[MD] The End of Faith

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Marsha,

I didn't mean to suggest that his review was worthless. I thought it was interesting.  Thanks for the link.

Regards,
Steve



 
On Tuesday, January 22, 2008, at 09:00AM, "MarshaV" <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>Stephen,
>
>Liking Ayn Rand doesn't make his review totally bogus.   He both 
>praised and criticized the book.  I thought it worth 
>consideration.  I call myself an atheist, not because I have a 
>feeling of affection for the word.  I use the word because it's not 
>wishy-washy.  Such deeply embedded dogma needs more than wishy-washy 
>platitudes to challenge it.  Whether god exists is as interesting to 
>me as whether Tinkerbell exists.  It's too silly for 
>consideration.  But the doctrine and dogma warrant a noisy challenge 
>from all who would dare to.
>
>Marsha
>
>At 10:04 AM 1/22/2008, you wrote:
>>Hi Marsha,
>>
>>This guy seems to be a big Ayn Rand fan and dismisses mystical 
>>experience out of hand. Harris has gotten a lot of flack from 
>>atheists for his openness to mysticism.
>>
>>In a lot of this guy's critiques he seems to miss what Harris is saying.
>>
>>He wants The End of Faith to be a philosophy book, and I can relate 
>>to his wanting a more systematic philosophy. Reading the book 
>>through the lens of the moq, I think it holds up well.
>>
>>One of his main critiques is one suggested by Platt that reason 
>>requires a leap of faith.
>>
>>He says, "A grave weakness of this book is that it neither 
>>summarizes nor points its reader to an adequate defense of reason as 
>>a means of gaining valid knowledge. Rather, the book seems to either 
>>assume that the reader agrees with the validity of reason, that no 
>>such validation is necessary, or worst, that no such validation is 
>>possible. As a result, the book is vulnerable to the charge that its 
>>author is asking us to accept -- on faith -- the validity of reason! 
>>As I have already said, the book is quite sloppy philosophically..."
>>
>>Harris doesn't say that reason is how we "gain" knowledge, he just 
>>says that our knowledge should stand to reason. In MOQ terms reason 
>>is just a synonym for intellectual quality.
>>
>>In evaluating whether faith is a good or bad thing we don't need to 
>>define what intellectual quality is or prove the "validity of 
>>reason." We only need to say that it is bad to believe things that 
>>are of low intellectual quality which in MOQ terms is obvious.
>>
>>When people appeal to faith in religion while they appeal to reason 
>>and evidence in every other area of their lives,  they are admitting 
>>that what they are claiming is of low intellectual quality and then 
>>patting themselves on the back for believing it anyway.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>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/
>
>
>*************
>DEFINITION of  Marsha, I, me, self, & etc.:   Ever-changing 
>collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, 
>social and intellectual, static patterns of value.
>
>     
>
>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/
>
>