“Congratulations are due to Tom Arup for composing this gem: ‘The Anglican Church has told the Abbott government to change its approach to climate change, urging it to respect and base its policy on scientific evidence.’
The comic power in that paragraph is equal to several kilotons of the finest plutonium. Here we have an organisation founded on belief and faith now demanding that selected scientific opinions inform government policy. These same people think they can talk to the planet’s inventor just by putting their hands together.”
- Tim Blair, ‘Carbon Church’
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
You continue to see science and Christianity as mutually exclusive yet many scientists don't have the same problem. Its a superficially funny quote but hardly adds to the debate about faith and why so many continue to see something in something you don't.
3:16
@3:16 Respectfully, I think you just emphasised PC's point. The fact that so many "see something" isn't evidence. There are several great theories as to why those many "see" what they think they see. Dawkins' cultural meme is the most recent, and grounded in the basic genetic disposition for the young to implicitly trust the old (who believed before them). It's still not a shred of evidence, and is, to my eyes at least, profoundly depressing.
I see your age old point Grieg but believe what is acceptable as evidence varies and people hold views based on all levels of proof. I believe there is plenty of proof for Jesus Christ the man and that something significant kicked of Christianity about 33AD. It seems unlikely that so many people would die rather than recant if there was not something more than a good feeling about getting killed in an unpleasantly slow manner. So, some of us would say there is some evidence to support a position of belief although its not to a level that we would accept as convincing to someone disinclined to look.
In respect of the young following the old I would disagree that's generally apparent today although it was probably common in earlier generations. I know kids that go to Sunday school despite their parents being disinterested. None of my children are religious as grown ups and were free to walk away as they grew up and became rebels without a cause. At no time were they asked to leave their brain at home although I think the six day creationists and young earthers do that nowadays. They need a theology lesson as they are already ignoring science.
3:16
3:16
"It seems unlikely that so many people would die rather than recant if there was not something more than a good feeling about getting killed in an unpleasantly slow manner."
Sure. Just like communists in the Great Patriotic War, in Afghanistan, in terrible nuclear and conventional submarines during the Cold War. Nopt forgetting that other lot what fought right to the bitterest end for a cause based on lowest falsehoods. But I won't get into that else you'll accuse me of violating Goodwins Law or some such.
Many, many prople have died in a terrible and unnecessary fashion for some idiocy they believed in. So what? The fact they died for something (often found to be based on error or a con or falsehood) is hardly proof of the veracity of the ideas they supported.
The trouble with religion is that it is all about arbitrary belief and not reality. There is an absence of evidence and no proof. The correct thing to do about it is to discard it without further consideration.
Amit
As you are free to do Amit. Anyway, I'm not interested in religion, just Christianity. That Peter pokes shit at it from time to time while ignoring the others is encouraging really - its obviously worth his while.
3:16
3:16
Religion includes Christianity. All arbitrary belief.
Peter may well cast aspersions on various religions from time to time. He does not like religion very much or that's my understanding of the situation. I don't get what you are saying when you state it is worth his while. What are you trying to say with this comment?
Amit
Hi Amit,
I perceive Peter to pick on Christianity more than the other religious options. This may be because we have a recent Christian heritage so its more topical but also because it makes claims that are particularly challenging, have been explored and debated at great length over 2000 years while itself remaining
alive and well - its always growing in some part of the world. It may help that the followers won't get shitty and chop his head off for disagreeing with them.
Christianity changes everything because if Jesus is the son of God and arose from the dead it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place which there is justice and hope and therefore we have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work toward that hope. It alters us all and that is why is so incredibly dangerous. Its why so many people turn against it.
You don't have to like it but its here to stay whether the Libs ban it or not. I don't care if you believe or not but lots do and they are not all idiots.
3:16
3:16
"It may help that the followers won't get shitty and chop his head off for disagreeing with them. "
Yeah. They might send in a drone to attack instead. Or maybe call in an aerial bombardment with high explosive ordinance ("smart" bombs or whatever the present euphemism is). Or maybe just a strafing. Or maybe an artillery barrage. Or whatever the latest carnage making thing of the moment is. Fact is, it is Christians doing this stuff to the other people; doing it a lot lately, especially ones who are not Christian enough for their tastes.
"Christianity changes everything because if Jesus is the son of God and arose from the dead it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities etc etc etc etc etc etc ......"
That entire paragraph is purile.
"You don't have to like it but its here to stay whether the Libs ban it or not."
This demonstrates that you don't understand Libs. They are not out to ban your religious beliefs, even if they do happen to consider them foolish, false or idiotic.
Amit
Thanks for being so enlightened Amit. The rambling isn't worth a response.
3:16
@Amit I think 3:16 was making an ironic remark re banning. Hey, I smiled.
@3:16 I suspect this debate will go nowhere, as most religious one do, and I have a fair amount of respect for your polite expression, versus the usual bile and abuse (from all sides) here. That said, I will address your comment about what constitutes evidence. Evidence is (necessarily) factual, demonstrable data supporting a conclusion. While you can say "there is evidence Christianity began in 33AD", there's nothing making that more significant than saying "there is evidence that the Branch Davidian cult began in 1955". Amongst a relatively uneducated population (temptation to make Texas jokes... resisted) in 33AD, I'd suggest it'd be fairly easy to start a similar movement based on trickery and desire for power, or even genuine, if misguided, belief. In other words, while there's evidence for the beginning of "yet another cult" and evidence of that particular cult's growth and dominance, there's still zero evidence of supernatural origins, and certainly nothing even remotely testable for any supernatural aspects in the current era.
3:16
Clearly my comment was worthy of a response, after all, you provided one.
Yes, I am far more enlightened than those numbies who believe that they communicate with a spirit in the sky who created all things and is all knowing and is all good and is all powerful. Certainly I am far more enlightened than those numbies who get on their knees and whine to the spirit in the sky, begging for stuff from him, telling him how inferior and what sinners they are, begging for forgiveness for being such numbies in the first place. Daft. Nitwits.
Grow up.
Amit
Amit
Post a Comment