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 cardinal
Now, 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 6
Edited by Larni, : More additions for clarity (hopefully).
™ Version 4.2