----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:15 PM Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
> Rich, who doesn't think most atheists are decent people because of their > lack of beliefs about metaphysics any more than he thinks that most > religious people are decent people because of their beliefs about > metaphysics. I appreciate your sentiment, but I've got a question for you. How can you argue against a position like Foucault's, without using metaphysics? I've seen it come in through the back door...with talk of progress. But, progress implies an ability to measure, unless one says, by definition, today is always better than yesterday. You mentioned decent...and I think we probably have very similar pictures of what decent is. But what makes this the working definition of a decent person instead of, say, someone who is a good and faithful member of the Communist party who turns in a neighbor for suspicious activity. If you remember my intermittent series of essays, they were attempts to frame this question by exploring some of the limits of empirical knowledge. Yea, I know that's ambitious, but its fun. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
