From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 20:49:28 MST
At 12:04 AM 26/01/01 +0000, Charlie Stross wrote:
>In a spirit of non-confrontational rationalism, I'd like to see if we
>can compose a list of ideas that we *ALL* agree on.
Good plan. (Hey, isn't there already something called the Extropian Prin--
Nah, too broad; this could be useful)
It's the [subtly tendentious/loaded] langwich, though, innit, as always?
>3. The scientific method provides a better way of evaluating reality
> than any religious dogma.
Is that like `The scientific dogma provides a better way of evaluating
reality than any religious method'?
>4. Progress (increases in human intelligence, longevity, wealth, and
> happiness) is possible.
The parenthetical codicil above, regarded as a way of modifying the
tendentious parti pris use of `progress', is useful, but could easily be
mistaken for an attempted ostensive definition beyond challenge. One of
Denis's priest might change it to:
`"Progress," understood in crude materialist terms (increases in human
intelligence without increases in empathy; longevity; wealth; and
short-term happiness), is possible in a vicious reductive culture, and must
be opposed vehemently by anyone with a trace of spiritual depth.'
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:21 MST