Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:51:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
670 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Then WHY do atheists and agnostics try and hold religion up to the scientific
> method? Seems to me you can't have your cosmic cake and eat it too. Anyone
> stating that they need some sort of proof or evidence that God exists is
> inconsistent, when we all agree that that is *by definition* not possible.
Dave! already answered this quite well (thanks, Dave!) but I want to
elaborate/restate a bit in hopes that if the christians understand this
point they will cease and desist in their hijacking of every topic that
comes along.
Let us be clear on who is holding what up to what methods.
When you (J. Random Christian) come up to me and say "I believe in God!", my
response will be "Well, I don't have that certainty, and your god seems
implausible, but that's nice, I am happy for you, everyone should have a
hobby, now run along". Your methods of arriving at conclusions are your affair.
When you come up to me and say "and so should YOU, Mr. A. G. Nostic", my
response is going to be "prove it in a manner that I accept, or buzz off. If
you want ME to accept something as true, I will use whatever mechanisms I
choose to validate it. Take it or leave it." In the end, though, no harm
done to you if I choose not to accept. I'm facing the consequences of my
actions.
Maybe Pascal's wager is a valid bet as construed (it isn't) and I am gonna
be sorry as I suffer at the hands of a god who isn't satisfied by internal
goodness, he wants groveling (abasement by admitting original sin, and
worship of a particular form). I'll take that bet. But no harm done to me or
you in this life because I choose not to accept your mechanisms for
determining the truth or falsehood of your claims. And if you're right,
you'll have the last laugh, won't you?
BUT... When you come up to me and everyone else and say "and so should
EVERYONE believe (tenet X of) our religion, (which implies that stores
should be closed on sunday, or that people should have to wear hats or
whatever) and we are going to force the issue by putting the following laws
into effect..." by gum, you are going to HAVE to prove it to my satisfaction
and you no longer have a choice about methods, you will use MINE, or you are
going to be met with armed resistance by me, if I so choose and it's
important enough. WELL armed.
As long as christians, jews and muslims keep to their churches, I'll keep
out of their way. I don't even mind if they come around and politely try to
convert me. But stay out of my house, my morality, my schools, my
courthouses and my government when not invited.
Internalise that point or get blown away. Figuratively in the realm of
debate, economically as I choose who to patronise, democratically on
election day at the polls, or *literally* blown away in the streets if it
comes down to it. The way the Religious Right is going, it might. The way
the Religious Left is going, it might, too.
And THAT is why the scientific method matters in this debate. You have made
it MY debate, not yours, because you're trying to mess up MY life, and it's
the mechanism I choose to use.
> And what does it mean to all of you atheists and agnostics out there that some
> of the brightest minds in science believe in God? Do you "know better" than
> Einstein or Hawking? I'm not saying that you should believe *because* they
> believe, but perhaps there is more merit to the existence of God than you
> "thought".
Again, Dave! answered this, succinctly, but if I'm not going to take the
word of those with DDs on the nature of divinity, why would I take it from PhDs?
I expect Scott Arthur to be an expert in whatever subset of Civil
Engineering (which I still don't know, but I digress...) he specialises in,
but not in molecular electronics, and certainly not in theology.
I am an expert in many things. Just ask me. Does that lend additional
credence to Lehmanism? If so, why? If not, why not?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Had to stick that in there, eh? For what reason would you give that the existence of God is implausible? (...) Fair enough. But if I'm asking you to consider something which by definition can't be scrutinized by the scientific method, and you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Larry - your vehemous defence of asking to be left alone is admirable indeed. And you are certainly correct in that you are facing the consequences of your actions - I will actually support your doing so. But I would ask you this - If you knew (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Larry - your vehemous defence of asking to be left alone is admirable indeed. And you are certainly correct in that you are facing the consequences of your actions - I will actually support your doing so. But I would ask you this - If you knew (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Then WHY do atheists and agnostics try and hold religion up to the scientific method? Seems to me you can't have your cosmic cake and eat it too. Anyone stating that they need some sort of proof or evidence that God exists is inconsistent, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
