... I resented scientific reductionism with its unbelievable arrogance in reducing us and our amazing abilities and our complicated history to the lowest materialist ponderings of the ********* / stooppidest scientist out there.
It's funny how you equate humility about our "amazing abilities" to arrogance.
Still Better Than Religion! is a great slogan for people who prefer machine fantasies to religious ones. But those of us who consider ourselves humanists wonder how much difference there really is between the two.
I consider myself a humanist because there's no alternative. I wouldn't have any problem believing in religion if it was in any way plausible.
A lot of the messages we get from the science industry are depressingly anti-humanistic.
My copy must have been lost in the email. Do you have any examples?
Well, how about Dawkins telling us we're nothing but machines built by our genes to propagate themselves? How about Krauss telling us that we're "cosmically insignificant"? I don't consider either of these messages very humanistic, but maybe you've got a different take on it than I do.
I think humility is an important part of humanism. As I've said before in other topics, humanism doesn't mean that we can solve all of our own problems, only that we have a responsibility to try.
There's no humility in reducing Shakespeare or Plato or Confucius or the Bible to their atomic constituents, that IS arrogance, and a recipe for mindless demoralization.
It isn't "reducing" at all. It's recognizing what WE as humans have accomplished. It's elevating the Bible from a mere newspaper, as you would have it, to literature that's as valuable as Plato or Confucius. This is what WE can do; it's not just a memo from some alien overlord.