It means all but one scientist (and maybe even that one) must be wrong. Whether that constitutes “fraud” is a semantic question. Probably it does not even apply. As my high-school physics teacher explained it, “Newton’s physics is a good approximation of reality. Einstein’s physics is a better approximation.” Science is, by definition, always open to revision. But religious leaders claim absolute and eternal certainty.
But if we apply the definition of fraud that you used in the quote above to conclude that all religions are “‘fraudulent’ in the sense of being false”, are we also forced to conclude that all scientists are fraudulent in the same sense?
And if we do accept that is there any utility left in the label “fraudulent”? It would seem that by this definition every individual and organisation in the universe must be fraudulent… except one.
I’m also seeing false dichotomy in claiming that since religions make different claims only one can be correct and the rest must be fraudulent. It may be that they are all correct, or that most ar correct, or that none are correct. After all when your doctor tells you that working long hours is bad for you and your accountant tells you that not working long hours is bad for you, neither is necessarily wrong and neither is fraudulent. They are simply approaching the same situation from different perspectives.
Are you really prepared to argue that every philosophy that cannot be tested empirically is fraudulent? That seems a rather broader use of “fraud” than is common (even ignoring the narrow legal definition).
And maybe Hinduism is a **good **approximation of of reality and Bhuddism is a **better **approximation.
Cite? 
Even the Catholic church is open to reviewing and revising past beliefs. How do you think the chucrch has changed so much in the past 2000 years if the leaders claim absolute and eternal certainty?
And of course for Bhuddism absolute and eternal certainty is the very antithesis of their central tenet that nothing is eternal.
Very, very few religions, if any, claim absolute and eternal certainty for anything beyond there axioms. And science has as many absolute and eternal axioms as any religion.
I did not say all religions are fraudulent in the sense of being false. I said no more than one religion can be the true one and all others must be fraudulent in the sense of being false, which is self-evident by the religions’ own terms.
Where do ya get that?! We all have our own world-views based on thinking and prejudice and experience and sometimes even reasoning. But the claims of religions are universal and eternal.
But, when a religion claims truth, as all religions but the Unitarians* do, it necessarily claims that all incompatible religious claims are false.
*Why should you never piss off a Unitarian?
He’ll burn a question mark on your lawn! 
And, what do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah’s Witness?
Something that knocks on your door for no particular reason!
Once there were a Jewish synagogue, a Catholic church, and a Unitarian church right next door to each other. One day, the rabbi, the priest and the minister were having a conversation on the common sidewalk, and someone ran out of the synagogue shouting, “The Temple is on fire!” And the rabbi ran inside, grabbed the Torah scrolls from the Ark, and ran out shouting, “I’ve saved the Temple!” Then the fire spread to the Catholic church, and the priest ran inside, grabbed the chalice and the Bible from the altar, and ran out shouting, “I’ve saved the Church!” And then the fire spread to the Unitarian church, and the minister ran inside and grabbed the coffee machine.
Religions which can’t self-support are most likely going to die out. Religions which can bring in lots of money and/or gain governmental support are going to prosper.
Advertising, housing the organizational structure, travel costs, training, etc. these all cost money and the better you’ve got the better your odds are of success. That’s just the facts of life.
There were most likely any other number versions of Christianity that could have become “Christianity”, but it’s the one which had the right business model that won out.
That doesn’t make it, necessarily, fraudulent, but it certainly does make the question of the spiritual truthiness of any organized religion become significantly more questionable.
Probably.
As I understand it, the doctrine of papal infallibility is analogous to referring legal questions to a court of appeal. The decision must be accepted as authoritative and therefore definitive. It is not a scientific or logical decision, but more in the nature of a game-rule – i.e., if you want to be and consider yourself a Catholic, you must accept the pope’s rulings in all matters regarding faith and morals. If you don’t, you’re out of the game.
That is a logical problem for Buddhists, but that does not make it any less important or definitive.
In the words of the Reverend Dr. Dr. Mr. M.D. David N. Meyer II, Pope of New York City, Idaho. and the Great Pacific Northwest: "You do not use your mind to think about your religion!"
But, in their terms, their axioms are everything.
:dubious: No, it doesn’t. Is this a whoosh?!
A minor quibble. And you haven’t answered the question, so I’ll put it to you again.
If we apply the definition of fraud that you used in the quote above to conclude that all religions except one are “‘fraudulent’ in the sense of being false”, are we also forced to conclude that all scientists except one are fraudulent in the same sense?
I get that!!! from modus ponens.
- You claim that if entities contradict one another then all but one must fraudulent.
- The entities known as scientists contradict one another.
- Therefore all scientists but one must be fraudulent.
QED.
Where to start?
First off: Cite!
Seriously, because this seems to directly contradict one of the [and many Hindu sects that nothing can be eternal.
Secondly how is this anything but a massive non sequitur?
- If entities contradict one another then all but one must fraudulent.
- The entities known as scientists contradict one another.
- The entities known as religions contradict one another.
- The entities known as scientists all have their own world-views based on experience.
- The entities known as religions all have their own world-views based on experience.
- The claims of religions are universal and eternal.
4)??? - Therefore when scientists contradict one another they are not fraudulent.
Care to fill in step 5 there for us in a bit more detail? The whole arguments smells of underpants at this stage.
Another non sequitur.
When your doctor tells you that it is true that working long hours is bad for you and your accountant tells you that it is true that not working long hours is bad for you, those are incompatible claims.
So who is fraudulent, your doctor or your accountant?
Yes, and ….?
How does this demonstrate your claim that the teachings of the Catholic church are not open to revision?
You have once more ducked the questions, so once more I put them to you:
How do you think the church has changed so much in the past 2000 years if the leaders claim absolute and eternal certainty?
And can you please provide a reference for this claim since it directly contradicts one of the [central tenets of Buddhism](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=A7UKjtA0QDwC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Buddhism+permanence&source=bl&ots=JaP_zVc85J&sig=SThAErMjY 1RxU4XsE96RQpbeMMw&hl=en&ei=D8k5St7GBomgkQWMiZGCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6[/url) and many Hindu sects that nothing can be eternal.
WTF?
I asked for a reference for your claim that all religious leaders claim absolute and eternal certainty. Since it directly contradicts one of the [central tenets of Buddhism](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=A7UKjtA0QDwC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Buddhism+permanence&source=bl&ots=JaP_zVc85J&sig=SThAErMjY 1RxU4XsE96RQpbeMMw&hl=en&ei=D8k5St7GBomgkQWMiZGCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6[/url) and many Hindu sects that nothing can be eternal.
And you reply that your inability to do so is a problem for Buddhists because your statement is definitive.
Have news for you. Your statement is baseless nonsense if you can’t come up with a reference to support it. And that is a logical problem for your argument, not for Buddhists.
Nonsense. To give the obvious example, in Christianity physical works are important, they are not nothing. How can physical works be an axiom? It doesn’t even make sense
[Monty Python]An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s not just saying “No it doesn’t.[/Monty Python]
Oh good grief. I suppose you have never read a scientific paper.
All of science is provisional, and differing conclusions based on evidence are clearly labeled as opinions (though strong ones at times.) If religious leaders expressed the same reservations about their conclusions as historians (who sometimes must make conclusions on scanty evidence) no one would be calling them frauds - intentional or unintentional ones. I got trained to never write a paper with a conclusion that cannot be supported, and to never make an absolute declaration. Roses are red, violets are blue - so long so as there is enough light available to make the colors apparent to your eye.
Change to scientific conclusions is based on evidence, unlike most changes to religions, which is based either on new ideas or social pressure. Scientific opinion is no more contradictory than the differing opinions of two people on which horse will win the sixth race, based on the Racing Form.
Some religions seem to get it. The Dalai Lama said that if science contradicts Buddhism, Buddhism must change. And the latest Reform Jewish bible commentary seems to accept archeological evidence on the non-existence of the Davidic Empire. But that’s pretty rare, even now.
“We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
Like ?
Science and religion are not comparable. Science is based on evidence, and is contingent on that. It makes no claims to certainty, and is always open to revision with new evidence. Since they don’t claim certainty, they aren’t fraudulent; when you ask scientists why they disagree, they’ll generally say because they don’t know who is right. And when proven wrong, they’ll often even admit it.
Religion is based on empty assertions, and is built on the denial of reality. It’s ALL fraudulent; the comment that “all but one are fraudulent” is simply a way of pointing out their mutual incompatibility. In reality, ALL of them are. Or simply “wrong” or “delusional” if you prefer another word than “fraudulent”.
Science is an actual attempt to discover the truth about the universe; religion is an attempt to declare a particular fantasy to be true regardless of the facts. Religion is fundamentally about deception ( self- and otherwise ). Therefore, science can be and often is wrong, but not fraudulent, because it is not constructed to deceive, and because it attempts to correct itself.
Huh?
I think you’re getting too wrapped up in your own rhetoric.
The difference between science and religion, is that religion is based on faith, and science is based on testing nature through experimentation and accruing empirical evidence.
Religions change over the course of time by conveniently moving the goal posts when contradictory evidence comes to light. Religion must maintain its tenants by so doing to win new converts, lest it die out, due to irrelevance in an ever changing society/civilization.
Science changes over the course of time as new evidence comes to light. Whether or not it’s relevant to society. The maintenance of science is in the evidence itself, and not in the people involved, or their beliefs.
Religion, generally, is resistant to change and revision. Science counts on it.
Faith is smoke and mirrors. Evidence is just that: Evident.
You have all totally failed to address the actual issue.
- You claim that if entities contradict one another then all but one must fraudulent.
- The entities known as scientists contradict one another.
- Therefore all scientists but one must be fraudulent.
If you can see any actual flaws in this reasoning then by all means point it out. Running off onto tangents about what science is and isn’t based on is totally irrelevant.
It’s disappointing, though not surprising, that on aboard dedicated to fighting ignorance you have all simply dismissed a clear logical argument without actually addressing why you have dismissed. It’s pretty elementary logic. If you dispute the actual logic then by all means point out flaws. Simply saying “Huh?” is not a refutation. Stating “They’re not comparable” is actually saying that modus ponens is an invalid argument. You;re gona need apretty strong position to support that one. Certainly a lot more than your assertion that it is invalid.
The problem is with the way you have stated premise 1. No-one has claimed what you claim they have claimed. And so a discussion of “what science is and isn’t” is supremely relevant.
Think of it this way: if there are contradictory assertions, and each one of the people making those assertions claims theirs to be the absolute, universal truth, then they can’t all be right. Whether the others are fraudulent, as opposed to simply wrong, well, I suppose that’s open to debate. But only one can be correct.
But that isn’t how science works. Indeed, a scientist who claimed to have discovered a universal, unchangeable and unchallengeable truth would be laughed out of town. Thus it’s entirely reasonable to point out the difference between people who say “Here is my idea. What do you think?” and those who say “I have discovered the One True Path.”
Blake, it could be very interesting to talk about the applicability of an inference rule in the form of a Modus ponendo ponens in this instance.
But I’d prefer to first ask the question, whether your representation of the theses that you refer to is adequate:
BrainGlutton said:
This statement doesn’t proclaim that one religion is necessarily right, they can all be wrong, but if one is right, than the other ones can’t be right too.
So, if you derived the claim …
… from the statement I quoted above, you have misrepresented it*.
This is also true for
Again, BrainGlutton doesn’t exclude the statement that all scientists might be wrong; he does not claim that all scientists but one are necessarily wrong.
Aside: I think some statements that were made here, fail to differentiate clearly whether they refer to meta language or object language, especially when dealing with right or wrong or the differences between abstract concepts and observable facts.
- Of course, you might have had a different statement in mind, so my premise could be faulty.
I’d like to see a cite that they have ‘changed so much’ (a very arbitrary statement) considering the bible has pretty much stayed the same. And if you could include that it was change they wanted rather than adapting to external forces that would be good, too.
Yep
They got some of it from the Bible as direct plagiarism. Big sections of Isaiah if I recall. Other parts were not. I’m remembering some doctrinal stuff about the fall of Adam and judgment that seemed unique to me at the time. Either they created it themselves or they simply borrowed some ideas form some other little known writing of their day as they did the whole hidden golden plates thing.
Could someone call me when the hijack is over. I’d like to see how the thread turns out.
my 2 cents. Not all religion believes their doctrine is absolute.
Does fraud require intent? Is just being incorrect about some things being a fraud? If so we’re all frauds. That’s too broad a use IMO.
However, IMHO, those who claim to value truth and then close their minds to pretty clear evidence and make little effort to actively investigate the evidence available might be frauds in that aspect.
At it’s worst - yes, religion is fradulent. There are plenty of examples of ministers exploiting their religion for personal gain, and of institutionalised corruption. Faith healing and selling of indulgences spring to mind. However, I tend to believe the frauds are outnumbered by those who are sincere in their beliefs, regardless of however misguided or irrational I personally find them to be.
It’s simplistic and misleading to label all religion as fradulent. Atheists and theists should be able to acknowledge both the positive and negative aspects of religion.
I grew up going to the Methodist church. While I no longer believe that clap-trap it wasn’t a bad experience. I met a lot of nice people and had some good times. If the religion was taken out and it was described as a social club then I would probably still be a member in good standing, maybe even a church leader, and if that was all they were selling then I wouldn’t feel like I had been defrauded. Actually, I don’t really feel defrauded, more like disappointed when I realize that I’ve bought vaper-ware.
But I heard the story too many times about the poor women who gave her last two cents to Jesus and how she was going to get a greater reward than the rich man who only gave part of his money. If I am to believe that story, how is it not fraud if I don’t get that reward? And the worst kind of fraud, designed to take from the poor.