Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

• if you think it is bad, then please provide some examples and demonstrate how this can be a bad approach to ushering a new age of reason.
• if you think it is neutral, then there should be no bad effect of employing it (else it would be bad) and there should be no reason to {dislike} it even if you don't {like} it (no reason to push either button).
• if you think it is good, then you should like and agree with the comment "A (much) better basis, imho, is open-minded ... meaning we can be open to the possibilities that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence ...."

quote:

---

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

​

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

​

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

---

quote:

---

the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life recently released a research package exploring the evolution controversy in the U.S. The Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey found that views on evolution differ widely across religious groups.

---

quote:

---

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.[2][3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[4]

​

The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617—88).[5] Atheism is rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism; i.e. the rejection of belief that there is even one deity.[6] Rejection of the narrower sense of theism can take forms such as deism, pantheism, and polytheism. The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown is agnosticism, and can be compatible with theism and with atheism.[7][8][9] The positive assertion of knowledge, either of the existence of gods or the absence of gods, can also be attributed to some theists and some atheists. Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) knowledge; they are not mutually exclusive as they deal with different domains.

---

RADZ writes:

​

Because he hasn't made the case (supported with empirical evidence) that his claim is true. I would need further information before I could begin to decide to send money.

Excellent.
I got what I needed.
Thanks!

question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based               is a
   on empirical             decision
  valid evidence            necessary?
      (A)                  /         \
                         yes          no ... but ...
                         /            |             |
                      decide         why          make a
                     based on       decide       decision
                    inadequate      at this       anyway
                     evidence        time?       based on
                      =guess         =wait       =opinion
                       (B)            (C)          (D)

quote:

---

Kaviraj2: RT @onlinerepertory: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (3) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof - http://t.co/t1QJ7QS

---

quote:

---

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[1]
# Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate

​

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:
".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."[7]

---

quote:

---

But I don't think a "materialist" account of religion's origin, history and future - like the one I'm giving here - precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some sense religious.

​

It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the "illusion" in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusory.

---

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.