Keith Addison wrote:
KA> weak, so I didn't post it. Andrew Brown (an ex-colleague at The KA> Independent) is more reasoned, worth posting. I didn't know you used to write for The Independent, it's the second best British daily. I stopped reading the online version a long time ago because with half of the articles there's a short summary and then you have to pay a quid to read the whole thing. KA> You're mistaken if you think I necessarily agree with news pieces I KA> post here. OK, point taken. KA> I'm a journalist, after all. Does it inform? Does it KA> broaden the debate? Does it add depth? In this case I think it does, KA> so I posted it. The article doesn't add anything to the debate. The tedious "atheists also commit atrocities" line is wheeled out time and time again, as if it effectively countered the assertion that religion is harmful. It's nothing new. Attacking Dawkins for failing to explain the persistence of religion in the face of rationality is scraping the barrel. That wasn't the primary intention of "The God Delusion". KA> actually I think the whole KA> religionist vs atheist tussle misses the mark. A disturbingly large percentage of the population of the world's economically and militarily most powerful country, which is also the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, seriously believe that a mythical being called Jesus will during their lifetimes descend from the clouds like a superhero and escort his true believers to heaven and then destroy the planet and the rest of of humanity with it. These people therefore don't have the slightest interest in doing anything about environment/climate issues. Religion is relevant. >>As to the charge of arrogance: given the utter insigificance of our >>sun on the scale of the galaxy and the utter insigificance of our >>galaxy on the scale of the universe, it's hubris of the highest order >>to imagine that God, if such a thing exists, would have the slightest >>interest in what what one particular member of one particular species on >>one particular planet is getting up to. KA> I happen to disagree with that. What do you think "God" is, some sort KA> of corporate CEO? I'm an atheist. I don't think "God" "is" anything. No such thing exists. KA> Hubris is a strange choice of words to use. I stand by my use of the word. Concrete example: Many survivors of Katrina - which God, in his loving omnipotence, allowed or even wanted to happen - attributed their survival to divine intervention. Since God chose not to save everyone, they must believe that there was something special about them that made them worthy of being saved, whereas others were not worthy. Maybe you can think of a better word for it; I like the word "hubris" and I'm sticking to it. KA> Maybe KA> there's more hubris in such a flat view that cannot conceive of a KA> spiritual dimension that includes all living creatures, each and KA> every one, in particular, and everything else too. Doesn't your KA> imagination stretch that far? Give it some exercise. You're making some rather unwarranted assumptions about the elasticity of my imagination. I can conceive of, and do not categorically rule out, the existence of some kind of spiritual dimension. But since it's perfectly possible to live morally and ethically without such a belief, I don't give the matter very much thought. KA> Anyway I don't quite see what all this above and below has to do with KA> Andrew Brown's criticism of Dawkins' "The God Delusion". For KA> instance, he doesn't use the word arrogance (nor arrogant). It's possible that I was a bit hasty in lumping him with all the jornalists who are jumping so eagerly onto the Dawkins-bashing bandwagon, but the fact remains that he says nothing that hasn't already been said and refuted countless times. KA> Seems to KA> me you're being a bit shrill yourself, aren't you? Not in the least. KA> Also by the way, I think I rather object to this emailer style of KA> labelling every line in the piece I posted "KA>". I didn't author it, KA> please don't attribute it to me. My email prog does that automatically; it's generally quite useful for keeping track of who said what and who's quoting who. I deliberately included your link in the bits that I quoted in order to avoid people getting the impression that I was attributing the article to you personally. Regards, David _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
