Re: an article you may both hate. or like.
I think religion plays a m=jor positive role in many lives. . i dont like fanaticism on either =ide. . sorry
P=. My piece argued against fanaticism.
Lawrence M. Krauss
Director= The Origins Project at ASU
Foundation Professor
School of Eart= & Space Exploration and Physics Department
Arizona State Universit =C2 P.O. Box 871404 Tempe, AZ 85287.14=4
Research Office: , Assistant (Jessica): Origins Office (Cynthia):
origins.asu.edu http://origins.asu.edu/
<=b>
<=span>
Sent from my iPhone
Thanks for sending. A wide areatof agreement, but not total.
On confronting dogma, I of course agr=e — though in my opinion the secular religions — nationali=t fanaticism, etc. — are much more dangerous. And if some fi=d rational discussion offensive — as, for example,
mainstream academ=cs find dismantling myths of "American exceptionalism" or =E2+40Israeli self-defense" or Obama's mass murder campa=gn, etc., offensive — so be it.
But I don't see why that shou=d extend to ridicule. That includes astrologists. Astronomers =an refute astrology, while recognizing that perfectly honest and deluded people may believe it and should be treated with respect, while th=ir beliefs are confronted with evidence. I also don't see wh= we should ridicule religious dogma, just as I don't think we shou=d ridicule the much more pernicious secular dogmas. Rather, we should respond to irrational belief with argument and evidence,=while recognizing that their advocates (like most of the intellectual worl= in the case of secular dogma) are people who we should be responding to b=t without ridiculing them. It may be hard sometimes. For example, when the icon and founding fathe= of sober non-sentimental Realism in International Affairs informs us that=the US, unlike other countries, has a "transcendental purpose,40=80, and the fact that it constantly acts in contradiction to its purpose doesn't matter because the facts are just "=buse of history" while real history is "the evidence of history as our minds reflect=it," then it's hard to avoid ridicule. But we should= There's no point ridiculing virtually the entire IR profession and=the major journals, even though such extraordinary irrationality leads to =ajar human disasters.
On Davis, I frankly think that*=99s a non-issue. If she decides she cannot do her job as the conditi=ns of employment require (including following the law), then she can quit and look for another job. As in any other such case.=/u>
Noam
you can invite depp to visit us when you are in the caribe=n