> (HiHiramGonash
>> But I question the need for worship
>> and dogma. If "God" is just a physical force
>> there's no need for Worship of Mass Dogma
>
> Hear, hear!
I feel like an argument is being refuted that I never
made. I recommended that article to everyone's attention
because I thought the history of Judaism-Christianity
-Islam was interesting--particularly the point about
how the West studied Arabic/the Middle East for centuries
while the Middle East made no reciprocal effort to understand
the West.
Then Dean got onto his atheism thing, essentially arguing
that religion is the root of all genocide. Mike refuted
that by pointing to all the communist dictatorships that
killed more in the 20th century than the Crusades or other
religious wars in the middle ages (though of course we know
that this was partly because of evolving technology). Dean
shrugged that off with a "dictatorships are cults of personality,
and therefore basically a form of relgion" argument that
I, personally, didn't find very convincing.
As I've said elsewhere, *The Atlantic* published this article
as a companion piece to the "Apatheism" article that Dean
was happy with (at least, he like my summary, and appeared to
endorse the underlying theme)--the thesis being that religion
is a personal matter, and the ability to leave it as a private
concern is a triumph of our society.
This longer essay discussed the notion of "tolerance" or
(as it so well pointed out) "mutual respect" *within/between*
the established faiths (which you could actually read as an
extension of the "apatheism" point). The idea is that we need
to get away from trying to "convert" others--or the "I'm right,
you're wrong, go to hell" sensibility.
I never said, "hey. I suspect there is a God. Now go out and
worship him/her/it." And neither did the article.
> This is _the_ critical point so rarely made. Often,
> the
> arguments about the existence of a "higher power" end
> up defining that H.P. in such broad way that pretty
> much anything (e.g., our sun, the oceans) qualifies.
> The bar needs to be much, much higher to justify
> human behavior in this regard.
That presupposes that the behavior in question requires
some sort of justification. I'm not so sure that's
the case. If it's no business of the believer that the
athiest doesn't practice a faith, it's equally no business
of the unbeliever that someone else chooses to practice
a particular faith.
>Debates about mere
> existence are really of little use. Does the number 0
> exist? how about 1? pi? Fun debate, but please.
Please what?
> (ToToughSlush
>> (The line that struck me was the one about can we
>> imagine an internal-combustion engine simply
> evolving
>> on its own?
>
> Nothing happens "on its own", everything is part of an
> environment which influences its evolution. One can
> speculate about thinking "beings" behind the process
> but then one would need to define thinking. [Famous
> example, does an anthill think?]
>
>> --and how much more complex is the body/brain of any
>> animal, a human in particular?)
>
> And how much longer did that evolution take?
Yup. That's the obvious reply. But there are a number of
respected scientists who still feel that there was a
larger intelligence guiding the process.
> Bark!
Okey-doke. Someone-or-other is a dog. If I can only remember
who that is.
Take care, now.
--Q.M.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2003-06-02 11:38:14
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: 2020-02-04 07:16:17 UTC