Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

40612Re: exploratory committee for political progress: Dawkins

Expand Messages
  • star
    Feb 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > star:
      > <I'm not entirely sure that I trust Dawkins' agenda. He seems to
      > aggressively campaign for atheism in the same way that he accuses
      > certain Christians of pushing Christianity. Certainly both points of
      > view should be out in the realm of discourse, but I think that he is
      > somewhat of a hypocrite. >
      >
      > so what? i assume you have critical judgment which is better used for
      > mining for whatever is useful in Dawkins as in anyone, instead of
      > wasting a lot of time judging someone whose conscious or unconscious
      > motivations are only partially interesting and "uncoverable" even to
      the
      > person himself. i at least am more interested in what i can come up
      > with, or if a facilitator, how i can facilitate someone else's
      > independent critical development as opposed to engaging in what i think
      > is largely thankless and irrelevant for the purpose. (this is not to
      > deny your right to pursue what you are interested in.) my attitude
      > comes out of a philosophy compatible with existentialism that i am
      first
      > of all responsible for myself.
      >
      > aija
      > ps my first contact with existentialism was late gradeschool
      > childrens' literature (obscure, not in english)
      >


      Very well said. I suppose that my concern is that there are many
      people who don't believe that they are responsible for themselves or
      who may not even know to question the source of their beliefs, to
      develop themselves. While it is such a generality to categorize most
      of us into one homogeneous group, mainstream beliefs or attitudes in
      our cultures seem to come from those who are the loudest or who have
      the strongest rhetoric. Some people just believe things because they
      hear them; this can be very dangerous for society, or at the very
      least could provide an impediment to the development of our society.
      But to what degree can we actually influence mainstream thought?
      Would we even want to? If we're going to care about hunger, disease,
      and poverty in the world, would we not care about ignorance?
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic