jools posted:its cool how marx's development into the anti-philosophical incredible hulk basically started with him trashing the dawkinses of his day
The problem with most atheists is that they aren't atheist enough. They reject gods and miracles but hold quasi-theological beliefs in things like conscious minds (Christian souls) and laws of nature.
roseweird posted:you are doing the same thing by identifying atheism as an ahistorical intellectual posture with an ideal set of principles rather than as a reaction to theism
So? If atheism is a reaction to theism, then I can criticize atheists past and present for not being critical enough of their own mystical baggage inherited from religious tradition, i.e. not as atheist as they could be.
roseweird posted:babbyfinland i read the asad piece you linked and it's fine i guess but it mostly just made me remember how boring reading geertz was. his 5-point definition of religion is useful for getting people who are not used to doing so to think about religion's symbolic structures but that's it really. asad here pretty much bases an entire critique of the transhistorical application of religious theory on the idea that maybe this random anthropologist from the 70s didn't have it all figured out. he actually makes a lot of good points in the process, i just don't agree with the argument he puts them in service of, and i'm hung up on the fact that he is arguing against the transhistorical use of "religion" while making free transhistorical use of "power". he concludes with "maybe we can learn from this paradox!" thrilling
thank you for reading it
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()