Re: [stoics] Re: Machiavelli Said It Best
- Hello Charles,
>>>I mean no insult, but it is obvious to even a naive reading of history tosee 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 philosophicalscrutiny. 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
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
Live with honour,
Visit the Stoic Foundation
- tom_paines_ghost wrote:
> It is not bias to note that religion, per se, as a body ofIt may not be untrue, but it is irrelevent. Everything, ultimately,
> knowledge, rests its tenets on untestable faith claims.
> If you believe this is untrue, please do show me a religion that
> does not.
comes down to an untestable, unprovable claim of faith. To pretend
otherwise is merely to display ones ignorance.
Chrysippus replied, "Had I followed the many, I would not have become a