Here are two short clips I edited and transcribed of Noam Chomsky answering questions about the Iranian elections.
Iranian People Speak:
http://www.washingtonpost.c...
Noam Chomsky's hour intervie...
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
there has never been a poll addressing the question of his popularity at MIT.
but the whole idea is absurd anyway, people like and dislike people according to many things, not least of which is whether or not what they say is in line with their own personal views.
what chomsky has to say is no more invalidated by other's disapproval of him than it is validated by their approval of him
the validity of his arguments is to be assessed like anything else, according to reason and evidence
"I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny."
I think it'd be best to classify him as an agnostic atheist.
there´s a channel in mi country´s network witch is called "encuentro " (spanish for encounter) . there i saw a docummental about his works and life , where he called himself not an atheist, and he had stated the possibility of the existence of God. of course, i dont think he reffers to the biblical atributes of God , he says it is a genocidal book. wikipedia also labelled him as agnostic. althought actually i dont see the relevance of knowing what his faith is really.
You're correct - Chomsky's views on religion are irrelevant to this discussion.There's an interview with him here on UTube with Barry Zwicker on religion.I also e-mailed him and spoke to him about the subject and felt he was very evasive.Perhaps he doesn't want to say anything to offend people.Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and like me, he realizes that an argument (a bad one) could be made for a deistic God, which is what I think Chomsky means.There's no doubt Chomskys NOT religious.I hope so.
chomsky has done a good work in technical linguistics , such as in the universal grammar field. know days hes work is almost refuted , but that doesnt mean he is not a great linguistic . he is also an agnostic with leans to deism and his more notable works are about politics , at international and national levels. he´s an anarchist and anti-zionist . very good author in that subjects. i strongly recommend his lectures. although i dont always agree with him.
Can we leave Zionism out of the discussion, Noam Chomsky is a renown scholar whose background has got nothing to do with his scientific approach dealing with a variety of issues plus he is Jewish not Israeli.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
but the whole idea is absurd anyway, people like and dislike people according to many things, not least of which is whether or not what they say is in line with their own personal views.
what chomsky has to say is no more invalidated by other's disapproval of him than it is validated by their approval of him
the validity of his arguments is to be assessed like anything else, according to reason and evidence
Do you have a source for this claim?
I think it'd be best to classify him as an agnostic atheist.
althought actually i dont see the relevance of knowing what his faith is really.