[lbo-talk] Last Supper, in a leather harness

[John Thornton]

ravi wrote:
> On 28 Sep, 2007, at 17:51 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>   
>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
>>     
>>> ravi wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> The truth is more probably that atheism is a luxury of over-educated
>>>> comparatively wealthy intellectual brats
>>>>         
>>> I don't know.  If you're raised with religion it takes a lot of work
>>> to shake it off.  It took me years and I began trying long before I
>>> became over-educated.  And if I am comparatively wealthy then lord
>>> help my child.
>>>       
>> Besides, this pseudo-populism annoys me. In this society, there are
>> advantages to being rich. Is atheism, or freedom from superstition,
>> one of those advantages? And what's wrong with being educated? It
>> also annoys me when highly educated people doubt the value of
>> education. I just don't believe them. It's a faux populist pose.
>>
>>     
>
> Yikes!
>
> 1. Define "pseudo" in "pseudo-populism"! What other kinds of populism  
> are available to understand this term by contrast.
>
> 2. Atheism != freedom from superstition. And luxury (the word I  
> used) != advantage. And if we are on definitions, lets define  
> "superstition" and why all of it is a bad thing?
>
> 3. There is nothing wrong with being educated. Who doubts the value  
> of education? Not me in the passage above.
>
> 4. Explain "faux populist pose"?
>
> Hell, if you guys were really over-educated you might even have  
> figured out #2 and #3. ;-) The point, which I bet you already knew  
> while constructing the strawmen ;-), is what you do with that  
> education. I am under no misapprehension that there is sadness,   
> emptiness, etc, to being rich (or educated). The essence of my  
> genuine populism is the hope that the average Joe too can become  
> educated and rich like me and sport an atheist pose (faux or otherwise).
>
> Did I offend you terribly with the non-gay white guy reference,  
> perhaps? I apologise. That was intended at the explicitly listed  
> brats (Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens). There are upstanding specimen to  
> be found among the white male category (or the privileged non-white  
> male category), many on this list!
>
> 	--ravi
>   

Aligning yourself with populist beliefs when you don't generally ascribe 
to them is pseudo-populism. It appears this is what you are doing.
Luxury does not equal advantage so I have no idea why you write that.
Superstition is a resort to supernatural explanations for things rather 
than a natural/rational/scientific explanation. Why is that bad? This 
would seem self explanatory from the definition but IIRC you have some 
animosity towards science and a 'soft spot' for mystical explanations on 
occasion even if you claim not to have such animosity. Simply because we 
do not have a scientific explanation for everything is no reason to fall 
back on a supernatural explanation for any of these unknowns that 
violates what we do know.
I'm not certain why you seem to hold Dawkins in such low regard. Perhaps 
you could explain?

John Thornton