by Hortensia 219 Replies latest social current
This is from a book interview I heard on NPR recently. I thought it was good and goes along with your thinking Hortensia.
"Belief" is intellectual surrender. Why believe when you can know?
"Faith" is a state of willed self-delusion...
...but experience...empirical experience, requires an open mind.
Barbara Ehrenreich, atheist and author of Living With a Wild God
Athiest?yep I get that, but TRUE believer?.exactly what is a true believer?.
Is it someone who believes in truth? Any takers who can explain the true belief without saying ' just because I want to believe'because there is absolutely NO truth ie something which is true without evidentially confirming it, otherwise its fanciful guesswork.
In my humble opinion of course.
Remember;..the truth shall set you free..now where have I heard that before..Mnnnnnnnnn
Hortensia - I enjoy this topic because it goes to fundamental questions of truth, belief, facts and evidence. I am in the evidence business so I know a bit about that (but I wouldn't presume to call myself a SME). And what I have learnt is that while evidence helps in the search for truth it only ever gives you a version of the truth because evidence has limitations and so seldom gives you a complete picture of what actually happened.
I think there was a certain irony in your OP in that you were trying to suggest that Atheists are superior to Theists because they don't feel the need to evangelise but in doing so you appeared to be evangelising, so I was calling you out on that. My thesis was that even your rationalist ideology contains value judgements about what is valid in the search for truth and what is not. I am sceptical of those on this forum who seem to have elevated science to an almost religious level of absolute truth and try and use that to assert the superiority of atheism over theism or worse, mock theists as irrational.
While I have no problem and enjoy decontrusting the idiocy of the WBTS claims to absolute truth, I do not agree that the same approach should be adopted for mainstream religions. Religious tolerance remains an important principle. Look what happened in the Soviet Union when religion was banned - it resulted in the strengthening of religious belief for many Russians and the Russian Orthodox church has thrived since the collapse fo the Soviet Union.
What I was encouraging was embracing uncertainty and accepting that we don't and can't possibly have all the answers. This is my biggest problem with The Truth - it presumes to claim to have all the answers. The ultimate arrogance!
Cheers Fraz
I am sceptical of those on this forum who seem to have elevated science to an almost religious level of absolute truth and try and use that to assert the superiority of atheism over theism or worse, mock theists as irrational. - FUBM
Science is not a body of truth, it's a method for discovering truths about reality. It is by a very long way the most effective one we have. By contrast theism is irrational. Nobody can seriously claim that anything about theism is based on reason or evidence. It is founded on superstition, wishful thinking, fear, peer pressure and parental indoctrination.
I do not agree that the same approach should be adopted for mainstream religions. Religious tolerance remains an important principle. Look what happened in the Soviet Union.. - FUBM
All superstitons shold be subjected to the same scrutiny. Nobody I have ever encountered wants to ban religion. Religion should be "tolerated" but it does not deserve special privledges or protections.
it presumes to claim to have all the answers. The ultimate arrogance!
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. That's why scientists go to work on a Monday morning. Science discovers new answers every week. When did theism last add to the fund of human knowledge?
Nobody I have ever encountered wants to ban religion.
Richard Dawkins wants to see an end to religion and Christopher Hitchens felt the same way. To say you have never encountered anyone who wants this when you regularly quote these people is at the very least rather dishonest.
Richard Dawkins wants to see an end to religion and Christopher Hitchens felt the same way.
You obviously have never read either of them. They would both be appalled at the suggestion of banning religion.
Please offer one single quotation that suggests otherwise.
Religion should pay its way like any other business. It should have no special protections of any sort. It should be scrutinised ruthlessly but it should never be banned.
I would love to see an end to religion, but only because everybody decided of their own volition that it was nonsense.
cofty - you have taken my comment 'it presumes to claim to have all the answers. The ultimate arrogance!' out of context. This was a reference to The Truth as in the WBTS Truth. That was not a statement about Science. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Fraz
Please offer one single quotation that suggests otherwise.
In the book, Hitchens contends that organised religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children" and sectarian, and that accordingly it "ought to have a great deal on its conscience." Hitchens supports his position with a mixture of personal stories, documented historical anecdotes and critical analysis of religious texts. His commentary focuses mainly on the Abrahamic religions, although it also touches on other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.....
He ends by saying that he would not want to eradicate religion if the faithful would "leave him alone," but ultimately they are incapable of this.
(Emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great
I here cite wikipedia because I returned God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens to the library after I read it.
But my challenge was to show where either Hitch or Dawkins called for religion to be banned. Everything Hitch said in yiur quote is fair comment but does nothing to support your assertion.
I'm sure Hitchens never said he wanted to see religion banned though his hatred of religion did prompt him to support violence as a useful tool to oppose it I.e support for Iraq war and torture.
The same is true of Sam Harris, however in fairness Dawkins has always been far, far better on this issue.
