7/6/07
Kierkegaard on pleasure...
Most people rush after pleasure so fast they rush right past it. They are like that dwarf who guarded a kindapped princess in his castle. One day he took a noon nap. When he woke up an hour later, she was gone. hastily he pulls on his seven-league boots; with one step he is far past her.
Faith as proof
One of the root problems in the christian (or any other religious person`s) idea of faith is that they SOMETIMES use science, and at other times deny science (utilizing faith as proof for their denial).
We should hold Christians to the same standards across the board. You either believe in science, and feel that its many achievements have helped the world in innumerable ways (and hurt a bit too), OR you think that biblical doctrine and belief has precedent to all things and that science is wrong.
Well most Christians take the stance that science is usually correct, EXCEPT when it disagrees with doctrine. So essentially they posit faith above science. This is where we thereby have a right, indeed a responsibility to challenge their views. This grey area- the area where religious doctrine wants to challenge known scientific-claims is of the utmost controversy- and rightly so. Real people are being hurt by Christian dogma. Real peoples lives are being ruined through the prevention of amazing treatments, like stem cells, because biblical doctrine forbids its utilization of the human embryo.
So lets argue with these Christan on these points. Right?
What system of argumentation would you utilize. Ive said it before, faith is not: reasonable, logical or rational. You cannot use logical arguments to counter faith- because the very nature of faith necessitates that you deny logic at times. That you ignore reason or overstep rational discourse.
There does not need to be proof of stem-cells being wrong, it simply needs to be inferred from the bible.
indeed- this very inference is quite subjective. Who is this all-knowing interpreter of ancient text? Is it based on consensus opinion of a certain translation (metaphorical analysis) of a passage? Why are there disagreements among the sects of Christianity. Not ALL Christians think homosexuality is evil or sin. Not ALL Christan's believe stem cell research is evil. Perhaps we should ask these more moderate Christians to argue with the less moderate ones- but then again that is asking too much. We are asking them to utilize rational, logical, reasonable discourse over a topic that cites faith as proof. You can now see the area of frustration.
Religious faith requires no physical or logical evidence to support its claims. They are amazingly out-of-proof when it comes to countering some of sciences` most fundamental claims. Evolution, geological time, plate tectonics, astronomy etc. are all contrary to literal bible readings.
Religion does not need proof. So their stance on any issue is in effect either null and void, or it is complete and inarguable. Either you reject faith- and every claim that counters science, or you accept faith and thereby throw out any respect you have for scientific methodology. You've negated the intelligent achievements of the entire human species by saying a 2000 year old book (not even that old. and written by farmers and nomads) knows more about astronomy than Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman,Edwin Hubble or any other amazing thinker who has contributed to our knowledge of the universe.
We should hold Christians to the same standards across the board. You either believe in science, and feel that its many achievements have helped the world in innumerable ways (and hurt a bit too), OR you think that biblical doctrine and belief has precedent to all things and that science is wrong.
Well most Christians take the stance that science is usually correct, EXCEPT when it disagrees with doctrine. So essentially they posit faith above science. This is where we thereby have a right, indeed a responsibility to challenge their views. This grey area- the area where religious doctrine wants to challenge known scientific-claims is of the utmost controversy- and rightly so. Real people are being hurt by Christian dogma. Real peoples lives are being ruined through the prevention of amazing treatments, like stem cells, because biblical doctrine forbids its utilization of the human embryo.
So lets argue with these Christan on these points. Right?
What system of argumentation would you utilize. Ive said it before, faith is not: reasonable, logical or rational. You cannot use logical arguments to counter faith- because the very nature of faith necessitates that you deny logic at times. That you ignore reason or overstep rational discourse.
There does not need to be proof of stem-cells being wrong, it simply needs to be inferred from the bible.
indeed- this very inference is quite subjective. Who is this all-knowing interpreter of ancient text? Is it based on consensus opinion of a certain translation (metaphorical analysis) of a passage? Why are there disagreements among the sects of Christianity. Not ALL Christians think homosexuality is evil or sin. Not ALL Christan's believe stem cell research is evil. Perhaps we should ask these more moderate Christians to argue with the less moderate ones- but then again that is asking too much. We are asking them to utilize rational, logical, reasonable discourse over a topic that cites faith as proof. You can now see the area of frustration.
Religious faith requires no physical or logical evidence to support its claims. They are amazingly out-of-proof when it comes to countering some of sciences` most fundamental claims. Evolution, geological time, plate tectonics, astronomy etc. are all contrary to literal bible readings.
Religion does not need proof. So their stance on any issue is in effect either null and void, or it is complete and inarguable. Either you reject faith- and every claim that counters science, or you accept faith and thereby throw out any respect you have for scientific methodology. You've negated the intelligent achievements of the entire human species by saying a 2000 year old book (not even that old. and written by farmers and nomads) knows more about astronomy than Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman,Edwin Hubble or any other amazing thinker who has contributed to our knowledge of the universe.
7/5/07
7/4/07
FIRE!
I emailed a christian friend of mine and asked her “do you believe in Noahs Arc?”
My reason for asking such a question is I wanted to know if she would ever take a position to actually defend the claims that two of all the animals on earth joined an old man on a boat to survive a world flood. A seemingly preposterous idea.
How come some christians can believe such a whopper? They actually can pickup this thousands of years old book and immediately curtail and ‘dis-prove’ libraries of historical research. They deny evolution, plate tectonics, geological time meteorology, etc. And all of their necessary proof of this flood was found through a simple paragraph or two in the old-testament.
The problem lies in what religious people, and non-religious people use for proof of a position. This is the age old question of science versus faith.What system of proof does one need to show that something is genuine or reasonable or fact? Some use science, some use faith.
Say I’m at a movie with my friend. All of the sudden someone in the dark room yells “FIRE!” Immediately we are forced to use our system of proof to determine if this unknown person’s claim is true or not. I’d notice there is no fiery light being emitted in the dark room (besides, perhaps from the screen), I would notice there is no smell of smoke. I could look around and see that other people, closer to the origin of the scream, aren’t running. Whatever methods one would use- eventually you would assure yourself it was a false-alarm and that some asshole is being himself. perhaps there was a fire, perhaps not- I simply mean to illustrate our system of check and balances we use to make an action.
One system of proof are those things we need to run through our head or checkout in order to decide. I think religious people and non-religious people can agree on some levels of proof. Neither a religious person, nor a non-religious person would probably get scared and run from the theatre- they would use their best judgment to determine it was a bad-joke.
Yet, how come they are so quick to support Noah- when more reasonable people would simply point to the obvious disparity in the method of coming to that conclusion. They denied a lot of good scientific-reasoning to get there.
Yet faith in the bible is their only system of proof needed for the belief in Noah’s Arc, or Adam and Eve, or any other amazing biblical story . No other evidence could ever dis-prove it. Nothing. Ever. No matter how conclusive, or how obvious- if the bible says it is true- it is true.
So what is faith?
My reason for asking such a question is I wanted to know if she would ever take a position to actually defend the claims that two of all the animals on earth joined an old man on a boat to survive a world flood. A seemingly preposterous idea.
How come some christians can believe such a whopper? They actually can pickup this thousands of years old book and immediately curtail and ‘dis-prove’ libraries of historical research. They deny evolution, plate tectonics, geological time meteorology, etc. And all of their necessary proof of this flood was found through a simple paragraph or two in the old-testament.
The problem lies in what religious people, and non-religious people use for proof of a position. This is the age old question of science versus faith.What system of proof does one need to show that something is genuine or reasonable or fact? Some use science, some use faith.
Say I’m at a movie with my friend. All of the sudden someone in the dark room yells “FIRE!” Immediately we are forced to use our system of proof to determine if this unknown person’s claim is true or not. I’d notice there is no fiery light being emitted in the dark room (besides, perhaps from the screen), I would notice there is no smell of smoke. I could look around and see that other people, closer to the origin of the scream, aren’t running. Whatever methods one would use- eventually you would assure yourself it was a false-alarm and that some asshole is being himself. perhaps there was a fire, perhaps not- I simply mean to illustrate our system of check and balances we use to make an action.
One system of proof are those things we need to run through our head or checkout in order to decide. I think religious people and non-religious people can agree on some levels of proof. Neither a religious person, nor a non-religious person would probably get scared and run from the theatre- they would use their best judgment to determine it was a bad-joke.
Yet, how come they are so quick to support Noah- when more reasonable people would simply point to the obvious disparity in the method of coming to that conclusion. They denied a lot of good scientific-reasoning to get there.
Yet faith in the bible is their only system of proof needed for the belief in Noah’s Arc, or Adam and Eve, or any other amazing biblical story . No other evidence could ever dis-prove it. Nothing. Ever. No matter how conclusive, or how obvious- if the bible says it is true- it is true.
So what is faith?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)