Hi DMB, You keep insisting that we are strongly disagreeing, but I can't make out the huge life or death issue that needs to be settled between us with regard to this thread. I understand completely that religious conflict around the world and conservative fundamentalism in the US is the greatest threat to human well-being at this point in history. That's a given, right? I've talked about that a lot, and I admire Sam Harris as much as you do. Our only disagreement as far as I can tell consists in your insistence that all theism is evil in response to my assertion that all theism is not necessarily evil. Such a difference can't explain your continuing "sky is falling" ranting against my view, and I can't tell what else we disagree about here, so I'm pretty confused right now. Are you keeping up with your meds?
Best, Steve On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:08 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Steve said to dmb: > ...Given that as pragmatists, neither of us sees religion as having a true > essence, we should recognize that there are lots of ways of being religious, > right? Are all these ways necessarily evil? Should a pragmatist say that > religion is essentially good or bad? Isn't that like saying that politics or > sports or education are essentially one thing or another? Isn't the issue > about how these practices are done rather than what these practices > essentially are? Can't all these things be good or bad depending on how they > are practiced? > > dmb says: > Who said anything about the essence of religion? Who said there is only one > way to be religious? I've never heard anybody say that. My post all about > the concrete and particular ways it's being practiced right now, right in > front of us. So, I don't see any validity at all to your objections. You're > injecting essentialism into this issue and then objecting to presence of > essentialism. Sorry but that seems pretty disingenuous, if not downright > dishonest. Also, how can you ask me why I've turned this issue into a matter > of life and death, as if killing abortion doctors and gay people is just > something I dreamed up? How is it NOT a matter of life and death if people > are actually getting killed? Because murder doesn't have an essence? > Characterizing my concerns as a chicken little-like rhetorical rant seems > pretty unfair and unkind and dismissive, which wouldn't seem so cruel if you > actually disagreed with the substance of it. But you don't disagree. So > what's with the attitude? > > Steve said: > I think we probably agree about the answers to the above questions, but I > suspect you think that all that is not the point. The question is, what > should we do about the clear and present danger of religious fundamentalism? > I agree that that is the important question. You seem to think that the > in-your-face style of the new atheists is the best way to combat religious > fundamentalism. I'm not so sure that it is, but I also don't claim to know > what the best strategy is. I hoped we could discuss what that strategy > should be, but unfortunately, the suggestion that we even discuss it is > taken as a denial that we are at war. I am reminded of the conservative > war-on-terror rhetoric during the dark days of George II. > > > dmb says: > Well, yes. I fail to see the relevance of essentialism or the > all-or-nothingism, neither of which was asserted by anyone. I never said > anything about the in-your-face style being the best strategy either. I > merely agree with Harris in thinking that nobody should get special > treatment or be let of the hook in terms of our standards of reasonableness. > I mean, if you'd like to take issue with something I actually said or > believe that's fine. Really. I enjoy it. But dude, you're just making stuff > up. > May I remind you that some people were looking right past that war on > terror rhetoric and were instead demanding evidence of Iraq's threat during > the dark days of George II? That evidence was so lacking that the engineers > are now at risk of being charged as war criminals. Because George believes > that God wants the Iraqi people to be free, he manufactured the evidence. > Those weapons have never been found. The link to 9/11 has never been found. > Obviously, this was a matter of life and death too. Expressing concern and > disapproval isn't going to bring them back to life, but it might save lives > in the future, you know? You don't have to be an essentialist to think > that's important or real. You only have to believe that beliefs have > consequences. I'm saying that in these case theistic beliefs have disastrous > consequences and that this is wildly at odds with the notion that we ought > not demand evidence for such beliefs. To the extent that you believe that, > yes, there is a HUGE diff > erence between your view and mine. I would also say that your view is not > pragmatism but rather Rortyism but I suppose that's another topic. > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ > 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/ > 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/
