[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this based on? I go with rationalism because it appears to work better than the alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing that science does not "work better" at describing reality. I'm saying that the moral choices materialists and theists make are not better or worse.

As clear thinking, and gaining the most accurate picture of physical reality as possible, yes, materialism is still superior. That's why I'm a materialist. But I see no reason to think atheist-materialists are kinder, or less prone to national chauvinism. Certainly not in practice (Pol Pot), and even in theory, I don't see why materialists would be more humane.

Who would you rather have decide whether to give you the death penalty, someone with no discernible spiritual beliefs like Henry Kissinger, or Father Berrigan? Or to take an example of a kind atheist and a vicious theist, Carl Sagan or Pat Robertson? The spiritual beliefs of these individuals is pretty irrelevant to whether you get the chair or not.

If it helps any, my skepticism of the superior humanity of materialist intellectuals is influenced most by Chomsky and Foucault. They show very well the extent to which scientific rationalism can be used for cruel ends, and the extent to which ideas serve power rather than truth.