[MD] economic pragmatism

[David M]

Hi Ian/Mark

I certainly think that militant secularism is likely to make things worse.
For me militant secularism claims that science and the enlightenment
has disproved religion. This rather stupid exaggeration tries to ban
all critical discussion about our values and how to live that cannot be
resolved by science. Religious fundamentalism is another threat but it
is the other side of the same coin. Critical thinking would recognise
that discussing metaphysics, religious values, other values, the MOQ, was 
essential
to exploring what approaches to life and values and experience are
possible and are the context in which we might undertake any
knowledge acquiring activities such as science.

Everyone and every perspective should be invited to our
negotiated and shared choices about how we want to live.
Secularism is a set of value choices and should show up to
the debate like everyone else and stop claiming some kind of
fake purity.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] economic pragmatism


> Mark and David M, (and Gav and Arlo et al)
> I like the quality of both your thinking, so this is worth exploring.
>
> Mark I believe you are right when you say religions (most aspects of
> "all" religions) are imitated patterns of behaviour, social or
> socio-cultural if you like. Agreed.
>
> I think few of us understimate the significance of this fact in our
> time. The in our time aspect is an illusion, but everything post-9/11
> puts this stuff in stark focus for us to debate. The significance is
> apocalyptic - Armageddon-sized.
>
> What more of us underestimate is that the "immitated patterns of
> behavior" criticism can be aimed at a great deal of what passes for
> science and logic too, particularly in the popular media and politics
> arena.
>
> So how do we "eliminate" (the bad social imitation aspects of both
> science and) religion ? (That's not a rhetorical question). How do we
> ensure good memes prevail over bad (and what is good Phaedrus ?)
>
> You can probably tell, I side with David when he suggests dialogue
> (engagement / interaction) is better than .... anything else I can
> think of. And I'm no less an atheist for that. (Baggini, Wittgenstein
> and Matt Kundert have all tried to point out to us that dialogue is
> the key to any good philosophy.)
>
> Cool (and wise) heads needed, as I suggested when commenting on a
> recent interview ith the Archbishop of Canterbury.
>
> We have a great opportunity to build here, post the Democratic US
> election wins, and the (new, but rhetorical) focus on "values"; but it
> will all come to nothing if the partisan cynics are allowed to
> polarise every debate.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On 11/19/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mark
>>
>> I think, like everything else, religion needs to
>> evolve.  I would suggest that engagement and
>> interaction with religious thought would  be required
>> to try and help itto develop.
>>
>> Ta
>> David
>>
>> Mark 19-11-06: Hello David,
>> The fact is all religions are imitated patterns of behaviour.
>> If they are not there to be imitated they won't exist.
>> They have been invented.
>> Do you understand the magnitude of this claim?
>> Love,
>> Mark
>> 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/
>