Why are a lot of left-winger into new-age religions?

116 posts / 0 new
Last post

Cueball wrote:
your airy-fairy hippy notions about social relativism...

someone who wants to avoid social responsibility in favour of self-gratification...

But I don't convenience my own personal ego and ambition by asserting social relativism and "naturalism" as a justification for my own teripitude...

Strangely, you consider yourself a scientist. ...

Parlour tricks and bullshit semantics. ...

are you blandly stating that your life has a greater or lesser value than any other human life?<

Get back to me after you take a chill pill.

At least you didn't accuse me of paedophilia, or call me a nazi. There's that much.


RosaL wrote:

There are some excellent posts in this thread Smile 

Anyway, I think the thread title should have been, "why are a lot of liberals into new age religions?" A certain type of liberal certainly is into new-ageism and it's an interesting phenomenon. (Terry Eagleton makes some good points.) But I have not observed people left of liberal to be prone to new-ageism. 

edited to add:

Seriously, is it really true that young scientists are being produced in universities in this country without even rudimentary knowledge of fundaments of basic political philosophy?

In my experience, yes. I found it quite striking. 

I agree with the first thing you said. I live in the USA and have been here for the past two years, the spectrum is different here and liberals are the local left.

As for the second thing, that was a personal attack from cueball directed towards me. I've actually taken a lot college-level humanities (~10), I had a good time doing so. He decided to attack all scientists in order to be cute. It turns out he's wrong. There's a lot of variation of course, and the human body of knowledge is just way too big for someone to be an expert at everything, but most scientists I know are quite knowledgeable about a few other areas than their own specialty. Around here alone I can think of one person who also works at an arts center, one who got into a graduate program for south asian history of some sort, one who regularly reads marxist literature, et cetera.

In general I do think everyone with a science degree should have an arts minor, and vice versa. I don't think political science is the quintessential humanities concentration as implied by its singling out by Cueball. Personally if I were to do so now I'd go for sociology. It seems more reality-oriented, and I like the people better.

I'm wondering, do you find it "quite striking" that most students in the humanities never take proper statistics courses? What about the fact our politicians seem to think the global warming debate comes down to who has the best verbal arguments, as befitting their background in law?


 I'm wondering, do you find it "quite striking" that most students in the humanities never take proper statistics courses?

Indeed I do.