thebeave

Boy, this thread has taken off on some interesting tangents. As the author of the OP, perhaps I should clarify a few things.

First of all, as was pointed out earlier, it is true that the OP does not, strictly speaking apply to ALL theists. I mentioned a "witness" and messiah as part of my arguement, and of course, not all religious beliefs have such an entity (i.e. pantheism, deism, etc). However, the basic idea of not critically evaluating the evidence (or lack thereof) still applies to ALL religious beliefs as far as I can tell. Minor point, really IMHO.

Secondly, given that a high percentage of people in this country believe in God, and Christianity especially, I do think that most believers are able to serve as competent jurors. Although, we do see injustice in the system from time to time as a result of misguided juries, I think most of the time, justice is served and the system basically works. Theists, like non-theists, ARE capable of critically evaluating the evidence presented and coming to a sound, defensible conclusion. Though, to be perfectly honest, the thought processes of some of the real, hardcore fundamentalists scare me, and I would be very nervous having them decide my fate. Like those on the baptistboards, etc. My old supervisor at a a prominent engineering company was a devout Mormon, and he was so demanding about having solid, bulletproof data and research to back up engineering recommendations that it drove everyone crazy. Some couldn't handle it and quit because of it. Yet he was very honest and capable and I would trust him as a juror. Still to this day, I have trouble reconciling his strong Mormom beliefs with his propensity for demanding solid proof, analyses and data in the science and engineering field.

My primary point was, as Rimstalker noted, mostly "between the lines". The OP was more directed towards noting the inconsistent thinking among theists. Theists will apply, in a court case, a high standard of proof when the rest of someone else's life is on the line, or on the flipside, will expect a high standard of proof by a jury if the rest of their own life (or that of a loved one) is on the line. But, ask a theist to take the same critical approach with their religious beliefs and you often get a "I know there's no evidence, but that's what I believe, so there" kind of answer. Granted, if you spend a grand total of 5 minutes a year engaged in religious thought, you really haven't invested or lost much from taking such a position. But, to be honest, I am somewhat troubled by theists whose lifestyle is seriously cramped, dictated and impacted by their religious beliefs. Their religion dictates how they are allowed to dress, what foods they are allowed to eat and when, what kind of sex is OK and not OK, what kind of medical treatments are OK and not OK (e.g. blood transfusions by JW's), what kinds of contraception are OK and not OK, dropping whatever you're doing so you can pray five times a day, tithing when you are already destitute. The list goes on and on. Many of these "rules of life" were dictated by centuries old writings by persons of unknown credibility. [For me personally, I can't imagine listening to someone from thousands of years ago telling me I can't have my bacon!] And yet, here again the words of the ancient text and messiah are accepted as truth and the evidence is not critically examined. Ok, I've said my piece. Carry On.

seebs

In a murder trial, we have good reason to believe that there *ought* to be physical evidence, and people have declared that a specific standard of proof is to be used. These are both significant issues.

I see your point about compartmentalization, but in fact, I think there are very good reasons for people to answer different kinds of questions by different means. People don't look for empirical support to justify the roots of their moral beliefs, only to approach better methodologies.

Gemma Therese

Ever heard of Thomas Aquinas, happyboy?

Gemma Therese

livius drusus

Again with the Summa, Gemma Therese? Have you actually read it? You enjoy tossing it out as if the name of Aquinas would somehow be sufficient to silence all doubt, and yet, you are either incapable or unwilling to engage any of the people who have read it and are curious to see if you actually have a point. For instance, in this thread, atheist_in_foxhole, lpetrich and Mediancat all offered to discuss the Summa Theologica only to find you suddenly silent on the topic.

I suspect that you have done nothing more than glance at the dust jacket description, much like your experience with the Inferno.

Arrowman

That's a very good point.

As I said earlier, I'd be more concerned about the general critical thinking skills of the jury than what I might strictly see as an inconsistency in the application of those skills. For me, it is important to apply those skills to all aspects of life, while for others there is a "spiritual" aspect to life which is immune from strict rationality. I can deal with that, although I would still have a problem with very specific spiritual beliefs. "I believe there is a God" is not as irrational as "I believe that God answered my prayers and made it possible for me to buy that SUV".

Perhaps there is a greater concern than simply critical thinking skills - and that is where a juror has a very strong Biblical belief in divine "law" and "justice", and/or is likely to judge you on the basis of the kind of person you appear to be, than on the facts. For example, if I were accused of some sex-related crime, I wouldn't be surprised if a fundy juror took the fact that I am divorced and fornicating with my girlfriend on a regular basis, as evidence of my "moral character".

seebs

Well, if the crime were "pre-marital sex" (I think it's a misdemeanor around here), then he'd have a point. :P

Arrowman

Hehe. Seriously, what if the crime were sexual harrassment, or perhaps even rape?

PS Sorry, I must be misunderstanding where you're from - I thought "St Paul, MN" was in the US. Most powerful, advanced democracy on the face of the planet, and all that. But since premarital sex is a misdemanour where you live, that can't be so. You live in Iraq or somewhere, right? Please tell me you don't live in the US.

seebs

I remember being told once that "sex outside of marriage" was a misdemeanor in Minnesota. Go figure. I suspect the law could never be enforced, now.

beyelzu

kassiana,

show me one, just one supernatural thing, and i will apologize. thats all i am asking. and i have told my wiccan friends that as well. paganism, at least, when it practitioners believe that magic is real, is every bit as cracked as any fundy.

so please email or message me or post on this board one supernatural example and i will post you my sincerest apology along with my prompt conversion to wicca or xianity, whichever form your supernatural thing takes. (or any other theistic religion) i have gone my whole life with seeing no such example and you expect me to believe that you can see one whenever you dance in a little circle and drink absinthe?

seebs

I know a man who makes the same argument, only he's asking for one solid example of evolution, and he says he's never seen one either.