Reply
Sat 24 May, 2014 09:57 am
Context:
If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will
be atheists when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism!
Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument,
their resistance built up over years of childhood indoctrination
using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution
or design). Among the more effective immunological devices is a
dire warning to avoid even opening a book like this, which is surely
a work of Satan. But I believe there are plenty of open-minded
people out there: people whose childhood indoctrination was not
too insidious, or for other reasons didn't 'take', or whose native
intelligence is strong enough to overcome it. Such free spirits should
need only a little encouragement to break free of the vice of religion
altogether. At very least, I hope that nobody who reads this book
will be able to say, 'I didn't know I could.'
@oristarA,
It sounds to me as if the writer believes his argument is so persuasive anyone reading it would simply have to immediately accept a new belief system. I would probably use arrogant to describe a person who believes they can influence people simply by explaining their belief system. The writer seems to think his ideas are so brilliant, only a fool would reject his viewpoint.
That's simply my take on the piece you provided. I'm not making a case for or against atheism. I just think it's over simplistic to think anything would that simple.
The author first states his desire that his book will turn religious leaders into atheists, which seems arrogant, and then he deflates that (pretended) pomposity by saying "What presumptuous optimism!". This is a rhetorical device often used by inspirational speakers and writers to get the reader's attention. "This book/speech will change your life and make you rich! Or maybe not but I hope you will still pay attention to it."
@contrex,
I didn't see it that way, but your probably right. Maybe the rest of the text would have swayed me your way. But, even our native language can be interpreted differently depending on the regional accents. I worked for the Federal Govt for quite some time. The organization recruited from major universities, and employed people with military background. If you were with two people, one from Pennsylvania and one from Boston, you might hear epic arguments about the correct pronunciation of creek....was it pronounced crik or creek. Anyhow, I'm agreeing with Contrex, it's certainly valid.
Thank you both.
BTW, it confused me that the phrase dyed-in-the-wool means complete here. Wool is usually white (sheep's wool) and when you're dyed within, you will keep intact rather than being dyed as black.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:it confused me that the phrase dyed-in-the-wool means complete here.
It doesn't mean that. It means 'unlikely to change'. The expression "dyed in the wool" refers to a state of steadfastness, especially with respect to one's political, religious or social beliefs. The expression comes from the fact that fabric can be dyed in a number of ways. The woven fabric may be dyed after it is complete, or the threads may be dyed before they are woven. When a color is "dyed in the wool," the wool itself is dyed before being spun into threads, so the colour is least likely to fade or change.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace