Douglas J. Bender

I did not find one rational, reasonable, relevant response in any of the posts which followed mine. I did find some very off-target and misrepresentative posts. More proof about the necessity of having an "open heart" (and I shouldn't have to define or explain this to all you overly intellectual types, but I guess I must - having an "open heart" does not mean casting aside reason, but casting aside preconceived stereotypes and doubt; if someone feels anger towards Protestants, and allows his anger to inform his opinion of all Protestants, then he likely will never be able to discern when and if a Protestant is a decent person, or at least it will make it much, much more difficult for him to do so).

Also, many eminent scientists were and are Christians - so, the argument some of you are presenting would say that these people are automatically unthinking and unreasoning, or happen to be so just in the case of their metaphysical beliefs? Why is that the case? Yelling really loudly, "Christians are all stupid, and religion is for imbeciles!!" is no argument.

I'm rather busy with some real (and semi-real) discussions, both elsewhere here at Infidels, and on some other boards. I think I'll just let this one go, as it sounds like it's going to be just another "Let's shout the Christians down!!" extravaganza, lacking any substance. Enjoy.


In Christ,

Douglas

Mageth

having an "open heart" does not mean casting aside reason, but casting aside preconceived stereotypes and doubt

I can see casting aside preconceived stereotypes, but if one casts aside "doubt" without cause to do so (e.g. evidence for the object in doubt), one is casting aside reason, IMO.

Mageth

Yelling really loudly, "Christians are all stupid, and religion is for imbeciles!!" is no argument.

Note that in the OP it seems to be a Christian supporting that view. And I don't think anyone here has said "christians are all stupid and religion is for imbeciles." At most what people seem to be saying is that accepting at least some tenets of religion may require abandoning reason - which once again seems to be the opinion of the christian quoted in the OP.

And note that I'm not necessarily saying that myself. I think it's possible that many people come to rational decisions to accept religious beliefs. I think they've reached the wrong conclusion, but I don't necessarily think their decision process is irrational.

Starboy

Bender:

The argument is simple.

Religious – accept supernatural explanations over natural.

Rational – accept natural explanations over supernatural.

When a scientist does good science they are rational. When anyone does religion they are irrational. The religious point of view represents 1st century thinking. The rational point of view is how thinking is done today. Get with the times or admit you are a superstitious native of the 1st century. Boo!

Starboy

The Naked Mage

<dons devil costume, climbs on top of Bender's roof>

Paddy

For arguments sake, let's assume that God exists.

In this discussion forum there are many regular posting "intellectuals" who have provided speciously cogent arguments, both theist and atheist alike, but have yet to identify a single incontrovertible "truth". After centuries of debate our "intellelectual superiors" are yet to resolve a myriad of theological issues (I am by no means suggesting that we should cease trying).

Now, if the "intellectuals" and "experts" are still perplexed by many of these issues, how can we (and perhaps god) expect the layperson to deal with them, relying on reason (most likely they would rely on the testimony, or reasoning of "experts in authority")? Wouldn't it be wise of god to admonish these people to trust in him as opposed to the erroneous reasoning and arguments of experts?

I personally do not believe in a deity, however, I can understand why a god (if he existed) would instruct his followers to unquestioningly adhere to his word.


Paddy

Starboy

Paddy,

I think that if the scientific revolution has taught us anything it is that there is no such thing as "truth". The best we can do is come up with explanations that work and have utility. When confronted with an event you have two choices, explain it naturally or accept a supernatural explanation. In this day and age if you seriously thought that spirits made the characters form on your computer monitor you would be considered retarded, ignorant or insane. But a person from the 1st century would think that spirits did form the characters on a computer monitor, just as they thought that sin was the cause of birth defects. "God" and all of the attendant supernatural concepts are of a bygone age. Intelligent, educated people don't think like that anymore.

Starboy

DigitalDruid

Douglas wrote:
There are and were devout Hindu scientists who are even Nobel Laureates. Also, when during the Dark Age the christian world plunged into mysticism and superstition, the Arab scientists and astronomers preserved and advanced science. Do you accept these as arguments for Hinduism or Islam?

It's silly to think that because someone is good in one field, he or she excells in others too. Do you go to a world-class economist when you are down with fever? Or would you automatically take him or her to be an expert in Astronomy? Why is metaphyisics any different?

There is no need to treat them as automatically unthinking and unreasoning, but we have to consider their opinion on its own merit - not because they are famous scientists. Even Galileo was wrong about the origin of the tides.

Paddy

But back in their era the intelligent, educated people did think like that. And, chances are that in another thousand years "intelligent, educated people" will not think like us anymore. So, if I were god I would admonish my followers to trust in my word, as opposed to the fleeting scientific fads of their era. I would not instruct them to be indolent and apathetic towards gaining knowledge, however, when it came to issues that were contentious or were the cause of doubt then I would have them trust in my word.

Like i said before, I am an atheist. However, I do like to keep an open mind (who knows, maybe in 50 years time the intelligent and educated will be telling us that it is highly likely that god exists ), and the idea of god instructing us to "lean on his inderstanding" I do not have a problem with.


Paddy

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Paddy ]</p>

Starboy

Who is to say that "God" is not a fad of bygone era? You gotta go with what works. Religion is busted, science rules.

Starboy