American Thinker:
The question, Hamlet, is not “to be or not to be” or even “to act or not to act.” It is “to believe or not to believe.”
Human being calls for living according to a set of beliefs that come from the source of being – not from the brain, not from science, not from natural or man-made objects. Being human stems from cognition that transcends the opinions and calculations of any individual or group. This is something that people have always known and leaders have forgotten.
Philosophers and theologians who object or rationalize around this central fact of human life ignore or make light of the fact that we do not put ourselves here and know zilch about how, for example, water, food, and air become thoughts, emotions, and the countless products of human life and civilization, from safety standards to works of art. This large blind spot regarding the reality of the world and ourselves leads to endless falsehoods that obstruct sound judgment and action.
One great and seriously obstructing falsehood is that science liberates us from ignorance about ourselves. But…
If it were up to us, Scientist, we’d drop dead, because we wouldn’t know how to manage the zillion things the body must do to keep us from visiting “the undiscover’d country from whose bourn no traveller returns” (1).
The belief that we are “masters of our fate” and “captains” of our soul” (2), while not pure hubris, must be balanced with the realization that, after all, we are not our own gods.
Because the source of our being is obviously not science – or any other system of human knowledge, for that matter – science is not a legitimate basis for the beliefs that help make us human. Yet that is what it has been (ab)used for, across the centuries, and the resulting bull [3] fed the public. Science is a great and wonderful tool. But to consider it a gateway to action consistent with being human is intensely wrong-minded – unless the object be to turn people into machines of some kind. Not laughably, this is what some futurists are comfortable with. In that demented case, life would not be worth living. MORE HERE
This becoming a Robot crap is not unlike like the People who actually Want to Live on Mars, I think they are Nuckin Futz and would have no Vibrational connection to the Earth, or quality of Life.
To each His own I guess.
I’m sailing away set an open course for the virgin sea
I’ve got to be free free to face the life that’s ahead of me
On board I’m the captain so climb aboard
We’ll search for tomorrow on every shore
And I’ll try oh Lord I’ll try to carry on
I look to the sea reflections in the waves spark my memory
Some happy some sad
I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had
We live happily forever so the story goes
But somehow we missed out on that pot of gold
But we’ll try best that we can to carry on
A gathering of angels appeared above my head
They sang to me this song of hope and this is what they said
They said come sail away come sail away
Come sail away with me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa53Pzw39do
► 6:04 12 14 14
Transhumanism is not necessary. We got enough “trans” humans running around already.
The author, Anthony J. DeBlasi, sounds to me as though he’s arguing either directly with himself or indirectly with his own projected imagination. The likely reason is his failure to harmoniously integrate awareness and thoughtful analysis of the physical world around us (what he simplistically calls “science”), with awareness and thoughtful analysis of the nature of his own humanity.
That was too HEAVY for this boy.
He called it out in the last paragraph: secular humanist religion. It is a religion. It is not a neutral, non-aggressive stance which has moral authority over Christianity, much as they would have the world believe.