On 8 Feb, 17:36, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > Jefferson was a deist, not an atheist. He also had nowhere near the > knowledge available that we do now. >
True on both counts. I pointed out the quote as Ian, an atheist, was influenced by Jefferson, which I found curious. There's a lot to be said for deism, but it boils down to whether or not God's omnipresence is purely transcendental or bothe transcendental AND immanent. I believe that it must be both and that immanence requires God to be acutely involved with all events down to the quantum level. And that is a level of caring and consideration and involvement that precludes a purely deistic view. Although, for several years, I did claim to be deistic. > On Feb 8, 5:05 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
