spinoza from the > library > determined to read about consciousness and modes > (didn't get very far :-), and the more I read, I > realised the import of a point Santosh made some > months ago; that traditional philosophy itself has > become obsolete in light of advances made by science > and so much of what we thought of as esoteric, such > as > monism and dualism, has been put in its proper > prospective. > > Like Santosh, I too hope that Goan society finds the > equilibrium between science and spirituality but it > is > absolutely unconscionable to believe in something > suspending rational thought in our desire to prove > it > right. To this end, discussions about "salvation" > for > only certain religious affiliations are > unacceptable. >