Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

(47,992 posts)

6. An important distinction: Does Kirkley mean "cant" or Kant?

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:57 PM

Feb 2013

In return, he gets vague, well-meaning cant about religion’s “metaphysical commitment to human equality”.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This house believes 'religion has a place' (Report on the Williams - Dawkins debate) [View all] cbayer Feb 2013 OP

I acknowledge religion ... DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #1

Agree with much of what you say here (and note that you said cbayer Feb 2013 #2

A few DUers would do well to pay attention to this paragraph: trotsky Feb 2013 #3

I am a believer but I like listening to Dawkins. hrmjustin Feb 2013 #10

I don't see spirituality as a betrayal of intellect because: patrice Feb 2013 #4

non-rational tama Feb 2013 #13

That's an interesting read. patrice Feb 2013 #14

systems within systems tama Feb 2013 #17

An important distinction: Does Kirkley mean "cant" or Kant? patrice Feb 2013 #6

Thanks very much for this article, cbayer. patrice Feb 2013 #7

Here's a link to the debate Jim__ Feb 2013 #11

Thanks, Jim. cbayer Feb 2013 #12

THANK! you, Jim. patrice Feb 2013 #15