tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914013211159822274.post2275522646756307450..comments2015-08-25T21:50:36.503+01:00Comments on Violetta Crisis: This message will not self-destruct: a couple of responsesVickyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11713978747815185893noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914013211159822274.post-60514580488055327302010-06-07T01:13:28.560+01:002010-06-07T01:13:28.560+01:00"The bounds of knowledge in many areas though..."<i>The bounds of knowledge in many areas thought exclusive to arts, humanities and 'social sciences' are quickly falling to probabilistic description by empirical investigation. More so every day.</i>"<br />Are quickly falling, haven't all quite fallen yet. There may, one day, come a utopia where all human knowledge is quantifiable and English literature students will plot Chaucer and TS Eliot on graphs and things, but I don't think we'll be there for a while. Until you've got some instruments for measuring divinity, religion will remain deep in philosophy's territory, and 'natural scientists' will have to brush up on it a bit before wading into the "are religious people idiots" debate.<br /><br />"<i>The idea that you can take the founding elements of your life and society from texts so openly against critical thinking; against and contrary to inter-subjective, falsifiable scientific knowledge; completely at odds with how we live our lives everyday is abhorrent to a rational mind.</i>"<br />You seem to be confusing "texts" with "receptions of texts in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries". I would have thought the Bible, Koran and especially Talmud would have a very hard time being "openly" for or against anything. But if you are that sure whatever texts you mean are like that, book, verse and line please.<br /><br />"<i>The unthinking agnostic provides the excuse for the moderate, who provides the scaffold for the fundamentalist. They are all utterly bankrupt on any measure possible to hold up for scrutiny.</i>"<br />That's a frighteningly totalitarian attitude to take. Are you really saying that anyone is feeding the worst excesses of religious fanaticism if they don't 100% condemn an idea that, pretty much by definition, can't be proven either way?<br /><br />"<i>It's not bigotry, but a critical mind that dismisses religion, religious 'convictions' and their influence on society.</i>"<br />It's very often bigotry. A critical mind will look at the (fairly shaky) evidence for God and most likely come to the conclusion that of course there's not one. A bigot wades into the debate waving his conclusions around his head without that much knowledge of theology, explaining to anyone who'll listen exactly what the assortment of straw-faiths in his head believe and why it's so irrational and dangerous for them to be so stupid.<br /><br />It's sensible not to believe in God, it's alright to think it's quite a stupid idea, and it's understandable to feel a bit dismissive of people that subscribe to it, but if you're going to write off ideas that have shaped almost all of almost all the world's thought ever, then you need to know, and address, those ideas in as much detail as you criticise them.<br /><br />Making sweeping generalisations about what various religions believe about the infidel, science or critical thinking without providing a few textual references, complete with extensive history of reception, is immensely arrogant. It's also no less stupid than when Creationists explain exactly what darwino-athiests believe about monkeys and sodomy. Though granted it's much less entertaining.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288284218700038061noreply@blogger.com