[extropy-chat] Faith-based thought vs thinkers Re: Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 28, 2006, at 5:39 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Russell Wallace wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Russell Wallace
> To: ExI chat list
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet
>
> On 1/27/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> How come?  The Crusades and various Israel-Arab conflicts were paltry
> little affairs compared to the major wars of the last century.  The
> historical record doesn't make your case.  Now, if we decide to
> declare an all out conflict targeted at one or more major religions,
> that would be a dangerous and foolish thing to do.  Let's not go  
> there.
>
> I agree. Most followers of the world's major religions are not  
> enemies of progress. Yes, a minority of fanatics are; the same is  
> true among atheists; to indiscriminately tag all "faith-based  
> thinkers" as the enemy is both untrue and unproductive.
>
> Perhaps you are right that "faith-based thinkers" should not be  
> regarded as the enemy. Perhaps it is 'faith-based thought', not the  
> 'thinker' that is the root danger. But the thinker or non-thinker  
> is the agent or vector.
>

I don't think faith is "the enemy".  I think human irrationality in  
all its guises is the real danger including simplistic narrow focus  
on what "the enemy" is.  We don't have time for this nonsense.


>
> The only atheists that have done significant harm that I am aware  
> of have only been able to do so because large numbers of people put  
> faith in them.
>

The same is true of all "leaders" and causes,  in their effects for  
good or ill, whether religious or not.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060201/0737097c/attachment.html>