[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[david buchanan]

Case,

I'm just about to pack the one-horse sleigh for the trip to grandma's house. 
You know, over the woods and through the river. I'll try to reply later. 
Right now I'm focused on getting hold of Santa's list. He has the names of 
all the naughty girls in the whole world.

dmb



>dmb says:
>Yea, I don't get that either. What sense does it make to criticize one kind
>faith from the standpoint of a different sort of faith?
>
>[Case]
>Isn't that what you strive to do with mysticism. I don't see mysticism,
>philosophical or otherwise as anything more than another brand of faith.
>
>[dmb]
>I guess I can only speak for myself, but it seems that distinction would be
>entirely irrelevant if one is making a case against faith-based beliefs.
>
>[Case]
>Just for old times sake let me once again point out there are no beliefs
>that are not rooted in faith. But I warn you that is a boring topic and I
>really don't care to beat around that bush again.
>
>[dmb]
>I mean, I've never come close to saying that theism is perfectly fine 
>unless
>its this or that kind of theism. When it comes to rejecting faith-based
>theism, I'm really not that picky. I'd reject them all in favor of a
>religous worldview based on experience and knowledge, one that respects
>rationality and evidence, philosophy and science.
>
>[Case]
>There are incarnations of Christianity and I suspect Islam, Buddhism and
>certainly Taoism that meet this test. One can quibble about whether belief
>in a higher consciousness is belief in God or whether say pantheism
>qualifies as theism. But for example Whitehead's philosophy was taken up by
>theologians who developed process theology. To suggest that theologians do
>not favor these things is simply to be ignorant about theology.
>
>[dmb]
>I want a religion that makes sense and requires no faith whatsoever. Don't
>you? I'm not talking about perfect answers or eternal truth, just something
>that's not built on wishes or bullshit.
>
>[Case]
>Whether in religion, philosophy or science, you have to start somewhere. To
>argue back to "first principles" is an exercise in infinite regress. You
>have to start somewhere. You have to make assumptions. You have to accept
>certain things as given. I regard this act of starting somewhere as an act
>of faith. We have been through this before and if you don't like the term
>pick another but the idea that some form of reason will give you
>justification all the way down is more like blind faith than reason.
>
>[dmb]
>By the way, the lion poop jokes were not about religion so much as the
>paranoia of certain MOQers, who tend to take this sort of criticism as a
>form of persecution. As if such criticisms were off limits. Pah-leeeze.
>Nothing is off limits and anyone who is uncomfortable with being so
>challenged has no business in a place like this.
>
>[Case]
>For the record I liked your thing on lion poop.
>
>[dmb]
>The problem with theists is not that they are stupid but that they are
>anti-intellectual and or reactionary. This is where the social-intellectual
>distinction pays off, I think. There happens to be a pretty strong
>correlation, enough that one could make a generalization.
>
>[Case]
>Not all theists are anti-intellectual or reactionary. The problem is that
>the denominations that have attempted to be intellectually honest have not
>been terribly successful because most people do not go to church to think.
>One can certainly fault the religious left for incompetence but not for
>being anti-intellectual.
>
>[dmb]
>Its like John Stuart Mill said. "Conservatives aren't necessarily stupid,
>but most stupid people are conservative." We could substitute "creationist"
>or "theist" or any number of anti-intellectual positions and it would be
>just as good a generalization, I think. And the situation is even worse in
>this context. I mean, I can't see how it would be logically possible to 
>make
>a case for theism or any kind of faith-based beliefs within the MOQ. I'm 
>not
>saying that anyone who says otherwise is stupid, but I'm pretty sure that
>such a position would have to be based on some kind of misconception cause
>it just doesn't add up.
>
>[Case]
>As I have said many times, I am not pro-theism. I just do not distinguish
>between theism and "philosophical mysticism" in the way you do. When it
>comes to all of this anti-intellectual this and that, as far as I am
>concerned theism and mysticism are on equal footing.
>
>
>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/

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/