Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [stoics] Re: Machiavelli Said It Best

Expand Messages
  • Keith Seddon
    Hello Charles, ... see how religion has been a tool of oppression and the justification of violating people s rights.
    Message 1 of 45 , Feb 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Charles,

      >>>I mean no insult, but it is obvious to even a naive reading of history to
      see how religion has been a tool of oppression and the justification of
      violating people's rights.<<<

      That cannot be disputed.

      >>>Religion is not open to scientific verification or philosophical
      scrutiny. This is its appeal. It is justified ignorance.<<<

      These are broad, sweeping condemnations that need to be defended.

      The Philosophy of Religion, and more narrowly, Theology, are large and
      active areas of philosophical enquiry, and the work done by people in these
      areas contributes to a rigorous philosophical scrutiny of religious concepts
      and beliefs.

      Let's have some quotes and referenced please for those on the religious path
      finding its appeal to lie in the fact that 'religion is not open to
      scientific verification or philosophical scrutiny'.

      Critics of those on the religious path seem too ready to condemn their
      opponents as naive and silly whilst themselves remaining ignorant of the
      extensive intellectual work being done in religion.

      When you say that religion is not open to scientific verification, I presume
      that you mean that the existence of deity cannot be established by
      scientific means. This is not a fault with the religious outlook, but a
      fault in the outlook of the scientifically minded person who expects science
      to have answers for everything. Beside which, ad nauseum, I (and possibly
      others) have contributed on this forum to building the case for deity's
      existence being provable a priori by logical techniques alone. If there were
      powerful and logically sound refutations of this endeavour, I do not recall
      them, and I remain on the outlook for them in the course of daily life, but
      so far without success.

      If you have an argument that shows that deity cannot logically exist, I
      would be most pleased to hear it, for then I can abandon the discussion in
      defeat and use the time for other things.

      If we are going to have a children's argument about which has most harmed
      the world, religion or science, don't forget that the numbers stack up
      pretty shamefully again science: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bhophal, Agent Orange,
      Mustard Gas, Pesticides, Radiation, Dioxins, Global Warming, Mercury Amalgam
      Fillings.

      Live with honour,

      Keith
      Visit the Stoic Foundation
      http://www.btinternet.com/~k.h.s/stoic-foundation.htm
    • Nexist Xenda'ths
      ... It may not be untrue, but it is irrelevent. Everything, ultimately, comes down to an untestable, unprovable claim of faith. To pretend otherwise is merely
      Message 45 of 45 , Feb 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        tom_paines_ghost wrote:
        > It is not bias to note that religion, per se, as a body of
        > knowledge, rests its tenets on untestable faith claims.
        >
        > If you believe this is untrue, please do show me a religion that
        > does not.

        It may not be untrue, but it is irrelevent. Everything, ultimately,
        comes down to an untestable, unprovable claim of faith. To pretend
        otherwise is merely to display ones ignorance.

        --
        93 93/93
        Nexist (nexist@...)
        Xenda'ths http://www.geocities.com/xendaths/

        Chrysippus replied, "Had I followed the many, I would not have become a
        philosopher."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.