RE: No rational case for God = increasingly desperate attacks on atheists
July 17, 2014 at 4:35 am
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2014 at 4:35 am by ManMachine.)
(July 16, 2014 at 9:43 pm)Cato Wrote:(July 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm)ManMachine Wrote: That's exactly what he is saying. In the article all but two cases where he talks about secularism he is talking about it in a political context, there are, as I say, two exceptions, one where he talks about secular myths (his comment of secular ideology) and the other where he takes a brief look at some historical secular philosophy, but neither of these deviate from the political theme he is following.
Bullshit. You linked a 4000 word essay by Gray. Here are the 140 words that address the politics of secularism....
Quote:Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.
Perhaps you should reread what you linked.
I didn't link it, it was linked in the OP... anyway.
I have read it and I even went back through it looking for this expanded use of secularism you claim he employs before I responded last time.
I'm happy to look at those elements you think are not political or related to state and church - and not the myth or philosophy sections I have already pointed out. Can you let me know where you think he has gone further than the narrower definition, I'd be interested to see how you've interpreted it, as it is clearly different from what I took away from it. I have read a lot of his works and it may be that I am interpolating information that is not explicit in the article.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
