Subject: Re: My supposed prejudice. In article <16684@mimsy.UUCP>, mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Char

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: jcmmaint@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Dene Bebbington) Subject: Re: My supposed prejudice. In article <16684@mimsy.UUCP>, mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > Dene Bebbington writes: > > > >I wasn't using this as an argument against faith, I was just pointing out > >that peoples views are not always (from a religion aspect) formed without > >indoctrination. > > But again, the point is that indoctrination is irrelevant to content. I agree, but it is the indoctrination I am not happy with. > Science as it is taught in the younger grades is largely by > "indoctrination"-- paleontology completely so, others perhaps less. That's > why I find your skepticism about religion a problem; I sincerely doubt that > you'ld apply the same skepticism to someone who had visited a distant > country and told you about it. You can't equate someone telling me he has been to a distant country and tales of a person walking on water, rising from death etc. After all, I may have been to this country myself that I am being told of. > I think that in fact you do have a great deal of faith. You certainly show > that you have faith in your own competency to evaluate the claims of > religion. I think this debate about whether or not I have faith is getting a bit repetitive, if you want to continue it I think we'd better move from the net to mail. However, just to answer your point all I can say is that my sceptism leads me to not be convinced that there is a God. Whether we want to call this "faith" is probably irrelevant now as we are probably just arguing about the meaning of this word. > >Not necessarily. There are many people who are not cynical about religion, > >and many countries actively indoctrinate children with their beliefs. > > But there are also huge tracts of effective unbelief too. Fair point. > >I really don't see why you keep calling me prejudiced. I have just stated that > >as a sceptical person I can't believe in God on just the word of the bible. > >Also, I find the things such as the resurrection, walking on water etc. hard > >to believe as they are events that go against nature. > > But that's just the point. You wouldn't accept them as evidence of God if > they WEREN'T against "nature" (nature, after all, isn't a real thing here; > it's a mental construct) because then you wouldn't notice them or would > rationalize them away. I must object to your arrogance at assuming that I would "rationalise them away". Actually I would assess them as best I could and come to a decision as to whether I thought it was convincing evidence. > >> Let me ask you this question: if the resurrection were a fact, what evidence > >would you expect to find? > > >There probably is no evidence of the resurrection now except the word of the > >bible. > > THat's not what I asked. I asked you what evidence would you expect to find. As I said I don't think there is any tangible evidence, only the word of the bible. > >Charley, perhaps you could tell us all exactly what you are trying to say, > >when people like me ask for evidence we get back arguments which try to > >knock down our call by making it look like their is no acceptable evidence > >for God. > > This sentence is a bit garbled, but I'll try to answer it in spirit. The > reason I don't just trot out and say, "here's the evidence", is that the > Forces of Skepticism generally reject it out of hand because it isn't the > kind of evidence that they like. This is probably because this "evidence" isn't considered good enough by the sceptic. What would you prefer? Credulity perhaps? > Over several years of arguing on the net > it has become apparent to me that the reasons behind this skepticism are > weak in the extreme, and often are simply retained or learned prejudice > against religion. I am no longer willing to argue for Jesus to people who > aren't willing to give Him a fair chance. Sounds to me like you will only present the "evidence" if the person will believe it, thats really a good way to go about things! Also, perhaps you could explain what you mean by the reasons for sceptism being weak. > You yourself have repeated the anthropocentric call for the Right Kind of > evidence, as if it were not God (if he exists) who establishes what is > Right. I'm sorry, but God simply hasn't made it that easy for us. What sort of an explanation is "if God exists he hasn't made it easy for us"? I would explain it as perhaps being due to their being no God. > C. Wingate =============================================================================== : Dene Bebbington. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but : : AT&T Network Systems UK Ltd. certainty is absurd" - Voltaire. : : : : Mail to: att!ihlpa!hvmpa!dbebbing : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : DISCLAIMER: The views given here belong only to me and anyone who : : wishes to share them. : ===============================================================================


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank