[ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero

Keith Henson hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Tue Aug 10 02:01:06 UTC 2010

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:00 PM,  John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

(Keith wrote)

>> It's not *useful* to point out that religions are illogical.
> Why not?! Most people think religion is logical and moral and that error has caused centuries of grief. Most people, apparently even most people on this list, think that religion is the one human activity that should be completely immune from criticism and any violation from this social norm proves the violator to be a profoundly immoral person.

I really doubt a significant number on this list think religions are
logical and moral.  There are no doubt places on the earth and on the
net where that is the prevailing feeling.  It would not be useful
there either because you would be trying to convince people of fixed


>> Their very existence is due to psychological mechanisms that (in appropriate
>> circumstances) induce irrational behavior because (in the stone age)
>> such behavior, irrational and harmful to the host as it is, helps genes to propagate.
> I don't care, ITS 100% IRRELEVANT!!
>> But the history of war is replete with people doing things that were irrational.
> Very true, and the most irrational was pretending the very obvious threat staring them in the face wasn't there.
>> Working ourselves up into a frenzy and taking irrational actions
> Pointing out the truth is not irrational and you haven't even tried to make the case that I am in error in what I say, just that some truths should never be uttered because its bad public relations.
>> isn't nearly as effective as working out rational approaches to dealing with the problems.
> But you admit you have no solution to the problem of Islam, rational or otherwise.

Actually, there are obvious solutions.  They are so politically
unacceptable I only dare treat them in fiction.

> Yes, you have a nice theory as to what caused the problem, but even if it's true it's of academic interest only because it helps you not at all in finding a solution. I don't know how to solve the problem either but I do know how to make it worse, pretending there is no problem.

Mendeleev did not jump from the periodic table to quantum chemistry.
But the understanding that emerged from these developments influenced
chemistry till Linus Pauling figured out the quantum chemistry 70
years later that is behind the periodic table.

You seem to be only concerned with the surface froth where my interest
is in the deep underlying currents.

It's a difference we probably cannot bridge.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list