Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)
- From: brian@xxxxxxx (Brian Tung)
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Davoud wrote:
> It seems to me that in such a situation one could ask "What does that
> mean?"
>
> In the original instance, Mr. Peterson said he was anti-Christian, but
> that that did not necessarily mean he was anti-religion. I don't think
> it was at all unreasonable to interpret that as *suggesting* that he
> *might* be pro-some other religion, and to ask "what religion *might*
> that be?"
We're *both* venturing into pedantic grounds here. Consider that I
could turn your advice back to you. Instead of asking if he were in
fact pro some religion, you asked which religion he was pro. Doesn't
that sound like assuming he's pro some religion? It does to me. It's
like observing that someone is anti-UNICEF, and saying "That suggests
you might be pro some other charity. What other charity might that
be?" Instead of asking, "Are you pro some other charity?" (Besides,
I couldn't see the point. Nothing Chris has ever said has ever given
the indication he's pro some religion. It seemed to me the question
had to be rhetorical, hence my response.)
Like I said, utterly pedantic. But I wanted to point out that the
situation is symmetric.
> It seems to me that the opposite of anti-abortion is pro-choice. I am
> unaware of a pro-abortion movement in the U.S. Since I have never been
> pregnant, I feel obligated to remain neutral on this issue, i.e.,
> pro-choice.
I'm not sure where this example came from; I don't want to get into it
too far because it's pretty inflammatory. Let me just consider the
logic of it. You cannot at once say that anti-abortion and pro-choice
are opposites, and then claim that being pro-choice is neutral. If it's
really neutral, it cannot be the opposite of something else like that.
In practice, of course, you know as well as I do that your argument
can only preach to the choir (as it were); it cannot convince anyone
who isn't already pro-choice. Each side sees their own side as "pro"
and the other side as "anti"; that is why one side calls themselves
pro-lifers and the other side anti-lifers (or murderers), and the other
side uses pro-choice and anti-choice.
If we were really pro-abortion, that would do it for the human species
now, wouldn't it? :-o
--
Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)
- From: Davoud
- Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)
- From: Brian Tung
- Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)
- From: Davoud
- Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)
- Prev by Date: Re: Gravity pobe B papers ?
- Next by Date: When computer geeks start defining time
- Previous by thread: Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)
- Next by thread: Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
