>
> Yes. And I would say that on the whole it is not even useful to
> "confront" religion; [as Miles says, following Wittgenstein, some
> questions are merely a distraction from focusing on the questions that
> are worth asking and answering.] There is an intensely practical question
> today of how believers and secularists can work to gether to bring this
> criminal occupation of Iraq to an end, and for that purpose the
> religious or non-religious beliefs of the parties are not really
> relevant.
>
> I think marxists (confining the argument to that sphere or the moment)
> need to be conscious of _why_ they reject religion, but I don't see how
> it's very important that we argue others into agreement with us on that.
bingo.
some sense -- aside from the [bracketed part], where i would prefer to qualify it to say, some questions are a waste of time from the point of view of the organizing that has to get done, which is where carroll gets in the second graf.
i would only add that maybe wasting time now and again isn't such a bad thing, indeed, it can be good. or have marxists all dispensed with the idea of leisure and self-fulfillment. i don't know that the old guy would have liked that so much, but i can't quote chapter and verse and am ill-prepared at the moment to go to war on it. but, you know, you go to verbal war with the textual memory you have, not the one you wish you had.
j
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead