tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13035048.post-5092726153519213222008-05-16T00:03:00.001-07:002008-06-26T02:18:30.509-07:00this is an interesting blog thread: <A href="http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=293">link</A><br /><br />his summary:<br /><br />"...I see no merger of neuroscience and mysticism. Quite the opposite. The ghost in the machine is long dead and only the machine remains."<br /><br />The comments are particularly revealing. They repeatedly knock Brooks for supposedly giving succor to dualism. I didn't read his article that way, though in retrospect he was careful to stay on the fence. The 'new atheists' are quite virulent in their disdain for this stance, however. Here's a typical example:<br /><br />"...So the rogues tell us that you have to be an agnostic if you want to be intellectually honest. Well that’s crap and you know it, rogues. You do live your life as if there were no gods, and for all intents and purposes, IMO, you are atheists. The problem with telling other people you are an agnostic, is that it would in their minds create the illusion that you are undecided - like it’s a 50/50 decision."<br /><br />So I guess he's saying if I self-identify as Agnostic, I'm betraying the true cause of Atheism. Now that's rich. I'm reminded of the brilliant (as always) South Park episode, where Richard Dawkins wins the war against religion, and 500 years from now the United Atheist Alliance is locked in a battle to the death with the Allied Atheist Allegiance.<br /><br />Point being, people will always be people. Why can't we all just get along?artiphyshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17021068999415055325noreply@blogger.com