Subject: Re: By God!
From: Sundeep Dougal (holden@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 08:09:39 EST
Jim,
With all humility, may I point out that much as I may be guilty of
using many epithets, but 'condescending' was certainly not one of
them when referring to you or your messages. A careful perusal of my
messages might show, on the other hand, that I did refer to my own
tone to be condescending.
And I _did_ notice how often you admit to the little or no relevance
any 'personal revelation' can have in a 'debate' like this, which is
why it amazes me even more that you should keep citing and clinging
to it.
If you read my first post on the subject, you'd notice that I am not
complaining about your repetitions and regurgitations but only
marvelling at the politeness with which they were being treated,
which made me think of Goebbels.
Which brings me to your speculation on my 'faith' and what you
suggest I may be hoping for, viz. "something in the future that has
never existed in the past -- complete knowledge".
First, as an unabashed fan of Ambrose Bierce ["Faith: Belief without
evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of
things without parallel."], and thankfully since I am not as
credulous as the Electric Monk in Dirk Gentley's Holistic Detective
Agency, I leave this "illogical belief in the occurrence of the
improbable" for the "religious minded."
As Nietzsche said (I mention it only because it at least
peripherally provides an ObSal reference), a casual stroll through
the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Well,
he also said that it means not wanting to know what is true. And as
Mark Twain said, "It was the schoolboy who said, 'Faith is believing
what you know ain't so'". Nor am I a mystic that I would refuse to
study physics so as to understand the Universe.
As for mystery. Yes, there is mystery in the universe, beguiling
mystery, but it is not magic. As for a "creator of some kind", I
refer you back to earlier posts. Of course, we should keep an open
mind, and not be closed to possibilities -- but not so open that our
brains fall off. And if the Catcher in the Rye is missing, they may
just go hurtling down the abyss of space-time continuum with no
Infinite Probability Drive with a Heart of Gold around to retrieve
them.
And, Jim, of course you are right about one thing. There's no
point in having this "discussion".
You'd realise, I hope, that I didn't express a wish to have one with
you.
Sonny
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade
the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief
in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
The worst thing is that the rest of us are supposed to
respect it: to treat it with kid gloves. If a slaughterman
doesn't comply with the law in respect of cruelty to animals,
he is rightly prosecuted and punished. but if he complains
that his cruel practices are necessitated by religious faith,
we back off apologetically and allow him to get on with it.
Any other position that someone takes up can expect to be
defended with reasoned argument. Faith is allowed not to
justify itself by argument.
Faith must be respected; and if you don't respect it, you are
accused of violating human rights. Even those with no faith
have been brainwashed into respecting the faith of others.
When so-called Muslim community leaders go on the radio
and advocate the killing of Salman Rushdie, they are clearly
committing incitement to murder--a crime for which they would
ordinarily be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned. But are they
arrested? They are not, because our secular society "respects"
their faith, and sympathises with the deep "hurt" and "insult"
to it. Well I don't. I will respect your views if you can
justify them, but if you justify your views only by saying you
have faith in them, I shall not respect them."
- Richard Dawkins
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:04 EST