Paraphrasing G.K. Chestertons famous affirmation of Christianity to justify secular humanism, eh?
Joel Send a noteboard - 02/12/2011 11:02:54 PM
A rather daring statement, I must say. Personally, I have always thought Scooby Doo works a lot better with the occasionally bona fide supernatural element thrown in to keep both audiences and "the gang" honest. Presenting a world where everything has mundane empirical explanations is at least as dogmatically DIShonest as presenting one where ghosts or a Magic Mans arcane actions opaquely lurk behind every event. The truth is somewhere in between; natural explanations fall woefully short at the uttermost limits of understanding, but granting an initial supernatural impetus does not preclude mundane natural causes observed as the norm ever since.
Regardless, the case for a world premised entirely on the supernatural to the exclusion of the natural or vice versa is inadequate, to say the least. In the final analysis, the argument accepting only the conclusively proven will provide all answers has itself not been conclusively proven, quite the opposite, in fact. Likewise, the notion any supernatural element similarly invalidates all natural ones is refuted by common sense and experience. Both spiritual and empirical traditions have great value within their respective bailiwicks, but the value diminishes the further they are removed from their proper domains. If it is foolish to expect Paul or Lao-Tzu to explain refraction or celestial mechanics, it is no less so to expect Planck or Hawking to explain love or the meaning of life. None of those people is any more qualified than any other random person to speak on those subjects, but that does not diminish their qualifications to speak on subjects where they DO possess great knowledge.
The prospect of the same wearisome artificial conflict between science and religion thrust into even childhood favorites like Scooby Doo is disappointing. Not only is it inappropriate, but it as just as unfaithful to the truthseeking tradition as ignoring secular humanisms debt to Medieval Christian humanism along with philosophers from Greeces Golden Age. If Scooby Doo were actively teaching kids everyone experessing any belief in the supernatural is deluded, dishonest or both that would be detrimental rather than beneficial to society; fortunately, I am confident that is not the case.
Also, this thread may belong on the TV & Movies MB.
Regardless, the case for a world premised entirely on the supernatural to the exclusion of the natural or vice versa is inadequate, to say the least. In the final analysis, the argument accepting only the conclusively proven will provide all answers has itself not been conclusively proven, quite the opposite, in fact. Likewise, the notion any supernatural element similarly invalidates all natural ones is refuted by common sense and experience. Both spiritual and empirical traditions have great value within their respective bailiwicks, but the value diminishes the further they are removed from their proper domains. If it is foolish to expect Paul or Lao-Tzu to explain refraction or celestial mechanics, it is no less so to expect Planck or Hawking to explain love or the meaning of life. None of those people is any more qualified than any other random person to speak on those subjects, but that does not diminish their qualifications to speak on subjects where they DO possess great knowledge.
The prospect of the same wearisome artificial conflict between science and religion thrust into even childhood favorites like Scooby Doo is disappointing. Not only is it inappropriate, but it as just as unfaithful to the truthseeking tradition as ignoring secular humanisms debt to Medieval Christian humanism along with philosophers from Greeces Golden Age. If Scooby Doo were actively teaching kids everyone experessing any belief in the supernatural is deluded, dishonest or both that would be detrimental rather than beneficial to society; fortunately, I am confident that is not the case.
Also, this thread may belong on the TV & Movies MB.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 02/12/2011 at 11:03:29 PM
Scooby Doo and Secular Humanism.
02/12/2011 09:58:49 PM
- 710 Views
Paraphrasing G.K. Chestertons famous affirmation of Christianity to justify secular humanism, eh?
02/12/2011 11:02:54 PM
- 432 Views
Love has nothing to do with spirituality or the supernatural; there is no universal meaning of life.
03/12/2011 04:33:13 AM
- 502 Views
Those are legitimate beliefs, but not proven facts.
03/12/2011 10:05:44 PM
- 510 Views
Quite a combination of impossible standards, artificial categories, and misunderstandings of science
04/12/2011 02:53:44 AM
- 514 Views
I have a question about log-odds formulation.
04/12/2011 06:36:02 AM
- 302 Views
It depends on if that's a realistic example or a toy example.
04/12/2011 05:32:34 PM
- 345 Views
Scooby Doo is not about secular fucking humanism. It's a Gnostic allegory.
02/12/2011 11:57:37 PM
- 392 Views
I had all but forgotten that post, one of the first I read at wotmania.
03/12/2011 10:09:36 PM
- 325 Views
Comparing me to Santa selling crack has positively made my day. Thank you!
05/12/2011 01:50:54 AM
- 442 Views
