Hi DMB
dmb said:
Dawkins and Hitchens aren't philosophers and neither is their audience. I
think its only reasonable to criticize their work within the context of
journalism and popular non-fiction rather than philosophy. ....two different
topics.
DM: I think this desire to draw clear and distinct lines between subjects is
a pretty dubious way of trying to avoid what I think is a legitimate form of
criticism,
but if you don't want to allow philosophy to be a critical tool that's your
bad choice. Don't you just mean you don't want to criticise poor thinking
when it agrees with you. Shame on you.
dmb said:
I think I know what you're getting at and I'd agree that the "culture wars"
might have been smoother. But I think you're conflating SOM with just about
everything intellectual. It hardly seems fair to construe the conflict
between science and religion as a contest between SOM and religion because
that suggests traditional religion is somehow immune to or outside of SOM.
DM: My point, and I think you are conceding it, is that where science is
closer to SOM it is more likely to think it needs to have a pointless fight
and wrong headed with religion. I agree with your point that religion has
picked up the SOM thinking too to largely fight to regain its former
political and social power in a wrong headed way.
DMB:... when we think about this in terms of the MOQ's diagnosis, as
conflict between social and intellectual values, we can defend "a wall of
separation" between church and state.
DM: How can we defend it without SOM is I think the point a
post-metaphysician or post-essentialist might make? Social and intellectual
values are the very basis of politics. The problem is not to ban certain
values from being brought to the political table, but learning how we can do
politics when we have such diverse and
conflicting values.
DMB: And even if we could conflate secular values, science and reason with
SOM, it still would be no defense for religion because it is just as
implicated in SOM as any other area of the culture.
DM: Sure there is more to more to science, secularism and reason than SOM.
But we need to re-think these things post-SOM, but the same obviously goes
for religion, it too is being re-though post-SOM. See above you say we still
need to hang on to science, reason and secularism post-SOM, and I agree, but
then you think that changes nothing about religion, clearly that is just an
unjustified prejudice of yours, so be it, but others are and will be seeking
a post-SOM approach to religion. For example see Robert C Solomon's
Spirituality for the Skeptic, where he suggests that the worst approach to
religion possible is seeing it in terms of truth or belief as this forum
rather boringly goes round and around doing.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
