This is the biophilia hypothesis wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis
As it says it was articulated earlier than the present authors its associated with by Eric Fromm who contrasted it with necrophilia and the necrophilis personalities he associated with primarily nazism but also a whole range of other ideologues or possessive types.
Fromm's articulation was open to either atheists or theists, he wasnt a big fan on the schismatic parting of the ways between those two companies which some of the leading lights of each have been since.
For Fromm, and I personally have some sympathy with this, what mattered first and foremost was the objective consequences of either theism or atheism and if the objective consequence was identical, ie both life affirming and biophilis, he felt it was a matter of what odds. I still thing theism is correct, specifically the theism I've been "schooled" in but none the less what I think is most important is the measure of whether behaviour and motives are biophilis or not.
Later theorists, including the one mentioned in the wiki link, are most definitely atheistic, although highly cognizant of bio-diversity, eco-systems and theories approximating the gaia theory/mysticism. So while they remain life affirming, its life, not necessarily human life (not that I've not heard that from theist quarters before, ie God cares about creation, not simply man, that's why earthquakes, tsunamis, other "acts of God" kill or cause suffering for good people).
Anyway, what do you think of the biophilis hypothesis? Gross simplification or excellent insight? Measure to judge ideologies, religions, philosophies or even simply behaviour objectively or new age mysticism run amok?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis
As it says it was articulated earlier than the present authors its associated with by Eric Fromm who contrasted it with necrophilia and the necrophilis personalities he associated with primarily nazism but also a whole range of other ideologues or possessive types.
Fromm's articulation was open to either atheists or theists, he wasnt a big fan on the schismatic parting of the ways between those two companies which some of the leading lights of each have been since.
For Fromm, and I personally have some sympathy with this, what mattered first and foremost was the objective consequences of either theism or atheism and if the objective consequence was identical, ie both life affirming and biophilis, he felt it was a matter of what odds. I still thing theism is correct, specifically the theism I've been "schooled" in but none the less what I think is most important is the measure of whether behaviour and motives are biophilis or not.
Later theorists, including the one mentioned in the wiki link, are most definitely atheistic, although highly cognizant of bio-diversity, eco-systems and theories approximating the gaia theory/mysticism. So while they remain life affirming, its life, not necessarily human life (not that I've not heard that from theist quarters before, ie God cares about creation, not simply man, that's why earthquakes, tsunamis, other "acts of God" kill or cause suffering for good people).
Anyway, what do you think of the biophilis hypothesis? Gross simplification or excellent insight? Measure to judge ideologies, religions, philosophies or even simply behaviour objectively or new age mysticism run amok?
