From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 08:34:36 MST
> [Hermit] I liked it (Dawkins quote -RR) the first time - and did not need
convincing of its
> merits or applicability.
Sorry if it irritated you but I did have a very specific reason for quoting
it. The major reason was that much of this discussion had begun to bear a
distinct resemblance to discussions I've had elsewhere, which run like this;
Human beings have a natural tendency to be belligerent when confronted with
difference and in contexts of that kind the nature of the difference is to
all intents and purposes irrelevant, serving only as a marker in any
situation. If the marker were not religion, something else would be
manufactured on demand. Doubtless, this argument is not entirely without
merit (though its fatalism and casuistry are decidedly galling) and could be
applied with some justice under the circumstances you describe, but seems
significantly less persuasive when applied under more complex conditions
(i.e. when people are free to self identify as individuals, or in other
words when memetic issues are allowed to come into play alongside issues of
genetics and natural selection. What you could call proceeding up the
Maslow/Hertzberg hierarchy for all that's worth). As such, I wouldn't
necessarily argue with your analysis of the situation but was somewhat
nervous that you had not at that point explained why that argument could not
have been applied in any other context.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT