0
SweetFreedom Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
From the pious?
1) Does "from the pious" mean "from the point of view of those who devote to religious worshiping"?
2) What does "cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy"? What are cells here?
Background info:
Writing in an editorial in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seattle_Times, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design proponent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klinghoffer said that Letter to a Christian Nation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion were the top two bestselling religious books. However, he went on to say that ". . . Dawkins and Harris seem unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-11 Writing in The Observer, Stephanie Merritt described Harris as providing "concise anti-religious apologetics," but said that "[h]e does not seem to comprehend the mindset of those he addresses."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-12 In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times, Peter Steinfels wrote that Harris's Letter and Dawkins's The God Delusion were receiving criticism "not primarily, it should be pointed out, from the pious, which would hardly be noteworthy, but from avowed atheists as well as scientists and philosophers writing in publications like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, not known as cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Novak, a Catholic philosopher, wrote in the conservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review that "[t]he letter that Harris claims is intended for a Christian nation is in fact wholly uninterested in Christianity on any level, is hugely ignorant, and essentially represents his own love letter to himself, on account of his being superior to the stupid citizens among whom he lives."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Criterion described Letter as condescending, saying "Harris is too choked on bile, or at best incredulity ('we stand dumbstruck by you,' he says, italics and all) to admit that his addressees are worth speaking with. This is in part because his chosen antagonist is 'Christianity at its most divisive, injurious, and retrograde' even though it's questionable whether anything was ever accomplished by attacking a system at its most 'retrograde.' "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly
2) What does "cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy"? What are cells here?
Background info:
Writing in an editorial in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seattle_Times, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design proponent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Klinghoffer said that Letter to a Christian Nation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion were the top two bestselling religious books. However, he went on to say that ". . . Dawkins and Harris seem unfamiliar with religious tradition as biblical monotheists know it from personal experience and deep study. Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-11 Writing in The Observer, Stephanie Merritt described Harris as providing "concise anti-religious apologetics," but said that "[h]e does not seem to comprehend the mindset of those he addresses."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-12 In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times, Peter Steinfels wrote that Harris's Letter and Dawkins's The God Delusion were receiving criticism "not primarily, it should be pointed out, from the pious, which would hardly be noteworthy, but from avowed atheists as well as scientists and philosophers writing in publications like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, not known as cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Novak, a Catholic philosopher, wrote in the conservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review that "[t]he letter that Harris claims is intended for a Christian nation is in fact wholly uninterested in Christianity on any level, is hugely ignorant, and essentially represents his own love letter to himself, on account of his being superior to the stupid citizens among whom he lives."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Criterion described Letter as condescending, saying "Harris is too choked on bile, or at best incredulity ('we stand dumbstruck by you,' he says, italics and all) to admit that his addressees are worth speaking with. This is in part because his chosen antagonist is 'Christianity at its most divisive, injurious, and retrograde' even though it's questionable whether anything was ever accomplished by attacking a system at its most 'retrograde.' "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_a_Christian_Nation#cite_note-15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly
Top answer
1) "from the point of view of" does not strictly fit. "were receiving criticism ... (not primarily) ...
- 1) "from the point of view of" does not strictly fit.
- "were receiving criticism ...
- (not primarily) ...
- from the pious" = "were receiving criticism ...
- (not primarily) ...
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
1) "from the point of view of" does not strictly fit.
"were receiving criticism ... (not primarily) ... from the pious" = "were receiving criticism ... (not primarily) ... from pious people", where "pious" has the usual dictionary definition.
2) "cells" means small groups, in this case with connotations of people active in some cause.
"were receiving criticism ... (not primarily) ... from the pious" = "were receiving criticism ... (not primarily) ... from pious people", where "pious" has the usual dictionary definition.
2) "cells" means small groups, in this case with connotations of people active in some cause.
00
not known as small groups in the vast ***-fearing conspiracy?
Does it mean "(these atheists are) not known as small groups in the vast ***-fearing conspiracy"?
Does it mean "(these atheists are) not known as small groups in the vast ***-fearing conspiracy"?
00
It is the The New Republic and The New York Review of Books that are "not known as cells in the vast ***-fearing conspiracy". It does not specifically say that these publications are atheistic, though the implication of the phrase is that they are at the very least sceptical.
00
Thanks.
But failed to get " the very least sceptical". Does it mean "the sceptical (the people who doubt the existence of ***) who are basically believing ***'s existence"?
But failed to get " the very least sceptical". Does it mean "the sceptical (the people who doubt the existence of ***) who are basically believing ***'s existence"?
00
SweetFreedomBut failed to get " the very least sceptical".Actually it says "at the very least sceptical", which has a completely different meaning from "the very least sceptical".
"at (the very) least" is a set expression that describes the lower limit of something (probably you already know the expression "at least"; the addition of the words
0
Related Questions