|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why should religion 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. I would give "your" belief a free pass though. Like I said:
quote: I can't falsify your belief in the little green men, I can't convince you that they don't exist, what's wrong with giving it a free pass? BFD, IMHO.
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. From your link:
quote: I don't think that the the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. From the OP:
quote: Why would I challenge a claim that I can't falsify? I wouldn't. I would give it a 'free pass'. I wouldn't challenge Russell's teapot either. It too gets a free pass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Even some of our creationists might've understood my point there, CS. 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. Don't bother. I'd rather communicate with people who don't intend to insult me. And I'd like to remind you of Rule #10:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you responded that any of these scenarios involved a rational belief but that the other(s) did not, what is the factor that differentiates them? I wouldn't differentiate between the scenarios. I think any of the three have the potential to be rational beliefs.
If you claim that beliefs not based on any evidence whatsoever deserve a "free pass" so long as there is no contradictory evidence, do you then give a "free pass" to all three scenarios? Yes, all three get a free pass.
If we give a "free pass" to all positions that have no evidence one way or the other, what the heck is the definition of a "free pass," anyway? A position has been given a free pass when it goes unchallenged. I wouldn't challenge any of those positions because I cannot falsify them. It would be a fruitless effort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: I can't falsify your belief in the little green men, I can't convince you that they don't exist, what's wrong with giving it a free pass? BFD, IMHO. But you're not giving it a free pass. You're not thinking to yourself (or at least most people would not be thinking to themselves), "Okay, he believes there are little green men on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, and there's nothing wrong with him believing that." Giving it a free pass doesn't mean thinking that there's nothing wrong with them believing it. It means not challenging it.
No, of course not. What you're likely thinking is, "He's nuts, but it just isn't worth my time challenging something so ridiculous." And of course that's a very sensible position when dealing with statements from wackos. That would be giving it a free pass.
But with religion it is different, because when someone expresses a belief that, for example, the world was created by God 6000 years ago, most people think, "Well, that's a religious belief, and there's nothing wrong with that." Really? Most people seem to think that there is something wrong with believing in a 6000 y/o Earth.
That is, they think this up until fundamentalists try to get it added to science class curiculums. At that point the idea passes from acceptable religious belief to wacko idea. Assuming you are right about what most people think, I'd say that at the point referenced above, the idea would maintain being an acceptable religious belief but at that point would also become an unacceptable scientific belief.
Why is this, when it was actually a wacko idea all along? Its would become wacko to the eyes of science but 'most poeple' could still respect it as a religious belief. But my position has been that a falsified belief like a 6000 y/o Earth should NOT get a free pass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're basically saying we shouldn't challenge any belief no matter how utterly ridiculous if there is no evidence one way or the other. If there's no evidence one way or the other, then how are you going to challenge the belief?
And of course you'd be perfectly happy putting our friend the schizophrenic into a mental institution for his voices, wouldn't you? No, not perfectly happy Doesn't schizophrenia have testable symtoms though? People shouldn't be locked up for simply believing something.
Doesn't that mean you'd support "challenging his belief?" Or should we stop medicating all schizophrenics? I'm certainly not going to advocate medicating people because they are religious... There's a difference between being schizophrenic and believing something that is not falsifyable.
And what about the invisible unicorn? Do you believe that the unicorn is next to you, or do you challenge it by saying "maybe, but probably not?" I don't have any reason to believe in the IPU though.
Nearly all beliefs we could identify as completely delusional are simply unfalsifiable fantasies. But not all unfalsifyable beliefs are completely delusional.
I wouldn't challenge any of those positions because I cannot falsify them. It would be a fruitless effort. Ah, apathy. How wonderful. "It won't make a difference, so I won't try." Yeah, a free pass, if you will.
Would you tell your child that Santa doesn't exist? Would you tell your child that fairies aren't real? Or do you give such positions a "free pass," as well? After all, they're unfalsifiable, with no evidence either way. I don't have any reasons for believing in Santa or fairies like I do for believing in my soul. So they're not the same thing and I can be consistent in giving one a free pass but not the others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I can see there's a definitional issue here concerning what constitutes a "free pass". Yeah, I've been using the one provided in the OP. But then, I guess I could be mistaken by what he meant by "challenging" a belief.
To me a free pass is when view as normal and rational someone with nutty beliefs. Do you consider a belief to be nutty simply because it lacks empirical evidence? I only consider them truly nutty, when they have been falsified yet someone still actually believes them.
The main point is that an inherently loony idea, like that prayer works, is loony no matter what the context. Someone prays to God for deliverance and most people thinks that's okay, but someone makes the same request to the Pink Unicorn and it's considered loony. Why is that, since it was a loony idea all along? Because people are idiots.... I've already said that a falsified belief (like prayer working) should not get a free pass. Things like believing in the soul can be rational, unless you assume that lacking empirical evidence = irrational. But I think that, itself, is irrational. You can't falsify the belief, so we will never know, how can you determine that its nutty? If its because you believe that it is nutty, without empirical evidence that it is, then your own belief has become nutty, itelf.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you really don't think that someone who genuinely believes that an evil invisible unicorn (for which there is no empirical evidence either for or against due to it's magical and obviously invisible nature) whispers instructions to him and him alone and that he must obey to save the planet from certain extinction, is nutty? It depends on how they came to the belief. If they really did hear the Unicorn, then their belief could very well be rational. It would prolly still be wrong, but that doesn't make it automatically irrational. If the IPU revealed herself to you in a convincing manner, you would believe in her too. Your belief wouldn't be nutty.
Not even if the unicorn in question is telling him he has to skateboard to the centre of the surface of the Earth. Naked. ???? Is this non-empirical unfalsifiable claim not nutty? Not even a little bit? We're getting into a different meaning for "nuttyness". Simply believing, willy-nilly, in things that cannot be falsified could be nutty. But if you have real reasons for believing in them, them being unfalsifiable doesn't make them automatically nutty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You never replied to my reply to your OP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But if I was to say the fairies in my toilet say that when I die I will become part of the underground kingdom that would be equally unfalsifiable but people would say in a very firm voice 'don't be stupid'. Why not so for beleiveing that when we die we will ascend to heaven of descend to hell? Honestly, I suppose: popularity and tradition.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024