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

[Brett Paatsch]

Samantha wrote:
  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 charcterisation of faith-based groups as "the enemy" wasn't mine. I adopted the terminology that was being used already in the thread. 

But hey, if you are opposed to irrationality in all its guises then good for you.    

*Faith-based GROUPS*, this is me using standard terminology not from this thread but from commentary I've heard in mainstream media and elsewhere, are not just plain old isolated unorganised aggregations of irrationality though (heck we can get plenty of that here ;-).  Faith-based groups can be very effective NGOs (non government organisations).  This is acknowledge by Prime Minister Blair of the UK, and a reference was made to faith-based groups by President Bush in his state of the union speech.

Faith-based groups can be and some are highly effective political units within democracies.  They raise funds, they lobby, they write letters, they door knock. And they group-think.  They are composed of homo sapiens that can use computers, email, take polls, and target politicians. And they are committed. And they are funded by churches that get tax deductable donations. 

One thing they are definately not big on though, is the separation of church from state, or keeping their own faith-based worldviews out of the courts. 

Those that are occassionally inclined to think politics is what politicians do should only consider what religious activists in faith-based groups do. 






    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
Agreed. But established religions have institutions associated with them and they are power centres in their own right. They are establishment with a capital E. If a person wants to go into politics without going into politics a religious leadership role is probably the vocation of choice. 


Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060202/b53a59db/attachment.html>