One of the funnier parts of his own contradictions (which he flames “religion” for) is that at the same time, he points out that religion is wrong for assuming that we are important, but also that god must not exist because he doesn’t come when we snap our fingers.
Wrap the logic around that one, if you will. I’ll just take it to mean that Birdman doesn’t exist, and go on with my merry life.
And your faith in your friends is yours!
[sub]Sorry.[/sub]
This doesn’t sound like a particularly good idea to me, but in any case, I think you’re just being too charitable and that a lot of what you consider to be good arguments are simply logical fallacies with which you aren’t familiar.
But maybe I’m wrong - perhaps you’d like to pick out just one or two specific examples for discussion?
John Bryant claims how if religion is absolute, why are religious claims always being shown to be wrong, in the scientific sense, to the point to where Christians themselves admit that God was wrong.
I suppose that’s not an entirely unreasonable argument, although somewhat tautological (if an absolute claim is proven wrong, the claim was a false one), but this is hardly earth-shattering - is he claiming that this is an exclusive or universal property of religion?
It’s the fastest growing religion here, too.
It’s not “earth-shattering” but when used with all his other arguments, I believe is is “earth-shattering.”
I believe he is only targeting Christianity since he is an American and that is the main religion. But the main religions are the same: filled with irrationality. His arguments can be used to describe any religion, like Islam or Judaism.
Regards.
Virtually all immigration has been cut off from Islamic nations since the Sept. 11 attacks. And the fastest growing populations in America are Hispanics who are catholic, followed by Philipinos who are also Catholic. The largest immigration is from Mexico, followed by the Philippines. American Blacks though are growing faster than Whites but I believe most are Christian, while the minority are Muslim. One by one Bush is shutting down islamic organizations in America also. I think I can accurately say that islam is going nowhere in America.
Regards.
I’m curious as to where that admission is. I don’t remember making it myself.
I’m perfectly willing to admit that I am almost certainly wrong about a whole lot of things. That doesn’t make God wrong, only my ideas about Him.
People are just people, we’re not that bright, and we can’t see very far. And so it is completely natural and predictable that we would be wrong about 99% of the time about just about everything–our religious beliefs, our scientific beliefs, all of that. (This Bryant fellow, at least, proves that to be true.) A Christian will generally see in this the need for divine revelation about truth, which is where scripture, prophets, and of course Christ come in. Then, being human, we kind of get in there and mess a lot of it up and fight about it. That doesn’t make the truths wrong; it just obscures them.
So, to fix our wrong ideas about God, we have to find revelation–a source of truth. To fix our wrong ideas about how the natural world works, we have to make experiments and practice the discipline we call science, in order to discern truth. Either way you solve the problem by trying to get to the source. IMO of course.
I believe it isn’t; as has been pointed out (by atheists too, I think), most if not all of his other arguments are deeply flawed - adding this lame one to the pile doesn’t do much to validate them.
Perhaps you could pick another one of his arguments that is a bit more compelling - that can’t have been the best, can it?
I liked reason number 1:
“Reason 1: The nature of scientific vs religious belief: As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts (“the Law of Parsimony”). However, science is different from most religions in the way it makes ‘converts’, and, more generally, in how it gets people to believe in its assertions. In particular, people become converts to science because they see that it works: Science builds buildings and bombs and sends rockets to the moon – something no religion seriously pretends to do. On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); (b) they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn’t understand; or (c) they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat (“There are no atheists in foxholes”) or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.”
I liked his philosophical view of how science is also a religion but one that actually works: it sends rockets to the moon, planes to the sky, bullets through a gun. Other religions don’t produce any results.
Science can’t even prove that it exists.
There is a viciously circular argument in there.
What is the difference between “they see that it works” and “they think they see that it works”? Is it that one actually works and one doesn’t?
The argument is:
“Science works. People see science work. People believe science because they see it work. Therefore, science works.”
“Religion does not work. Since religion doesn’t work, people only think they see it work. People believe religion because they think they see it work. Therefore, religion does not work.”
Of course, that superficial fallacy only conceals the deeper one: the reason why people believe religion is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of religion. And likewise for science, of course.
Finally, his reasoning cannot explain reasonable adults who come to religion of their own accord, without having either a “psychic-like” or traumatic experience.
As Magickly Delicious points out, even the slow-to-change Catholic church believes in the necessity of change. Again, from the Catechism, paragraph 769:
“The Church . . . will receive its perfection only in the glory of heaven,” at the time of Christ’s glorious return. Until that day, “the Church progresses on her pilgrimage amidst this world’s persecutions and God’s consolations.” Here below she knows that she is in exile far from the Lord, and longs for the full coming of the Kingdom, when she will “be united in glory with her king.” The Church, and through her the world, will not be perfected in glory without great trials. Only then will “all the just from the time of Adam, ‘from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect,’ . . . be gathered together in the universal Church in the Father’s presence.”
But, does it really matter what religion claims to be? To determine the truth or falsity of religion, we should consider what it is, not what it claims to be. Even a cursory study of the history of the idea of God and religion leads to the inevetible conclusion: religion is not absolute.
Let me restate: my brain perceives science to produce results which I find useful and desirable, while my brain has not as yet perceived any useful and desirable results from religion, thus I see no value in religion for me. Of course, I say we can never decide what is real and what isn’t, but simply what our brains perceive as “real” though the perceptions may just be manifestations in the brain but not real in the “real” sense? Confusing. Watch “The Thirteenth Floor” in which a society was simply a computer simulation and they did not know it. It was created by another advanced society, who was not real either but also a computer simulation in a higher level computer, and so on. What is real? I believe we can never know. We simply have to use what our brains percieve as producing desired results and then go with it. For me, that is science. Also see http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Regards.
Then why are you arguing about the reality of religion?
You started by arguing the indisputable falsity of religion.
What bearing does your brain have on the truth or falsity of religion?
I would take it as axiomatic that the brains of the religious perceive religion as useful and desirable. So is it true?
And obviously, it’s a false dichotomy, since many quite reasonable people find nothing inconsistent between science and their religious beliefs. So, the truth or falsity of science is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of religion (which I presume, is still the question?).
What is truth to begin with?
Regards.
Eugenics?
No, wait… I know this… just gimme a minute!
Are you conceding the argument that religion is indisputably false; because you are unable to discern, even define, truth?