I'm not sure deflationary statements like this are "beliefs", rather
defence mechanisms to truncate further difficult thought.
The article has some extraordinary demands; radical openness,
reflective practice, co-evolution, mentalisation... all things you'd
associate with high emotional intelligence and hard inner work.
Some people just aren't up to that. Maybe we need to be able to say
"that's okay". Humanists need not feel threatened by reductionists any
more than reductionists need feel upset there is a bigger world
"outside the test-tube".
Perhaps we should focus more on why some life-stances expressed by
others feel uncomfortable for us.
Actually it's quite the opposite, I've seen people who cannot accept that they are biological machines start inventing new and novel reasons for their existence, such as beliefs and religions, even though empirically physicalism is the logical conclusion. This really has nothing to do with the article though, it could've been about any topic regarding humans and their beliefs and we would've likely still had a comment like the grandparent.
The discourse marker “actually” seems to signal a counter-argument, but your reply does not counter that speculation/claim; that people in the other camp—there are of course two camps, we’re good dualists after all—act with deflection using religion or whatever says nothing about what the motivations for the other camp are. They could both have twisted motivations.
Of course the downvoted comment is just speculation about people’s inner life and motivation. Just like the claim that it might
> [pain] people to admit
to your viewpoint is. Or “I really think it stems from religious biases”.
It's not a counter argument, it is a perspective from the other position while offering evidence towards the main argument that one should examine where they are getting their beliefs from.
I think it is interesting that you are imposing a value judgment on the humanist spiritual belief being better than the "reductionist" one through your adjective usage. It is perfectly possible to live well and enjoy life knowing that you are fundamentally not different than any other object in nature. No higher divinity required.
Could we not say that if science is exploration a scientist is kinda
honour-bound to investigate everything that "is the case" [0], every
corner of life, and incorporate that into his/her model of whatever
they're working on?
What makes life enjoyable for me is exploring it so I've not found a
dichotomy between a "humanist spiritual belief" and a "reductionist
one". That's a smouldering flame war that started half a millennium
back between Copernicus, Galileo and the church. May I suggest a cool
read is "The Two Cultures." by C. P. Snow [1]. Snow thinks, as I do,
that this artificial split holds humanity back. Albert Einstein is
also a great study to get into this groove.
If I am objecting to anything (not sure if I am really) it is the
strident certainty with which some who have explored part of the
territory declare that there is nothing more to see. That applies to
either side. Maybe there's stuff that would make the material facts of
physics and biology that much more wonderful and enjoyable to behold.
[0] "The world is all that is the case" - Wittgenstein
