Yeah okay... So I can't really be bothered reading everything in this thread since it's become too developed, so I just got EZ to gather all the most objectionable stuff together and I'll address that. I'm just using the same quote tags over again, so apologies if what I'm quoting doesn't actually link to the actual post (it will the person though!).
Tell me where I said that? That is a very blatant straw man attack. I don't hate religion, I despair for the damage it does to humanity. It teaches people to be unaccountable to their peers and facilitates them in hurting others because they think they have a god-given right to do so.
Unfortunately this is simply untrue, and demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of the notion of religion as a whole, as well as an ignorance of a great number of religions which do exist in the world. While I cannot deny that there do exist a great number of religious fanatics whose actions are extreme and unforgivable, and whose minds are damaged beyond repair, to generalise that religion "teaches people to be unaccountable to their peers and facilitates them in hurting others because they think they have a god-given right to do so" is simply disgusting.
Consider Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taosim, and a number of other more obscure eastern traditions which do not have the monotheistic approach of Western/Middle-Eastern religions. These can hardly be classed in the category into which you have recklessly classed all religion. Even within the likes of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to imply that all those who follow these traditions are mindless zombies following a literal interpretation of their sacred text is misguided and unfair. The issue of "reason and religion" I wont address now, intending to address it later in this post, so I'll just address the moral aspect.
Sure, some people think they have a god-given right to stone women for adultery in Iran. But others think they have a god-given right to equality. Martin Luther King Jnr - God, he was even *named* after a religious figure. Do you think his religion did not play a substantial role in fueling his moral quest? Mother Teresa? How about Gandhi? Religion may spur immorality, but on the very contrary, were it not for some transcendental belief in greater morality, as found in religion, so much moral progress would never have been made. Perhaps, you may argue, the progress would not need to have been made in the first place if religion weren't around - but this is irrelevant; the point here is simply to realise that religion can just as much be a source for good as for bad.
To conclude my first objection, I simply attack your generalization. I imagine you will concede this and clarify yourself.
That's the problem. In the words of House M.D.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
Religion is, quite simply, the rejection of logic and reason. And it is that rejection of logic and reason that results in the atrocities we see.
Quite frankly, this just causes me to despair. This is by far the worst aspect of militant atheism – the idea that reason (or at least your perverted robotic conception of reason) holds the key to everything, and that religion, being devoid of reason, is therefore always inferior to scientifically based disbelief.
The atheists belief in science, as I suspect we will find out if this thread continues, is generally far more irrational than they would like to believe. In contrast, to firstly take an empirical approach, religion is far less irrational than the atheist would portray it to be.
Rene Descartes. George Berkeley. Thomas Aquinas. Who are these people, and what do they all have in common? For one, they were all devout Christians. But what else are they? They are all philosophers – the champions of reason. Logic is the principal tool of these individuals. To claim that all religious thought is a “rejection of logic and reason” is blatantly false. Again, the generalization here is unforgivable.
Furthermore, your understanding of “logic” and “reason” is far too narrow. Real reason is far more profound than simple debate-style justification or even rigorous mathematical deduction (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly). But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable.
There is also a big issue with the idea that it is this supposed rejection which leads to these atrocities, or rather more with the implied notion that morality is best wrought from reason. This, however, I suspect will also be fleshed out more explicitly later, so I will hold my tongue for now.
Well, scientific claims can be tested and either confirmed or rejected by others. I don't think you can do really do that with religious claims. Sure, there is still an element of faith regardless, but the leap wouldn't be as big as a religious one (?)
“Scientific claims can be tested and either confirmed or rejected by others.” This is a bold, but a fairly typical one for a scientist. For now I will even be generous and grant the validity of sense experience and epistemological empiricism (though such generosity is unwarranted), and merely introduce a formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Wherever you attept to “confirm” a hypothesis you are committing just this.
If A then B. B, therefore A. This is the fallacy. This is what you do when you “confirm” some scientific theory.
Here’s where the fallacy is obvious;
If I am a cat, then I have four legs.
I have four legs, therefore I am a cat.
Here’s where the scientists get confused;
If x theory gravity is true, then this apple will fall to the ground
This apple falls to the ground (not just once, but every time and for everyone! Consensus!)
Therefore, x theory of gravity is true
I wont elaborate on this now, since Karl Popper does a far better job than I. I advise people check him out; Popper, Karl, Chapter 1, “Science: Conjectures and Refutations in
Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge Classics, Reoutledge, 2002, pp. 43-51.
This is just one of the grave assaults against reason which scientists so often commit, but is sufficient for now. Falsification also has its problems but ceebs until it actually comes up.
Additionally, how, may I ask, are you quantifying the magnitude of the leaps at play here – and what is your justification that a scientific leap of faith is greater than a religious one? Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science, but I’ll allow the debate to develop before elaborating on this.
I have a lot more to say but I think this post is getting a bit too long. I'd also like to address the post enwiabe made in response to Incommensura, but it's too long so I'll do it tomorrow.
For now I'll just close with this:
Militant atheism is just as dangerous and just as dogmatic and fudamentalist religion. You might see yourselves as a 'champion of reason', but you are far from it, I assure you. You are blinded by your pathological need to quantify your world - this is just as equivalent an existential response as that of the fundamentalist Christian. You believe that science holds that answers to all when it does not, and can never answer essential questions about the human condition.
Unfortunately, however, such militant atheists are rarely able to see the error of their ways. Just like fundamentalists, they can generally never be persuaded; they are simply to blind, too dogmatic.
I am not endorsing religious fundamentalism; I wholeheartedly agree that it is a frightening thing. I do not even believe in 'God' in any conventional sense. But I argue that *this* kind of
militant atheism is not much better. Critical thinking is wonderful - but this is just not it.
Someone said earlier that perhaps religion is no longer needed in today's society, only originating in order to explain then unexplainable phenomena. To a degree this is fair, as to a degree this is what much of religion was concerned with a long time ago. Hence, it is reasonable to concede that many, many aspects of most religions are now redundant, and perhaps could be done away with, so as to minimise the frightening and dangerous adherence to fundamentalism we see around the world. However, while certain aspects of religions perhaps ought to disappear, the essence of religious thought is utterly essential to humanity. If man is does not embrace, he is doomed.
Also, @ funkyducky, Buddhism is amazing <3333
PS: People have probably posted while I was typing all this so... yeah D=
Home
Help
Search
Login
