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 …
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.
-
It’s in the subtext. I can see it.
-
Well, you couldn't more wrong and there is zero point in arguing against what you think someone else really means rather than what they say.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Often just engaging a different point of view is enough to be accused of shrieking. I feel like the religionist is given an unfair institutional adavantage over the unbeliever. This may not apply in the micro, perhaps, because individuals have different motives. But in the macro
-
They are. There are a number of ways to address this. I compared two.
-
Right. I thought one was better than the other.
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.