On 8 Feb, 10:05, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > Vam and Lee, > > Sorry for not replying for a few days. It's been in my mind to do so, but > I've been a little unsure about how much would be appropriate to write. Some > things are more personal than I'd care to share on a public forum. This is > the abridged version, then... > > My formative years were growing up under Thatcher's government here in > Britain, which saw the absolute worst of unfettered capitalism, awful race > riots, and the working classes marginalised. Greed and illiberalism was > everywhere. The result of this was -- by around the age of 13 -- me becoming > a card carrying Marxist. I was politically very switched on, very active. I > read the obvious communist pamphlets and books, which was also supplemented > by Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, and Frederich Nietzsche. An odd mix, > I admit. From this period of my life I still retain many views. >
Ah yes, Jefferson. The man who wrote,"We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable(sic) rights..." Not exactly an atheistic statement. > There have been two other great influences in my worldview. > > The first was discovering the literature of the beat generation, which > happened around the age of 15. Kerouac and Burroughs in particular > influenced my creative side; I found something in the rhythm and freedom of > their prose and it inspired me to write. Kerouac's writing on Buddhism got > me interested in spirituality. > > The second was an unexpected love of science triggered by a fantastic > teacher at school and which was further fuelled by avidly reading National > Geographic and the like. Darwin had always been interesting to me, but it > was microbiology -- and, on a recommendation, Dawkins' Selfish Gene -- that > really caught me. > > Somewhere, somehow, all of these things distilled into humanist worldview. > Equality, love of the one life we have, morality based on shared human > experience, and secularism all matter deeply to me. > > Hope that helps you to understand my perspective! > > Ian All sounds reasonable. "Love of the one life we have...", though, is an interesting statement. What do we know of the one life we have? And how do we know that there isn't more later in some other form? More importantly, how do we know that there is not? Personally, I tend to think you're a great guy, personable and, most likely, the kind of bloke one could rely upon as a true friend if needed. But Dawkins is no one to look up to. There's no problem with a selfish gene, as that would only make sense if one (any creature!!) were to be instilled with an instinct towards survival, so it's hardly surprising. 'The God Delusion', though, is a completely different thing. I expect that Mr. Dawkins has never had a 'extraordinary spiritual experience'. Well, they ARE rare. Dawkins IS didactic against God, as he (Dawkins) has a belief that his views are intellectually superior. They aren't. They are only based on his own, limited experiences. To me, Dawkins is as dangerous as are the religious fundamentalists, as he would wage war against God. If there is no God, his war would be futile and, more importantly, if there is a God, his war would be futile. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he would be able to comprehend that; but, sadly, he's not. Either he's casting aspersions against nothing or he's casting aspersions against the one and only thing that could ever help him. How stupid is THAT? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
