"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon the conditions that require illusions." Marx


Best,

Michael


On Jul 3, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

On 7/3/07, Richard Levins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Yes. We have to deal with the dual nature of science,
as part of a generic unfolding of understanding of the
world, and as a commodity reflecting the needs of
the owners of the knowledge industry.Therefore there
is a two-sided struggle, against the pre-modern,
pre-capitalist critique of science (holistic, static,
hierarchical, romantic, ahistorical and decontextualized)
and against the scientism and instrumentalism of
capitalist technocracy, from a post-capitalist, dynamic
holism (dialectics). In places like India and Texas the
pre-capitalist fundamentalisms seem to pose the
immediate threat while in most of the colonial world
scientism is more directly the main oppressor, but in
all cases we have to reject both....But why the
adjective "dogmatic" in referring to atheism?
Like any other intellectual current, some of us are
dogmatic and others quite flexible and open minded.
The critique of religion also has been an important
part of the resistance to obscurantism. In the
broad anti-imperialist coalitions there is room for
believers and atheists and the need to respect both,
while both atheists and believers are also found in
the ranks of scientism.

I believe so, too. By dogmatic atheists I meant to refer only to
those who, like the so-called New Atheists, draw a wrong political
line, between the religious and the irreligious, rather than building
a coalition of the religious and the irreligious against the empire of
capitalism.

That said, I think we who are irreligious can go a step further, with
regard to Islam, and do what many of us have already done for
Christianity through our interaction with liberation theologians: to
think of certain kinds of religious practice not only as compatible
with historical materialism in political practice but also recognize
them as sources of strength for the religious -- in other words, to
see the religious who can and do stand in (direct or indirect)
solidarity with us as our allies not "despite" their religion but
_because of_ their religion.
--
Yoshie