Ideologies, philosophies and beliefs that are deemed to be above critique ?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

The problem though is that some groups will only accept criticism that they can deal with. For example, many Christians are not interested in evolution because it might challenge their comfort zone too much.

This just begs the question when is a group accepting rational criticism and when is it avoiding criticism that isn't fair or relevant. It's a difficult question to answer.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The problem though is that some groups will only accept criticism that they can deal with. For example, many Christians are not interested in evolution because it might challenge their comfort zone too much.

This just begs the question when is a group accepting rational criticism and when is it avoiding criticism that isn't fair or relevant. It's a difficult question to answer.

I must say I've never actually met a Christian who wasn't interested in evolution because it would challenge their comfort zone.

I know Christians (a minority) who feel challenged by evolution and therefore they discuss it all the time.

I know other Christians who happily accept evolution, don't see it as any challenge to their comfort zone, and probably discuss it about as often as does the general population.

Then there are others, like myself, who don't see evolution as being particularly important compared to other issues, so we rarely discuss it except when responding to people like yourself who seem rather obsessed with the subject. If evolution is true then that doesn't challenge my comfort zone in the slightest. If it were to be somehow proved false then that wouldn't disturb me either. Indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject.

"indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject" - that's just rhetoric.

Indifference to a subject may be because there is an inability to deal with the subject or because there is no inability but for another reason.

So which is it?

Based on the initial reactions to Darwin, the reaction of many other Christians to evolution to this very day, I can't help but feel this is because you (and all of them) are afraid of it.

Sorry.

Darwin changed how intelligent / educated people look at the Universe and life. This was irrespective of people keeping their faith or loosing it.

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't aware anyone had made that 'regular' assertion in this thread. Maybe it's just in your head.

So are you saying that evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin?

So which is it? He wasn't really an atheist? Or he was really quite a nice chap?

Who said anything about assertions being reserved to this thread? I just said regular assertions.

I am saying evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin, yes. There is no reason to believe he did what he did because he was an atheist, nor is there any reason to think someone who was a theist (of any denomination) was incapable of doing like things.

I'm also saying that it is an example used time and time again, easily refuted, and that card was played when Stalin was mentioned.

The mention of the Soviet Union by anti-atheists in a debate on the subject is touchy because it (the idea that atheism is at fault for Stalin) is an offensive and ignorant argument that is used far too often for the intellectual good of humanity.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Indifference to a subject may be because there is an inability to deal with the subject or because there is no inability but for another reason.

I would suggest in most cases indifference to a subject. Not everyone has been, or wants to be educated to an 'internet forum-level' of knowledge of evolutionary biology.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

"indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject" - that's just rhetoric.

No, it's a clear distinction between two very different concepts which you appear to be conflating. Nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric.

I am totally indifferent as to who will be the Christmas #1. That is not because I cannot deal with the subject but because I don't think it is important.

Tim, you may disagree with points I make. If you can state your disagreement in a coherent way then wwe might be able to have a decent discussion. But just using waving the term 'rhetoric' every time you disagree with something is absurd.

Indifference to a subject may be because there is an inability to deal with the subject or because there is no inability but for another reason.

So which is it?

The other reason is that I don't see the importance of the subject.

It makes no difference to my faith whether God created mankind through a process of evolution or by some other means.

If other people get excited over this issue then I'm very happy for them. However, I think your obsession with getting me interested in the subject is bordering on stalking.

Based on the initial reactions to Darwin, the reaction of many other Christians to evolution to this very day, I can't help but feel this is because you (and all of them) are afraid of it.

Sorry

I'm not quite sure how you want me to respond to your admission that you can't help jumping to unwarranted assumptions.

Initial reactions to Darwin were many and varied. BB Warfield, a prominent evangelical and author of the classic text on biblical inerrancy, hailed Darwin as one of the noblest souls that ever lived. Maybe you should stop judging everyone according to your rather narrow stereotypes? That would be more productive than apologising yet continuing to post nonsense.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No, it's a clear distinction between two very different concepts which you appear to be conflating. Nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric.

I am not conflating. I even clarified the two possibilities whereas you insinuated there may only be one.

Tim, you may disagree with points I make. If you can state your disagreement in a coherent way then wwe might be able to have a decent discussion. But just using waving the term 'rhetoric' every time you disagree with something is absurd.

More rhetoric. Where have I not been coherent?

The other reason is that I don't see the importance of the subject.

Well would you accept that for a lot of people:
1. They loose their faith when they understand fully understand evolution.
2. Fully understanding evolution makes them reflect about their faith, even if they don't loose it.

It makes no difference to my faith whether God created mankind through a process of evolution or by some other means.

The way you say things like that, it comes across as that you still do't realise that in scientific terms evolution is sound. You talk as if it's all up for grabs a la Mick Huckabee.

If other people get excited over this issue then I'm very happy for them. However, I think your obsession with getting me interested in the subject is bordering on stalking.

I made no reference to you when I brought this point into the debate. You brough a reference to yourself in at 13:05.

I'm not quite sure how you want me to respond to your admission that you can't help jumping to unwarranted assumptions.

Unwarranted?

Initial reactions to Darwin were many and varied. BB Warfield, a prominent evangelical and author of the classic text on biblical inerrancy, hailed Darwin as one of the noblest souls that ever lived. Maybe you should stop judging everyone according to your rather narrow stereotypes? That would be more productive than apologising yet continuing to post nonsense.

'Stereotypes', 'Nonsense' more rhetoric...

Darwin himself was terrified of what he found out. The reactions from the prominent Christian leaders was well documentated. Some of these reactions persist to this very day.

This is because that once we have replicating DNA, we categorically don't need a creator. We have explanations for every single species on our planet.
We have conclusive evidence for this.

Before Darwin, practically every European intellectual believed the Bible literally. This all changed, so much so that most intellectuals either don't believe it at all or just believe parts of it as allegories.

You can always find exceptions and anecdotes. Well done. But that doesn't change the fact that Darwin changed intellectually thought on how we view life, radically.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Based on the initial reactions to Darwin, the reaction of many other Christians to evolution to this very day, I can't help but feel this is because you (and all of them) are afraid of it.

Irrespective of the religious beliefs someone holds, you simply have to take peoples word for it when they tell you that their lack of interest in evolution stems from a lack of interest in evolution. It's that simple.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Before Darwin, practically every European intellectual believed the Bible literally.

Are you serious? Do you understand anything about the Enlightenment and the beliefs of major intellectual figures in the Eighteenth Century?

I'm at a loss to know how to proceed here. How do you discuss anything with someone who posts blanket statements which demonstrate they don't have an inkling of what they're talking about? Congratulations, Tim. You have rendered me speechless - and I assure you that is a very rare event indeed! :eek:

knoxor

this may be digressing... but I'd like to propose a different tact.

I put it to some of our believing friends. I'd like to know exactly why you believe there is a God.

Is this through your own experiences or simply because you default to this belief system as it was taught to you from a young age ?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you understand anything about the Enlightenment and the beliefs of major intellectual figures in the Eighteenth Century?

I'm at a loss to know how to proceed here. How do you discuss anything with someone who posts blanket statements which demonstrate they don't have an inkling of what they're talking about? Congratulations, Tim. You have rendered me speechless - and I assure you that is a very rare event indeed! :eek:

Ok, I accept they didn't believe the biblical literally and that was a bad choice of words, but far more of the Scientific community were believing Christians pre Darwin than post Darwin.

Do you agree with that or do we need to list them?

Dades

knoxor wrote: »

this may be digressing... but I'd like to propose a different tact.

Much as I'd love to read something in this thread other than TR trying to beat PDN to death with the Stick of Logic™, there's a whole other forum for that question.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok, I accept they didn't believe the biblical literally and that was a bad choice of words, but far more of the Scientific community were believing Christians pre Darwin than post Darwin.

Do you agree with that or do we need to list them?

I agreed that there has been a steady decline in the percentage of the Scientific community that were believing Christians over the last 500 years.

The reasons for this are varied - including the invention of the printing press, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the removal of the Church's monopoly on intellectual activity, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution etc. I don't think that Darwin's role in this secularising process is anything like as pivotal as you seem to think.

The fact is that a large number of intellectuals were deists long before Darwin.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I agreed that there has been a steady decline in the percentage of the Scientific community that were believing Christians over the last 500 years.

The reasons for this are varied - including the invention of the printing press, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the removal of the Church's monopoly on intellectual activity, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution etc. I don't think that Darwin's role in this secularising process is anything like as pivotal as you seem to think.

The fact is that a large number of intellectuals were deists long before Darwin.

Ok, perhaps we should start another thread w.r.t. Darwin's role in secularisation?
I would look forward to hearing your expanded opinions and others contributions.

The last thread I started was poorly worded so I need to make a better effort for this one.
That would require sometime which I don't have at this moment as I have to get some work done right now.

So I suggest, if you give me sometime I'll create a separate thread which I think would be interesting.

Kind Regards

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

What about present day Christianity ?





.... wonders if the Soviet Union will be mentioned in the answer:D

asdasd

What about present day Christianity ?

Where is modern day Christianity prohibited from being questioned?

AtomicHorror

asdasd wrote: »

Where is modern day Christianity prohibited from being questioned?

The bible is considered infallible by many. Its authority over-rides reason for many.

Hence we end up with homosexuality condemned as immoral in the absence of the negative consequences normally required to label a thing as such and creationism presented as literal fact despite contradiction by simple observation of nature.

achtungbarry

asdasd wrote: »

Where is modern day Christianity prohibited from being questioned?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to name one example from the Catholic faith.

formerly known as

The Holy Office of the Inquisition.


The treatment of Islamic apostates to name another.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

What about present day Christianity ?





.... wonders if the Soviet Union will be mentioned in the answer:D

I can't think off hand of any versions of present day Christianity that are deemed to be exempt from criticism. I would certainly think that would be a sign of weakness.

AtomicHorror

achtungbarry wrote: »

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to name one example from the Catholic faith.

formerly known as

The Holy Office of the Inquisition.

Well now that was unexpected...

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

I can't think off hand of any versions of present day Christianity that are deemed to be exempt from criticism. I would certainly think that would be a sign of weakness.

So The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a sign of weakness ?

asdasd

achtungbarry wrote: »

The Holy Office of the Inquisition.

and how does that effect you exactly? Here in 2008?

there are far more controlling ideologies in the world, and in Ireland. In fact - one of the posters gave that game away in this quote.

Hence we end up with homosexuality condemned as immoral in the absence of the negative consequences normally required to label a thing as such

achtungbarry

asdasd wrote: »

and how does that effect you exactly? Here in 2008?

It effects us in the in its new guise as The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

asdasd

achtungbarry wrote: »

It effects us in the in its new guise as The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

How does that affect you in the slightest? you are free to leave the church.

Religion has bog all impact on my life. The PC left, and the State in general has massive imfluence, and control over my life.

AtomicHorror

asdasd wrote: »

there are far more controlling ideologies in the world, and in Ireland. In fact - one of the posters gave that game away in this quote.

Hence we end up with homosexuality condemned as immoral in the absence of the negative consequences normally required to label a thing as such

How does that quote, made by me, indicate the presence of a controlling (or more specifically, unquestionable) ideology? Do you have a rebuttal for it?

asdasd

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How does that quote, made by me, indicate the presence of a controlling (or more specifically, unquestionable) ideology? Do you have a rebuttal for it?

What negative consquences are you talking about for considering homosexuality immoral. I mean, you tell me,. Clearly you think there are negative consquences for everybody else but the church, and clearly you think there should be. why? And who enforces these rules? And should there be such rules?

i would think that in free societies people get to be homosexual, and others get to complain, if they wish. You think otherwise.

AtomicHorror

asdasd wrote: »

What negative consquences are you talking about for considering homosexuality immoral.

Well when I mentioned negative consequences, I meant consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. There are none to speak of. So we have a hard time pointing out just why it should be considered immoral.

asdasd wrote: »

I mean, you tell me,. Clearly you think there are negative consquences for everybody else but the church, and clearly you think there should be. why? And who enforces these rules? And should there be such rules?

I think you've read me wrong. Or you're misrepresenting my position. I'm not calling for any rules, or for anything to be enforced. I'm questioning why homosexuality is labelled as immoral by some. We have people over in the Christianity forum who justify it with nothing more than the authority of the bible. No argument about harm or benefit or rights, just simple unquestioning authority.

asdasd wrote: »

i would think that in free societies people get to be homosexual, and others get to complain, if they wish. You think otherwise.

You've decided what I think, but are basing that on a single sentence you seem to have misread. Perhaps it was unclear, but it was just one sentence. Where did I suggest that complaints about homosexuality should be silenced? I'm countering them.

pH

asdasd wrote: »

How does that affect you in the slightest? you are free to leave the church.

Religion has bog all impact on my life. The PC left, and the State in general has massive imfluence, and control over my life.

Which is very funny indeed. You live (and I'm presuming you're in Ireland) in one of the freest societies that ever existed. I'm not quite sure what impact you think the "PC left" has on your life (maybe you think you should be free to bash blacks, gays and the disabled - I don't know), but it is nothing compared to the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes that have existed for most of human history.

You're probably too young to remember but condoms could not be bought in chemists until 1985, the last Magdalene laundry closed in 1996, we've had institutionalised child abuse by religious institutions for centuries, and your rights are being curtailed because you can't use derogatory language to insult minorities?

And all this is something to do with the "left" which have been in power (as a minority in a coalition) for only a tiny part of the last 50 years?

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

So The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a sign of weakness ?

I certainly think it is a remnant from a time of great weakness - when the Catholic Church was so terrified of dissent that it tortured 'heretics'.

I don't see how the existence of this organisation places anything beyond criticism. I can say what I like about any Catholic doctrine and never fear that these guys will come knocking at my door.

achtungbarry

asdasd wrote: »

How does that affect you in the slightest? you are free to leave the church.

I can freely admit that it hasn't effected me much at all however it did effect my neighbour who for years suffered hell in an abusive marriage because of the Catholic ban on divorce and the stigma it would have brought on her and her family. This ban on divorce is still supported by the Doctrine for the Congregation of the Faith. How they can justify it in such circumstamces I don't know.

The very fact that this institution exists at all shows the Catholic Church's intolerance of any questioning of their dogmas.

Individual Catholics may ignore its pronouncements but this does not change the institutional intolerance to questioning and criticism that exists within the church.

PDN wrote: »

I certainly think it is a remnant from a time of great weakness - when the Catholic Church was so terrified of dissent that it tortured 'heretics'.

The Holy Office of the Inquisition still exists today albeit under a new name, The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

They may not torture anymore but the goal is still to specify what Catholics may or may not believe...... whether they follow that advice or not.