You misunderstood my point, Michael. Perhaps that is my fault, so I will try to make the point clearer.
Where chimpanzees are concerned, I tried to argue that they are capable of rudimentary reasoning. That is, they could be trained to recognize currency & coin as banana substitutes. The implication, which I did not spell out, is that they would not be able to proceed beyond that, because they did not have enough reasoning power, or intelligence. Then comes the main point:
Since the most vicious human being is capable of reasoning -- often of reasoning very well -- it cannot be equated with spirituality.
In other words, intelligence and spirituality are not the same thing! Chimps have nothing to do with it! Very bright people can be "unspiritual," and stupid ones can be "spiritual"!
I would not agree that commerce is "spiritual." It requires intelligence, but not, in my book, "spirituality."
But of course, you never defined "spirituality."
I have the same problem with the rest of your post. You either do not define your terms, or you use them in a certain limited sense (usually pejorative), on the assumption that your definition is universally accepted.
For example, you use three terms in your fourth paragraph: secular humanism, political Left, and socialism. For some people, these terms are neutral, non-emotive. For you, they are not, as is clear largely from the context (e.g., "secular humanism,which recognizes no authority....").
If you really want dialogue, Michael, I would suggest defining your terms, and in as neutral a way as possible, or avoiding these great big loaded buzzwords altogether. At least, if you'd like a dialogue with me. <g>
Joan |
