Failing that, they could read my thing about how your approach differs from angry anti-theism. http://helenpluckroseblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/the-conflicting-approaches-of-david.html …
That isn't even close to the argument. Nor did I say anything which could give that impression.
-
-
The argument that we need to have a better grasp of the psychological basis for the religionist’s faith is well & good but some of us, in the laity, are tired of making the effort & don’t see why we shouldn’t enjoy the same glib & overweening sense of self-identified purpose.
-
Same as with all social justice issues. Depends if you want to actually address inequalities strategically and reasonably or if you want to form a tribe and shriek at your oppressors.
-
There are legions of secular defenders of the legacy of religious institutions. Whether Peterson on Christianity or regressives on Islam. Again, religion gets de facto forgiveness while an assertive unbeliever is denigrated as a matter of course by institutional representatives
-
Both authors agree that religion has undue social privilege. They differ on how to address this & decrease its influence and grip on people. I really don't know what you're arguing against but it doesn't seem to be either of them. Shall we leave it?
-
Certainly. Let me just give one more try. I thought you were too sympathetic to Lindsay’s thesis to the detriment of the unbeliever posistion in the polemic between religionist & secularist. That was all I meant to address. I’m defensive in support of unbelief.
-
OK, but you haven't said why you think Silverman's approach will help reduce religious privilege and Lindsay's won't. That is the key issue here. My piece was an argument for why I think differently.
-
Open discourse is the solution to moving antiquated ideologies out of the role of institutional authority. It’s not about eradicatiing spiritual aesthetic. Its fine to understand the pyschology behind motive from a clinical role but religious doctrine is too frail to protect
-
But neither is arguing for protecting religious doctrine. I really am going to leave it here now.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But I guess this is the wrong impression despite having read your piece. I understand I’m coming from outside the realm of academia, a realm of collective institutional prestige not unlike religion in certain respects. Thanks for engaging anyway. Just a technical observation.
-
It's not remotely academic. Both books are popular, easy-to-read texts aimed at the average person.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.