[Marxism] marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
dwalters at marxists.org
dwalters at marxists.org
Fri Dec 8 20:37:43 MST 2006
David Mcdonald can lawyer for Walter all he wants', but Walter raising something
like, because it's Walter, it begs the case as to where he comes up with this.
Yes, David, it is a dig, partly because Walter, who does have independent
thoughts apart from that what he reads in Gramna, only expresses them when you
*dig and drag* them the hell out of him. In fact, I'm more interested half the
time with what Walter' *actually thinks* and not his parroting of the line of
the CCP (or what ever other gov't or agency is currently in conflict with the
US.) BTW, David, nice little race-baiting job there. Well done...
I actually agree too with Gramna's position. This position started to change
when the now-dead Pope visited Havana. I thought the discussion in Gramna was
actually interesting then and it's one of those discussions that never goes
away because it's intrinsically philosophically interesting. I suspect, like
the article in Gramna positions, it's still an ongoing discussion.
Actually, McDonald misses part of Dawkin's argument. Dawkins point about
religious fanaticism is partly correct and he is very good about making his
point, McDonald's childish protestations notwithstanding. But Dawkins point is
not that the irreligious can't be fanatics, but to prove that belief in God can
get anyone to believe...and behave, in anyway *beyond the pale of discussion*.
At the point in which a group or individual believes he's doing gods work, then
all discussions are off because that automatically *ends the discussion*. Not
true with the scientists David McDonald quite correctly condemns for making
bombs and other forms of human destruction. At least with them you can *make
the argument*. Why? Because whether you like it or not, you speak the same
language. The 'fanatic' of the religious type doesn't.
When Dawkins argues like in the paraphrase from McDonald: "because the views of
the religious about religious questions cannot be refuted, unlike those of
science", is, quite honestly, very true.
My problem with Dawkins method is that in his view, it seems to me, there is an
*inevitability* to god-belief and fanaticism, even though he doesn't condemn
religious belief by all people who don't act fanatically. In this he doesn't
prove it at all and it's an unfortunate deduction on his part.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
More information about the Marxism