Faith-based thought vs thinkers Re: [extropy-chat] Intelligent Design: I'm not dead yet
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sun Jan 29 01:39:37 UTC 2006
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.
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.
To me "faith-based thinking" rings like a contradiction in terms. To me faith-based thinking looks the same in its consequences as non-thought but perhaps
you have a different understanding of the word faith.
Can you offer any examples where faith-based thinking is progressive, humanistic, extropic, or in any way a net benefit to people in its consequences?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat