[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[david buchanan]

dmb said to DM:
I think your position on the topic is to take sides with the religous 
reactionaries from a quasi-postmodern stance. ...in effect, defending 
evolutionary regression.

DMorey replied:
I think we progress in a spiral so you always go over the same ground but 
trying to move up, so you can never entirely drop away from the past, even 
the reactionary has something to add, and you need to bring out their better 
side.

dmb now says:
Even the reactionary has something to add? I need to bring out the better 
side of reactionaries? Dude, that is wrong on so many levels that I don't 
even know where to begin. This is the sort of attitude one might expect from 
Satan's lawyer or Hitler's guru, but its very unbecoming on a philosopher. 
Doesn't look too hot on you either, Dave. I mean, you do realize what 
"reactionary" means. You do realize that regression and degeneration are 
negative terms, don't you? You realize that the MOQ's moral code would 
describe this as adocating evil, don't you?

DMorey continued:
As you said above their are valuable aspects to religion such as fellowship 
and charity, and wonder, we should hope to keep these aspects and stop 
frightening the religious that they have to give the whole package up if 
they accept science.

dmb says:
What? First of all, fellowship, charity and wonder belong to human beings, 
not religion. Religion sometimes exhibits those things and sometimes it 
doesn't. As far as I know, nobody has ever come close to suggesting such 
things be adandoned in favor of science. This has got to be one of the most 
preposterous straw men ever erected. Anyone who is frightened by the 
thoughts and opinions of others has no business hanging around in a place 
like this. And in any case, we ought no censor ourselves on such matters, 
least of all to spare the feelings of the fearful. That's some kind of 
corruption, a kind of dishonesty.

dmb asked:
Why do you defend religion and then deny being a Christian?

DMorey replied:
Sorry, if the fact that I am not one upsets you.

dmb says:
Its pretty clear that you have no idea what "upsets" me. I mean, the 
question was about one particular inconsistancy among others. My question, 
my criticism here is not about your christianity or lack thereof. The 
criticism is about your contradictions and such...

dmb asked:
Is that just more incoherent equivocation or are you defending things you 
don't believe in?

DMorey answered:
It is just that I see some good in it. I think you have conceded that so I 
think you need to stop being inconsistent and reflect this fact in your 
expressed views from now on. Give religion all the grief you like but make 
it specific about the bad stuff and even drop it the odd support for the 
good stuff. Otherwise you're only gonna make the religious more frightened 
and dangerous...

dmb says:
Right, I should always be sure to say something nice about the nazis when I 
complain about the Holocaust. One should always mention the upside of things 
when condemning the Inquistion, the genocide in Rawanda and, Jeez, suicide 
bombers aren't all bad. They deserve to be complimented just like everybody 
else. It's nice to comment positively on their appearance because wearing 
the bomb-vests usually makes them look fat.

But seriously, Dave. I think that here you are asking me to play a pretty 
childish game and I ain't gonna do it. If it seems that you've had a hard 
time extracting positive comments about religion from me, its not because I 
don't have any. Its just that I don't want to play games about it. If 
mentioning an admirable aspect were relevant to the discussion or the point, 
then it would be biased to leave it out. In that case, you'd have a point. 
But asking me to pepper my posts with such niceties so as to accommodate the 
"frightened and dangerous" christians, whoever they are, is completely 
ridiculous. Comments like that only make me skeptical about your ability to 
debate and discuss thoughtfully.

On top of that, you still avoided the same point, the dynamic superiority of 
science and intellect. But then I guess you'd have to avoid that point to 
defend the reactionaries. I can't imagine that you understand this point and 
disagree. That would be too morally reprehensible for a person to admit. It 
has to be the case that you don't get this point. That's what I mean when I 
say you're allergic to this point. You won't get near it and it seems to 
cause you some kind of pain. But there has been no real disagreement, just 
aversion and avoidance. Been taking Platteral shift lessons, or what?

If you think something nice needs to be said about religion, please feel 
free to say it.

And I'll feel free to say what I think regardless of whether it's nice or 
not.

How's that?

Deal?

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail