> On 9 Oct, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> > Secular leftists, more atomized than ever, have not provided an
> > effective antidote to atomization.
> >
>
> Yes, because both secularism (and atheism) and leftism are built on
> individualistic and reductionist notions of truth, reason and action.
> From what I can tell, whether in the Soviet Union or in the
> Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, atheism arose as a part of a
> collective struggle/revolt against authority as much as a form of
> rationalist intellectual programme. To add to my previous rant, even
> among the scientists who have come to represent secularism/atheism/
> etc (which in itself is telling) it is Dawkins (a liberal(*)) who
> figures prominently, not Lewontin (a materialist/Marxist). So,
> leftism cannot provide an antidote or alternative because, IMO, its
> connection to the common good remains tenuous and contingent (at
> least until the arrival of the mathematical science that can
> demonstrate the legitimacy of the 'ought' in contrast to the 'is'),
> especially in light of the stronger version offered by religious
> communities.
Isn't the secular liberal position on this about tolerance rather than truth? If I understand you correctly, you think atheists need to argue not that religion is false but rather that people would be happier without it? OK, fine, but the truth of religious claims is still an important issue. Perhaps your preference would make a more convincing argument, but it's strange that that in religious debates false or unjustified beliefs are defended on the grounds that they are for the common good, feel better, etc.
-Alex
____________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html