Having recently survived a seminar on Discourse Analysis, I say “hear hear!”

Gene Expression: Richard Dawkins – Islamophobe?
The trend is obvious: the Islamic world-view seems well suited toward acceptance of Creationism as an alternative model toward evolutionary theory. Fact: Richard Dawkins will have to accept that multiculturalism entails respect of Difference and the Different Ways of Knowing of the Other. The Enlightenment Project (EP) which marries scientism with atheism is not cultural-fair; rather, it serves as an appropriate corrective to the over-rationalism of Western Roman Catholic Christianity. On the other hand, the EP is not an appropriate lens to apply to a non-Western culture, which has developed along its own evolutionary path which brings it to a different set of values. An alternative tint to the mirror through which humanity views the world darkly if you will. Whatever corrective there may be to non-Western dogma and rigidity, the assertions of Dead White Men and their contemporary Amen Choir are not appropriate cures!

Shouldn’t we all have been born speaking upper-class British accents?

3 thoughts on “LOL”

  1. Well, I know Sam Harris admits to a mild level of intolerance, not in the context that he doesn’t want religious freedom for everyone but rather he reserves the right to call BS were he sees it.

  2. Jeffrey,

    Sam Harris seems interesting. Take his argument on Transubstantiation, for instance:

    In The End of Faith, Harris devotes a chapter to “The Nature of Belief”. His main argument is that all of our beliefs, except those relating to religious dogma, are based on evidence and experience. He says that religion allows views that would otherwise be a sign of “madness” to become accepted or, in some cases, revered as “holy”. He gives specific attention to such teachings as transubstantiation – the Roman Catholic doctrine that, during the Mass, the bread and wine of the Eucharist changes in substance to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Harris argues that if a lone individual developed this belief, he or she would undoubtedly be considered “mad”.

    For Harris, to assert this, he has to argue that bundle theory [2] is not only true, but that a rejection of it is bad. As bundle theory is rather esoteric:

    Necessarily, for any concrete entity, a, if for any entity, b, b is a constituent of a, then b is an attribute.

    I find it hard to believe. Now, bundle theory may or may not be true (it’s certainly not falsifiable, though at the same time not absurd on its face, either). But to compare rejection of it to madness? That’s the mark of an ignorant man.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *