From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 18:17:52 BST
> We all do so, necessarily, but we should always
> be willing to face challenges to them and revise them if we
> cannot meet those challenges. Religious beliefs don't have
> that property: they are held whatever the facts.
I would certainly say that this is unfair because many
people who take religion seriously are more than happy
to re-think religion in the context of new knowledge coming
to light, I would sldo say that it is a valid point in so far as
I would also ask us all to continually re-think what we know and believe
in the light of new knowledge, I think a life that resists such
challenge a poor one, some religious people and atheists do seem
to try to ignore new knowledge preferring their long held
assumptions. Essentially I am inclined to place knowledge based
on experience and a genuine dialogue with nature above that
knowldge that is asserted in old books and is often more interested
in worlds that do not exist here on earth.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: MD Religion of the future.
> Hi Mark H,
>
> > It wasn't my intention to evoke another mindless diatribe against one of
> > the great thinkers of the 20th century.
>
> You brought up Chomsky and added an arguable assertion, not me.
>
> > Certainly you can agree or
> > disagree with Chomksy, but to attack him ad hominem, and dismiss him as
if
> > he were some school child who hadn't done his homework makes you look
> > ridiculous. Too bad.
>
> By your lights I'm in good company because no one looks more ridiculous
> than Chomsky when he asserts that America is "a leading terrorist state."
> Too bad, indeed.
>
> > What's ironic about your attack is that Chomsky certainly agrees that
all
> > belief systems are necessarily based on uncertain premises. Below is
his
> > recent response to a statement that science had proved the impossibility
of
> > resurrection:
> >
> >
> > **** BEGIN CHOMSKY
> > Within the framework of our scientific knowledge,
> > resurrection is next to impossible. But those who believe
> > in resurrection wouldn't contest that. Their point is that
> > science provides only limited understanding of reality, and
> > there's no way to argue against that conviction.
>
> Pirsig agrees that science provides only a limited understanding of
> reality and argues convincingly for that conviction. As I said, Chomsky
> should read and try to absorb ZMM and Lila. One of the greatest thinkers
> of the 20th century might learn something. :-)
>
> > My own feeling is that it's not wise to hold irrational
> > beliefs.
>
> No belief is more irrational than Chomsky's that there's moral equivalence
> between the terrorists who attacked on 9-11 and the U.S.
>
> > We all do so, necessarily, but we should always
> > be willing to face challenges to them and revise them if we
> > cannot meet those challenges. Religious beliefs don't have
> > that property: they are held whatever the facts.
>
> Note the irony. Chomsky holds so-called 'facts' higher than religious
> beliefs even though 'facts' (like religious beliefs) arise from a belief
> system based on uncertain premises--a 'fact' Chomsky concedes.
>
> > That's
> > not unique to religion. Unfortunately, it's a large
> > component of the intellectual culture, at the "highest
> > level" -- what Hans Morgenthau, the founder of realist
> > international relations theory, called "our conformist
> > subservience to those in power." It's enough to read the
> > morning's newspaper or intellectual journals to find plenty
> > of examples, which in my opinion at least, are far more
> > dangerous than belief in resurrection.
>
> What's sauce for the goose . . . Many consider Chomsky's views far more
> dangerous than belief in resurrection.
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 05 2004 - 18:24:11 BST