I'm confused. Evolution is the long accumulation of adaptations that provide selective advantage. Where is the OR? It is like asking, Bingo - Charity fund raiser or game of chance?
The answer is "yes".
a recent article in nature reports on a fish that has a pelvic girdle with features associated with terrestrial vertebrates.. discuss..
I'm confused. Evolution is the long accumulation of adaptations that provide selective advantage. Where is the OR? It is like asking, Bingo - Charity fund raiser or game of chance?
The answer is "yes".
sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....
Because a person's irrational superstitions should not affect the rest of society.
The test I used was "reasonable accommodation", in my opinion an excellent development in Common Law. Since the issue at question is trivial, I'm gathering you don't want irrational superstitions to affect society in even the tiniest of ways. Is that a fair statement?
Leaving aside the determination of what is "irrational", it is a very regressive stand to take. It is the same argument fundamentalists have made about homosexuals, Catholics, the transgender, the mentally handicapped, Jews, etc.
I don't want to live in a society where people have to leave parts of themselves at home no matter how trivial the affect to Society. There are plenty of irrational superstitions out there. There are plenty of things that were once viewed as sicknesses or superstitions that society has come to embrace. A society that sets upon itself to make a determination and suppress even reasonable accommodation presents a greater danger than a society which simply allows people to be wrong, so long as they are not unreasonably affecting society or others.
The question is too vague. What other questions do you have in mind?
I know we share a distaste for religious superstition. But, reasonable accommodation applies to other spheres of thought and action. I was wondering, if your uncompromising stance applies only to religiously derived actions or to other ethical systems and actions.
One of my staff has an irrational fear of Halloween figurines. I have seen her in tears when a scary doll was near her desk. I think it is a reasonable accommodation to ask others to help with Halloween decorations and to ensure they don't have anything near her desk or that will surprise her where she works in our office. If she worked for a retailer, I would hope they would be sensitive to her. Would you agree?
My mother has, what I consider, an irrational view of the sanctity of animals. I do not eat foie gras in front of her for this reason. If she worked in a restaurant she would ask someone else to prepare it. It bothers her that much. Just one item on the menu, she isn't a vegan. Should she leave her concern for the treatment of animals at home and not affect the rest of society?
A really good friend of mine reads too many questionable internet blogs. He has determined that radio waves are unhealthy for his family. No wireless devices in his home. I've tried to point out the EMR coming from our sun, but he is convinced we are all being killed. He might ask to work at a spot as far away from a wireless access point as practical. Is this the sort of irrational superstition that should not affect the rest of society?
Not to go ten rounds on a bunch of scenarios, I was merely wondering if you wish all irrational requests suppressed so they don't affect society or only those arising from religion.
sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....
Why does it belong only at home?
Do you feel the same way about other questions of integrity and conscience or only those that arise from religion?
sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....
in your personal experience, do you think that the wt attracts needy types of people?
over the years, my experience is that they do attract very needy, insecure, dysfunctional, types.
i had an acquaintance that i just basically cut off.
i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
David Jay, I'm sorry to admit, you confused me. I read you as saying that taking on contextual criticism of normative Christianity would be more effective than attacking an understanding of faith which does not adhere to basic exegetical theory. But, you then acknowledge that many (most?) believers entertain exactly such an understanding. Why would it be more effective to take on the understanding of the few than the many?
i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
Hi Perry, would you describe yourself as a fedeist?
Your post indicates you can or even should come to faith by studying and learning. Just wondering if that is the case and you are more along the lines of Calvinist thought that reason, rightly used, leads to faith or more along the Kierkegaard or Liberation Theology line?
If you reject such labels, I do understand.
i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
Cofty, thanks, I was afraid I wasn't clear. That may still be the case, but at least you sorted through my ramblings.
To put it simply, those of faith can retreat into Fideism. (Not all do, so this line of attack works well against those who think their faith is underpinned by logic, but that is not the Evangelical way, in my experience.)
i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
Cofty, with all deference to your incredible presence and influence on this forum, can you help me to understand what you are disagreeing with? You seem to be strengthening my point, not disagreeing with it.
I know your subjective experience with "stop going" casts into doubt their subjective experiences (mine does too), but I fail to connect that to my argument. It is likely because I am being daft.
i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.
can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.
Half Banana, I respectfully think your challenge rather begs the question. The indefensibly of faith is the point. Bear with me for a second, if you will.
Time and again in film the protagonist is lost, absolutely unable to come to the defense of the love interest, partner, country, world and/or universe. All logic, all reasonable evidence indicates the cause is lost, the victory of the villain certain. But still, the character taunted by the villain has faith, despite all evidence and odds, that the outcome will be just. This is a recurring motif, a part of our collective heroic arc narrative.
As a popular example, in ROTJ the Emperor retorts to Luke's comment that his overconfidence is his weakness, "Your faith in your friends is yours!" To ask Luke to defend his position despite the impossibility of the situation, despite the evident destruction of his friends playing out before his eyes, well.... that rather misses the point of this faith, doesn't it?
As Jehovah's Witnesses we were taught a different brew. We were taught a faith based on carefully selected scriptures, on "scientifically" backed evidence for the signs of the times, and on the visible evidence of God's earthly organization. This is well summed up in the old NWT's wooden translation of John 17:3 that eternal life comes from "taking in knowledge" of the only true God. They have recently corrected this monstrosity, but the ideology that predates the rendering survives. The point is, we were taught that once "the knowledge that gives everlasting life" is grasped then logic will lead to faith in God himself, his plan, and the organization he is using.
Christian faith is typically not of this sort. It is usually a personal belief or trust in the justice of God, often through a personal revelation or experience. Many of the Church Fathers went beyond this, setting an amazing and elaborate home for Christianity in the blend of science, philosophy and logic called theology. But, that is not what makes most Christians "Christian" today, if it ever did. I don't personally know of a single Christian who arrived at belief through this theological route, though there were some who did in centuries past.
To ask a person of faith to defend their faith against all logic, evidence, and "knowledge" is akin to asking the artist to defend his ascetic form against all practicalities of function. I put "knowledge" in quotes because many Christians I know have had what they claim is personal knowledge, a subjective experience which informs their faith, a sort of "road to Damascus" moment. So, they would claim they have knowledge you find inadmissible.
(For the record, I have no faith and now find the whole enterprise a complete dead end. However, I don't think it is fruitful to pursue the sort of challenge you have thrown down for the reasons I have attempted to illustrate,)