I'm not sure how that relates.
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.
-
Ok. Sorry.
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.