Paul,

Let me turn it around then. Is a religionist able to
be a "bona fide expert" on the subject of secularism?

If you are less than that, are you merely slumming?

Omar

--- Paul Trejo <petrejo@...> wrote:

> In response to the Fri30May03 post by Omar Lughod:
>
> > Paul asserted unequivocally that an atheist could
> not
> > possibly give valid scholarly representation to
> the
> > subject of religion.
>
> What I said, Omar, is that it is absurd to imagine
> that an
> atheist could be a bona fide expert in Religion. I
> can
> defend that on logical grounds.
>
> > To have a perspective is part of our human
> condition.
> > But that does not preclude us from generating
> > justified beliefs. For no atheist would count
> hirself
> > as rational if they seriously considered their
> > conclusions to be merely private confessions.
>
> That's very true, Omar, and in fact I knew very well
> that I was provoking an existential debate. The
> many
> contradictions within Marxism must sooner or later
> crumble like a house of cards. Better sooner.
>
> > To assert otherwise is to begin in bad faith, as
> though
> > only Hegelians of the right had a monopoly on
> > intellectual integrity.
>
> That is not true, Omar. Many thinkers besides
> Hegelians
> have intellectual integrity. But people who claim
> to know
> a field that is outside their expertise do not.
> Atheists,
> by definition, have nothing to say and nothing to
> add
> to the science of theology.
>
> > That an argument is invalid must be demonstrated,
> > not dismissed on irrelevant grounds.
>
> I offer *plenty* of demonstrations, quotes, reasons
> and observations, Omar. You should know that.
> The frustration evidently arises because my points
> are tautological -- air-tight. Thus the spurious
> claim
> that my arguments are 'ad hominem' arises from mere
> frustration. Marxists are atheists. That is a
> fact, not
> an 'ad hominem' attack.
>
> > What we admire in Hegel, presumably, is that
> > he gives each position its due. He identifies
> both
> > its virtues and prejudices, and achieves the
> sublation
> > of which you speak.
>
> Well, to be fair, Hegel did not write on the
> Internet,
> and his output was mainly limited to a few thousand
> pages of books and lecture notes. Also, Hegel did
> *not* stoop to argue with just anybody -- he
> actively
> avoided the parvenu.
>
> > There have been many atheists who have given us
> good
> > insight into religion: Freud, Nietzsche,
> Schopenhauer,
> > Max Weber, and dare i say - Marx.
>
> That is simply false, Omar. On logical grounds it
> is
> false. These atheists (excepting Schopenhauer,
> who was closer to Buddhism) gave us good insight
> into *atheism*. It would appear that only atheists
> believe they gave good insight into Religion.
>
> It is logically a fallacy to expect theological
> insights
> from atheists. Freud, for example, reduced God to
> merely the infantile Father Figure. That is a very
> limited, even ludicrous image of God. Marx and
> his ilk thought that Das Kapital, when refracted
> through the human mind, was God. Superficiality!
> Nietzsche merely said that God is Dead, and went
> about trying to speak all macho and manly, even
> though he himself was tied to his mother's apron
> strings -- he was truly a psychological case.
>
> It is logically unassailable that atheists cannot
> offer anything to philosophy but negativity. By
> Webster's definition, atheism is 'a-theism', the
> 'absence of theology.' Based on that starting
> point, all one can do is offer the negative.
>
> > And i suspect that Paul's arguments in favor of
> > religion have been strengthened by their
> opposition.
> > For he has been forced to consider the perspective
>
> > of the other, one of Kant's postulates for the
> > enlightened individual, and one, i do not doubt,
> > that Hegel would concur with.
> >
> > Omar
>
> You are quite right, Omar, to notice that I have
> been
> strengthened by the negative. I eat the negative
> like
> vitamin pills.
>
> Hegel also recognized that the Enlightenment, with
> its
> sharp criticism of Religion, was *good* for
> Religion.
> The Hegelian enjoys working with the negative.
>
> However, the sad part is that the atheists do not
> enjoy hearing the negative of their view. They lose
> their cool. This is the best proof that their
> views
> are decidedly one-sided.
>
> Best regards,
> --Paul Trejo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

=====
Omar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com