|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why should religion get a free pass? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I've just listened to an interview between BBC Radio 4s John Humphreys and Richard Dawkins in reaction to the statements by Cardinal Cormack Murphy O’Connor:
BBC NEWS | UK | 'Respect atheists', says cardinal Now, during the interview Dawkins asked Humphreys why he is well renowned for 'tearing into' the statements of politicians demanding evidence, rational and justification; yet does not apply the same standard to to religion. Humpreys replied that some people 'believe what they believe'. This prompted Dawkins to ask: why do you give religion a free pass? When I say 'free pass' I mean (what I think Dawkins means) letting a statement of faith (such as that Jesus returned from death, humans are reincarnated or there is a non material realm that can be accessed through prayer or meditation for example) go unchallenged because it is somehow 'off limits' to such challenges. Humphreys implied that it is ok to let people believe what they believe for no reason other than because that's what they believe. If one claimed that they beleived in the invisible pink unicorn they would be challenged as to why they beleive so. Dawkins implied that Humphreys would give politicians are real roasting asking them to give detailed explanations and justification for their position but would not do so for certain positions and statements made about the reality of religios teaching. So, my question is: does religion get a 'free pass' and is it ok to give religion a free pass when it makes such extraordinary claims e.g. that we can reincarnate? I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is it Science, please. Edited by Larni, : Added paragraph 5 and 6 Edited by Larni, : More additions for clarity (hopefully).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I've had another go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
helenavm writes: Most religious people have their own personal experiences that solidify their faith, and no scientific scrutiny will likely change their minds. This is the nub of the issue. The religious person can say pretty anything in spite of any evidence to the contrary and be respected for that point of view. If I was to perform in depth research into drinking tea during pregnacy and my findings indicated that this caused abnormalities in the children this would constitute a valid reason to not drink tea. If I was to do no research into it at all but proclaim to all and sundary that it was my belief that tea caused these problems then people would call me a crank and I would be asked to justify my position. The religious position does not justify itself further than 'because that's what I believe'. That's the free pass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
helenavm writes: So these things get a free pass because most people have no problem with them. They don't produce a harmful result. So they do get a free pass, then? I would argue that the main teachings of xianity are that their god is real and miraculous events did take place. When asked to substantiate this replying with "I believe this to be true because I believe it to be true" is bad logic of the highest order but the religious (in this example xianity) person does not need to give any justifiable reason to beleive such extraordinary claims.
helenavm writes: But religions and religious people are called on to justify their positions on the basis of their faith all the time. But you can't justify faith based reasoning with further faith based reasoning. That's like saying I beleive in god because the bible says god is real and I can trust the bible because it is inspired by god.
helenavm writes: Whenever the abortion argument comes up, pro- choicers say pro -lifers violate their own beliefs by caring more about unborn life than the born, a violation of religious tenets, in their eyes. Please show how pro choicers justify their position via religion.
And acceptance of gay marriage is often defended as a natural progression of Christianity's doctrine of loving one's neighbor and "judge not lest ye be judged". Can you substantiate this? I sounds contrary to what I understand xianity to proclaim: it certainly is here in the UK.
The religious position is often called to justify itself in the public sphere, just not with the same criteria as applies to scientific research. Until people decide that only what is scientifically proven will guide their lives, and people still have faith and want a spiritual experience,this will be the case. Why should different criteria be used?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
helenavm writes: Science offers no comfort to the grieving, This is of course false. The science of cognitive behavioural psychology (in its practical application of therapy) is an excellent choice for many people when facing bereavement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
helenavm writes: I do agree that therapy can often help the grieving process. But before this could be used it was evidence based. There was no 'free pass' that religion has had in this role for years. Psychologist had to say "look, this works because of x, y and z and here is how it works....". The vicar (for example) say "look, this workss because of x, y and z and you must beleive it....." Do you see the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor Archbishop of Westminster writes: .... it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone...... This is the kind of comment that gets a free pass and really really should be ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
But every one is aware that this is your subjective belief and (hopefully) you are aware that this is only true inside your head.
You percieve pie as better than cake when I percieve cake to be better than pie. We both know that this is a matter of taste rather than objective reality. If you say your god exist and and I say it does not, only one of us can be correct. This is not true with a taste issue. Inside our own heads we can both be right: not so in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
helenavm writes: why are there so many believers in God/Allah/Jehovah etc. and no long lasting and widespread cults to the Flying Spaghetti Monster ? That would be the cultural genocide performed by these religions in the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi Buzz. Any chance of you providing evidence of your assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I'll take that as a 'No', then.
Well done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
What a fucking joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
First off: all you rantings below have got bugger all to do with why religion should get a free pass.
Whatever writes: God the author of the bible said genes can be purged from a gene pool after 10 generations bible micro-evolution science principles about genetic's(evolutionists stole micro-evolution science from the bible repackaged it as a lie called macro-evolution), It's really hard to see what you mean when your grammar and punctuation is so faulty: do you mean to say the bible delineates genetics?
Bret writes: The bible says the earth and the universe had a beginning (the evolutionists don't deny the universe had a beginning so they said they created the big bang), Again if I can penetrate your prose (pardon the alliteration) are you saying that scientists know that they are wrong and that they cover it up? Remember the fantastic opening sequence of the much acclaimed TV series 'Monkey'?: by your logic, this must be true also.
Charley writes: the bible declaring that there were fossil in the earth catastrophically formed by a world flood by the earth( the fossils being formed suddenly that were there just as the bible proclaimed so the evolutionists had to move the goal posts to explain this to large periods of time. So the pseudo science of paleontology had to sell this garbage to the guillable because the fossil record proved the earth but was an young earth), So there are scientist out there who know that fossil dates are wrong and rather than overturning the current paradigm and winning a Nobel Prize, they dummy up? So there is a science conspiracy? Wear a tin foil hat much?
Craig writes: that the earth is young (creationists are dating all fossils thousands of years old) so the evolutionists say they don't date by C14 cause the fossils are old, etc... You do know that if you measure radio active decay beyond 50,000 years with C14 you are trying to measure a mile with a 12 inch ruler don't you? You do know that, don't you?
The Golfer writes: The bible says no transistional fossils (creationists say if transistional occured they are not in the fossil record) so the evolutionists come up with claudistic similarities but that does not get around the missing fossils that are just not there). The evolutionists call it the common ancestor but without batting an eye about the lack of transistionals they say the common ancestor while the creationists say the fossil evidence proves it an young earth. I give you Tiktaalik: Tiktaalik - Wikipedia
Tim writes: I suspect the evolutionists know its an young earth but given they stole all their great ideas and spun truth into a lie they can not admit they twisted all their scientific principles from the bible. Tin foil hats ahoy!
Tom writes: To cover their backsides they ridicule the bible as not being a scientific source of information when micro-evolution principles that that the evolutionist twisted and breeders use the untwisted micro-evolution principles that come from the bible to purge unwanted genes from a gene pool. Lets teach creationism not lies twisted from the truth in the bible, etc... Yeah, not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that the biblical theory of genetics is better then the contemporary theory? If so, that is the position of a moron.
johnfolton writes: P.S. The evolutionists know there is not any transistional fossils that support their theory the scientific principles they stole from the bible there twisting cause the transisitional fossils just are not there. A little child waiting for mommy dog to have puppies expects puppies cause thats how it works. If you want to teach people to identify trees go to the library. You have the same kinds of creatures going back thousands of years yet evolutionists would say evolution is based on sound scientific principles. The truth is that they twisted the scientific principles they stolen from the bible so micro changes supports macro changes when you just don't have evidence of transistional characteristics creating a new kind. People use characteristics to identify tree's, bird, lizards, fish, from books its quite amazing how kinds characteristics are not changing allowing people to identify all kinds of creatures that are not changin into a different kind of creature. Mosquitoes billions of mutations yet still a Mosquitoes, etc... A big hat. A big massive tin hat to block the conspiracy waves from scientist the world around. Ever heard of an air loom, or Count Otto Black? So, not addressing the topic and a rant about a conspiracy. Well done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
If your religion is not given a free pass then it is perfectly fine (although rude) to say your beliefs are fuckwitted and moronic.
Unless for some reason your beliefs are special, that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I thought I might bump this as hooah212002's Message 44 reminded me of it.
The thread got borked after Message 74. I wonder what the newer members might think.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024