Yeh, and I think there's a fair argument there that I'm sympathetic to - it comes down to a discussion about how much we should weigh of the various themes in a work of literature.
For example, as a whole the Bible has a different weight with respect to different Themes than the Old Testament. But how one characterizes that is always impo…
Yeh, and I think there's a fair argument there that I'm sympathetic to - it comes down to a discussion about how much we should weigh of the various themes in a work of literature.
For example, as a whole the Bible has a different weight with respect to different Themes than the Old Testament. But how one characterizes that is always important. I have never read the Koran as a whole, so I don't really have a sense about how the various themes way against each other - or indeed how theology assigns different weights. Do you weigh later content more than earlier? That's quite important in Christianity, and I recall that Medina vs Mecca might be a thing in Islam too.
So it's clear he has a different opinion to you. But if you look at the book as a whole (I have sympathy for your view that we should look at works overall), and especially in conjunction with 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. Is he really 'signif[ying] his membership' with a tribe? He seems to be carving a fairly unique and idiosyncratic point of view that isn't really aligned with many other people.
Perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder? Peter Singer seemed to take a different message than you got from the book in his blurb:
'At last we have a book that focuses on the common thread that links Islamic terrorism with the irrationality of all regious faith. The End of Faith with challenge not only Muslims but Hindus, Jews, and Christians as Well.'
So I really wonder whether the tribal analysis isn't just obfuscating the real issue, which is there is a good old fashioned disagreement. And the cognitive bias angle can only helps to explain why someone gets things wrong (or has a pattern of getting things wrong) not that they do get things wrong.
So, for someone like me who thinks you have a point (I tend to align with your views on foreign policy), but also thinks Sam has a point (I think religions that have bad content in their books are implicated in people acting out that content regardless of other countervailing content in the books), the tribal angle is irksome because it only makes sense from the perspective that you are actually correct.
Yeh, and I think there's a fair argument there that I'm sympathetic to - it comes down to a discussion about how much we should weigh of the various themes in a work of literature.
For example, as a whole the Bible has a different weight with respect to different Themes than the Old Testament. But how one characterizes that is always important. I have never read the Koran as a whole, so I don't really have a sense about how the various themes way against each other - or indeed how theology assigns different weights. Do you weigh later content more than earlier? That's quite important in Christianity, and I recall that Medina vs Mecca might be a thing in Islam too.
So it's clear he has a different opinion to you. But if you look at the book as a whole (I have sympathy for your view that we should look at works overall), and especially in conjunction with 'Letter to a Christian Nation'. Is he really 'signif[ying] his membership' with a tribe? He seems to be carving a fairly unique and idiosyncratic point of view that isn't really aligned with many other people.
Perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder? Peter Singer seemed to take a different message than you got from the book in his blurb:
'At last we have a book that focuses on the common thread that links Islamic terrorism with the irrationality of all regious faith. The End of Faith with challenge not only Muslims but Hindus, Jews, and Christians as Well.'
So I really wonder whether the tribal analysis isn't just obfuscating the real issue, which is there is a good old fashioned disagreement. And the cognitive bias angle can only helps to explain why someone gets things wrong (or has a pattern of getting things wrong) not that they do get things wrong.
So, for someone like me who thinks you have a point (I tend to align with your views on foreign policy), but also thinks Sam has a point (I think religions that have bad content in their books are implicated in people acting out that content regardless of other countervailing content in the books), the tribal angle is irksome because it only makes sense from the perspective that you are actually correct.