JB wrote:
>>>The ad hominem attacks on people who believe in God(s) or don't believe
>>>in human activity as the cause of global warming are identical in nature
>>>to the religious attacks on scientists of previous generations.
No they're not. "Attacks" ( I think too strong a word for use in this
context ) on believers-in-God today (by Dawkins and others) are aimed not at
persecuting or suppressing those with religious views, but are aimed at
levelling the playing field. One of the main objections is that any belief
is held by society to be reasonable if it is held up by the believer to be
religious - and it is more sacred (in the non-literal sense) if it is a view
also held by one of the main religions. If these criteria are fulfilled then
the belief will not be subjected to a requirement for repeatable
experimental evidence or any other accepted means of establishing "facts".
Why should this be?
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Bradley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 09 March 2007 14:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Thinking about philosophy
At 11:35 09/03/2007, you wrote:
>On 09/03/07, Martin Goldman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Religious belief implies blind faith.
> > Blind faith implies rejection of logical reasoning and
> > change/progression.
>
>Therefore anyone who believes in God has rejected logical reasoning?
>I think not.
>
>To be honest, and no offence to anybody, but this is all a big yawn.
>Belief in God is perfectly compatible with logical thought and a
>scientific approach, pace Dawkins.
Without putting myself on either side of the God(s) debate I must
agree firmly with Michael that belief and logical thought are not
incompatible.
The evidence that they can co-exist in individual human beings is all
around, not least in many famous scientists, and there is also
evidence of intense effort at rational thought from theistic
philosophers BC to AD.
"Of course anyone who believes in God has rejected logical reasoning
in thinking about that issue." If you have read the philosophers who
have looked at this issue, and the philosophy of theology, and come
to that conclusion, the argument (premise, premise: conclusion) would
be interesting and good to see. If it is a simple statement of your
belief, not rooted in evidence, then I hold you are entitled to your
beliefs so long as you do not harm anyone else.
The ad hominem attacks on people who believe in God(s) or don't
believe in human activity as the cause of global warming are
identical in nature to the religious attacks on scientists of
previous generations.
None of this should prevent us from drawing attention to the places
and times where religion has been profoundly harmful, but that is the
equivalent of an attack on a mistaken science eg. phrenology, rather
than all science.
Julian
|