At 13:41 12/03/2007, you wrote:
>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?
At a sociological / anthropological level one might suggest certain
similarities with politics? If politicians required that religions
prove their merit (if that is possible) perhaps religions would
demand that politicians prove their merit.....
Can you outline the logic behind how you eg. decide how to vote? Are
you wanting to claim that you are ultimately a totally cold rational
being who invariably acts according to the evidence?
When is it reasonable to allow people their beliefs (and respect
them) and when is it not reasonable to make such allowances?
Julian
|