|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why should religion get a free pass? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
quote: Because of the different functions religion and science perform for society. Science is there to answer questions in ways that can be quantified. Religion is there for people seeking answers to spiritual questions, which cannot be. If you don't believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven, you will not be satisfied with what religion has to offer. All religions, whether you find their related legends silly or not, rely on faith in a higher supernatural power that can not be proven to exist or not to exist, so a " free pass" is necessary, unless or until society no longer wants to rely on faith based religions. "Scientific" doesnt even come into it, helenavm. The question does not relate to being able to scientifically prove religious beliefs - the question is "why do we question the veracity of everything except religion?" This relates very strongly to the point Taz brought up in a different thread relating to religious con-men. Not questioning religion allows dishonest individuals to prey upon the gullible. We know for a fact that slime like Popoff heal nobody - they manufacture artificial "miracles" utilizing slight-of-hand, charisma, and an effect not unlike hypnotic suggestion to convince the gullible and unquestioning that their diseases have been "cured," only to have the effects mysteriously wear off shortly afterwards. Why do we give religious beliefs a free pass? If someone says "I believe that injecting myself with bubonic plague will make me immune to all disease," should we not question such a belief? If someone says "god told me that if I rape a virgin I will be cured of HIV," should we not question that belief? Why is religion granted a free pass? Doesn't this lack of questioning make the complete bullshit indistinguishable from the possibly true?
quote: Yes, they do, and I believe that they should. Unless you are trying to make the argument that religions should each be scientifically scrutinized, and then be ranked on a scale of which is least to most believable , it seems like a pointless task. Any negative results of a religion's practice can be dealt with by society as just another social issue, as society evolves with it's religious communities, which do change over time. For example, when a religion allows domestic violence towards women,or sex with minors, we still arrest the offender for breaking the law, but we don't waste time trying to "reeducate" the church members with scientific evidence, because that is almost never a person's reason for believing. But that's just the thing - we do make legal exceptions for religious purposes. I don't know if you were here yet, but just recently we had a thread discussing a recent news story in which a little girl died as a direct result of her parents' belief in faith healing. The girl had diabetes, could easily have been treated, and she died screaming in pain before lapsing into a coma as her parents prayed and refused to take her to the hospital. And the parents are not being charged with any form of abuse, or even criminal negligence, because local laws allow parents to not take their child to a hospital for religious reasons, including conditions as easily treatable yet lethal as diabetes. So they do produce a harmful result, and we aren't arresting the offender becasue the law itself is making an exception for religion. Why does religion get a free pass, even when demonstrably false and harmful? If one man claims to hear voices in his head, we call him crazy and get him professional help. If a man claims to hear god, we call him blessed, even if what "god" tells him is demonstrably wrong or even crazy (uless the person kills someone, and then we call him crazy again and put him in jail). Why the double standard? If one person beleives in magic fairies or marshmallows that cure disease, we call him crazy, but if several people believe it, we call it a religion and stop questioning it. Why the double standard? Scientology is almost universally mocked as a load of BS, what with their belief in an evil immortal space alien emperor and "thetans," the dismebodied souls of aliens murdered in the Hawaiian volcanoes that are the source of all of man's troubles. But how is this objectively any different from a religion that says a magic fruit and talking snake are responsible for all of man's problems, and that an invisible man in the sky sacrificed himself to himself to make up for breaking the rule he made in the first place? Why the double standard? Why does religion (or sometimes only specific religions) get a free pass?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, my question is: does religion get a 'free pass' and is it ok to give religion a free pass when it makes such extraordinary claims e.g. that we can reincarnate? Yes, religion gets a free pass. and it is ok for it to get a free pass for claims that are not falsifiable. If the claim can and has been falsified, then it shouldn't get a free pass. But for things like believing in the soul, or reincarnation, or whatever "spiritual" belief that we cannot know if are true or not, they should get a free pass as religion because, what else are we suppose to call those beliefs? They are religious by definition.
When I say 'free pass' I mean (what I think Dawkins means) letting a statement of faith (such as that Jesus returned from death, humans are reincarnated or there is a non material realm that can be accessed through prayer or meditation for example) go unchallenged because it is somehow 'off limits' to such challenges. But they are 'off limits' to challenges because they cannot be falsified. So how do you prove them wrong? You can't expect people to believe in nothing except that which is empirically evidenced.
I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's the problem... there is no "extraordinary" (read: supernatural) evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
helenavm writes: Science offers no comfort to the grieving, This is of course false. The science of cognitive behavioural psychology (in its practical application of therapy) is an excellent choice for many people when facing bereavement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helenavm Junior Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
quote: Sorry, I wasn't even considering the field of psychology when I wrote that. I was only thinking of the hard sciences. I do agree that therapy can often help the grieving process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
helenavm writes: I do agree that therapy can often help the grieving process. But before this could be used it was evidence based. There was no 'free pass' that religion has had in this role for years. Psychologist had to say "look, this works because of x, y and z and here is how it works....". The vicar (for example) say "look, this workss because of x, y and z and you must beleive it....." Do you see the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Fair enough but when was the last time a religious belief was subjected to this test? Furthermore, applying this test no longer gives free passes as it is now subject to scrutiny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helenavm Junior Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
quote: Maybe because religion has historically been a source of comfort for those in distress, and psychotherapy, as the new kid on the block for dealing with tragedy,had to convince people of it's effectiveness? If religion didn't bring comfort in times of distress, I don't see how so many people even today would even bother to give it any attention. The fact that so many people wind up in churches after disasters and tragedies seem to show that people are getting something beneficial from it. Therapy is still an option for those that seek it, and that's fine.
quote: I don't really understand what you are refuting. I have no beef with science, or psychotherapy. These are fields based on empirical evidence. Religion is not. I think Catholic Scientist made my point better than I was able to:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor Archbishop of Westminster writes: .... it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone...... This is the kind of comment that gets a free pass and really really should be ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3374 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
When I think about religion, I like to remember a phrase of author Terry Pratchet's: "thinking brain dog". (Like a seeing-eye dog)
I see religion as a way for lazy people to avoid thinking about hard subjects, and to avoid admitting ignorance. Religion gets a free pass because people don't want to give up their "thinking brain dog".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Catholic Scientists writes: Yes, religion gets a free pass. and it is ok for it to get a free pass for claims that are not falsifiable. Really? So, claims like these should get a free pass:
quote: quote: quote: quote: But they are 'off limits' to challenges because they cannot be falsified. So how do you prove them wrong? No one needs to prove evidenceless assertions or beliefs to be wrong. If anything, we should learn to question the sanity of those who make them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Really? So, claims like these should get a free pass: Sure. Why not? I think The Dude said it best:
quote: No one needs to prove evidenceless assertions or beliefs to be wrong. If anything, we should learn to question the sanity of those who make them. Bullshit. My evidenceless assertion is this: Pie is better than cake. Now you must question my sanity!? Pah-lease
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
But every one is aware that this is your subjective belief and (hopefully) you are aware that this is only true inside your head.
You percieve pie as better than cake when I percieve cake to be better than pie. We both know that this is a matter of taste rather than objective reality. If you say your god exist and and I say it does not, only one of us can be correct. This is not true with a taste issue. Inside our own heads we can both be right: not so in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you say your god exist and and I say it does not, only one of us can be correct. This is not true with a taste issue. Inside our own heads we can both be right: not so in the real world.
Good point. Although it doesn't add weight to bluegenes's claim that evidenceless assertions are insane. However, my main point stands that if we can't falsify either of our beliefs about god, then it should get a free pass because we cannot know which of us is right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Catholic Scientist writes: However, my main point stands that if we can't falsify either of our beliefs about god, then it should get a free pass because we cannot know which of us is right. If this were true generally then my belief that there are little green men living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri should be given a free pass, just as much as someone else's belief that there are no such little green men. The point being, of course, that unfalsifiable assertions should not get a free pass simply because there's no evidence either way. This rebuttal to the claim that unsupported assertions cannot be challenged is better known as the Celestial Teapot argument, click the link. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Bullshit. My evidenceless assertion is this: Pie is better than cake. Now you must question my sanity!? Pah-lease Even some of our creationists might've understood my point there, CS. Evidenceless statements presented as objective truths are completely different things from subjective tastes (when those subjective tastes are recognized as such). You may have trouble with this, of course, as you're religious, so you probably have evidenceless personal tastes, desires or beliefs which you see as having objective truth. If so, I don't give them a free pass, and I'll be happy to explain what delusions are.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024