Very well written, although a bit harsh to show to 'Bleevers' (they'll pull the "he's rude!" bit)
I enjoyed thatthanks for the link
Terrific article, and a very interesting website. Thank you for sharing the link, Fiona.
Great stuff - thanks
Great stuff, but I do wish English writers would not refer to the World Trade Center attack as 9/11, which of course means 9th of November in proper English.
Regarding the nutters' achievement in believing the really "batshit" stuff, I am reminded of a remark by H.G. Wells:
"Fanatics are madmen who take a masochistic delight in strangling their own doubts."
Well, it is a good piece. The Euthyphro Question is essential reading for those who suppose that we can deduce moral truth from what God- or any other cove- may think or want. And Hume's essay on miracles is a gem of clear thinking. However, I seek permission to quibble about this:
Some of us tired, old and ( pecca fortiter!) glib liberals have noticed that if there is a legal distinction between belief and action then there is, as a matter of plain fact, a distinction. A damned good distinction, too: it stops us from locking people up for what they believe as opposed to what they do or try to induce others to do.Yet, time and again, I seem to come right up against this tired old false dichotomy, so cherished by liberals, between belief and action. "People are free to think and say whatever they like, as long as they keep off my front lawn." If only I had a pound – hey, 50p even! – for every time I had heard that glib sentiment, I would have long since retired to Hawaii and you could all blissfully carry on without me.
Of course the sentiment is valid in a strictly legal sense but, in just about every other sense, it is hopelessly outdated. Beliefs are in no way separate from actions. In fact, beliefs are actions, and can be just as lethal. The neural activity which constitutes a belief connects directly to a nervous system running through your arm and finger, which pulls the trigger, that fires a bullet, that kills the President, which starts a nuclear war – it's all of a piece. To think otherwise, is essentially to buy into a philosophical dualism of the mind which bit the dust absolutely ages ago.
And some of us- the more literate, for example- have noticed that beliefs not only are not but cannot intelligibly be said to be actions. If you ask me what my neighbour was up to yesterday between 13:00 and and 14:00 I may intelligibly say that he was tinkering with his car or making bombs or watering his flowers, but I cannot, except by way of an intellectually flabby joke, say that he was believing in monotheism or the legitimacy of murdering infidels. The suggestion that beliefs are actions isn't even wrong: it is illiterate. As for Boyce's suggestion that anyone who disagrees is a dualist- words fail me!
The sad thing is that Boyce wants to persuade us that beliefs may be dangerous, and that we should criticize religious moderates for providing shelter to the crackpots. I got to that conclusion long ago. But not by such a shameful road.
Mixed review, then?
great artical. its just a shame that the people who realy need to read it (beleivers) wont.
i think that now it is a little old hat to attack the beleivers, who have to cntend with years of guilt and brainwashing, i think we should now concentrate on the institutions themselves who will not let their beleivers go because of the finantial repracusions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks