Why should religion get a free pass?

I've just listened to an interview between BBC Radio 4s John Humphreys and Richard Dawkins in reaction to the statements by Cardinal Cormack Murphy O’Connor:BBC NEWS | UK | 'Respect atheists', says cardinalNow, during the interview Dawkins asked Humphreys why he is well renowned for 'tearing into' the statements of politicians demanding evidence, rational and justification; yet does not apply the same standard to to religion.Humpreys replied that some people 'believe what they believe'.This prompted Dawkins to ask: why do you give religion a free pass?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.Humphreys implied that it is ok to let people believe what they believe for no reason other than because that's what they believe.If one claimed that they beleived in the invisible pink unicorn they would be challenged as to why they beleive so.Dawkins implied that Humphreys would give politicians are real roasting asking them to give detailed explanations and justification for their position but would not do so for certain positions and statements made about the reality of religios teaching.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?I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Is it Science, please.Edited by Larni, : Added paragraph 5 and 6Edited by Larni, : More additions for clarity (hopefully).

I've had another go.

This is the nub of the issue. The religious person can say pretty anything in spite of any evidence to the contrary and be respected for that point of view.If I was to perform in depth research into drinking tea during pregnacy and my findings indicated that this caused abnormalities in the children this would constitute a valid reason to not drink tea.If I was to do no research into it at all but proclaim to all and sundary that it was my belief that tea caused these problems then people would call me a crank and I would be asked to justify my position.The religious position does not justify itself further than 'because that's what I believe'.That's the free pass.

So they do get a free pass, then?I would argue that the main teachings of xianity are that their god is real and miraculous events did take place.When asked to substantiate this replying with "I believe this to be true because I believe it to be true" is bad logic of the highest order but the religious (in this example xianity) person does not need to give any justifiable reason to beleive such extraordinary claims. But you can't justify faith based reasoning with further faith based reasoning. That's like saying I beleive in god because the bible says god is real and I can trust the bible because it is inspired by god. Please show how pro choicers justify their position via religion. Can you substantiate this? I sounds contrary to what I understand xianity to proclaim: it certainly is here in the UK. Why should different criteria be used?

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.

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?

This is the kind of comment that gets a free pass and really really should be ignored.

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.

That would be the cultural genocide performed by these religions in the past.

Hi Buzz. Any chance of you providing evidence of your assertion?

I'll take that as a 'No', then.Well done.

What a fucking joke.

First off: all you rantings below have got bugger all to do with why religion should get a free pass. It's really hard to see what you mean when your grammar and punctuation is so faulty: do you mean to say the bible delineates genetics? Again if I can penetrate your prose (pardon the alliteration) are you saying that scientists know that they are wrong and that they cover it up? Remember the fantastic opening sequence of the much acclaimed TV series 'Monkey'?: by your logic, this must be true also. So there are scientist out there who know that fossil dates are wrong and rather than overturning the current paradigm and winning a Nobel Prize, they dummy up? So there is a science conspiracy? Wear a tin foil hat much? You do know that if you measure radio active decay beyond 50,000 years with C14 you are trying to measure a mile with a 12 inch ruler don't you? You do know that, don't you? I give you Tiktaalik: Tiktaalik - Wikipedia Tin foil hats ahoy! Yeah, not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that the biblical theory of genetics is better then the contemporary theory? If so, that is the position of a moron. A big hat. A big massive tin hat to block the conspiracy waves from scientist the world around. Ever heard of an air loom, or Count Otto Black?So, not addressing the topic and a rant about a conspiracy.Well done.

If your religion is not given a free pass then it is perfectly fine (although rude) to say your beliefs are fuckwitted and moronic.Unless for some reason your beliefs are special, that is.

I thought I might bump this as hooah212002's Message 44 reminded me of it.The thread got borked after Message 74.I wonder what the newer members might think.