tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post8244145961249198973..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Belief and ReligionSalman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-43680584431535520212008-07-24T11:56:00.000-04:002008-07-24T11:56:00.000-04:00I don't know if he considers science as a religion...I don't know if he considers science as a religion. I don't think he thinks much of science at all, hence his jabs at evolutionary explanations for religion (or beliefs). <BR/><BR/><I>It's sounds strange for him to assert that you can separate belief from religion on one hand and then to claim that you can't have wonder without some kind of quasi-religious belief, but perhaps I've misunderstood.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. This is the problem I had with his definition.Salman Hameedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-72752938951353500692008-07-24T10:30:00.000-04:002008-07-24T10:30:00.000-04:00That definition of atheism is pretty weak. It soun...That definition of atheism is pretty weak. It sounds like he's one of those scholars of religion that perceives atheism primarily as a backlash against something indefinable... a rebellion without a target moved by rebels without a cause. Maybe because he thinks of science as a religion, and excludes any wonder from the atheist mind, he just thinks of atheism as an empty position. It's sounds strange for him to assert that you can separate belief from religion on one hand and then to claim that you can't have wonder without some kind of quasi-religious belief, but perhaps I've misunderstood.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02733799054106197853noreply@blogger.com