Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
In that quote of Russel, one may find the following sentence:
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the
part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
I agree that it is not "an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it" but this only goes against intolerant bigotry and I disagree with that wiki's contention that the argument refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. (Is there a verbatim quote according to which Russel himself draws this conclusion?). All the sceptic can say is that faith is not part of scientific method.The sceptic is free to disbelive; the faithful is free to believe. Live and let live, isn't that what we mean by tolerance?
|
|
The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Russell
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather
than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars
there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit[...]
|
Russell's paper "Is There A God?" is a fun and short paper to read, I reccommend it if you have not already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
You are deep into issues of semantics and opinion here.  |
I don't respect the claims made by holocaust denialists, and I don't think I am rightfully under any burden to unless they have the appropriate evidence. What I'm saying is I do not think there should be a double standard for religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
Here in Hypography Science Forums we do not like intolerant bigotry any more than intolerant atheism.
|
When reading the actual definition of
Conversational Intolerance I find little that I or the actions of most admins/mods here would disagree with. I only wish that this view would be taken more seriously in politics(
Muslims trying to silence free speech in the UN,
religious influence in our government's Bioethics,
Sharia in Britain).
I agree, that Intolerant Atheism, such as that of Stalin or any of the other failed states that attempted to force atheism on people is wrong. I think it is important to recognize the difference between this, and what we do to people who think Elvis is still alive. Countries like Denmark and Sweden have it right, America is wrong and religionist politicians like G W Bush and S Palin are an embarrassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
I do agree that religious teaching of children poses an ethical problem for a modern society but I also belive that children will grow up soon enough and only in extreme cases they will be unable to judge for themselves once they are adult; society should avoid such cases of subjection.
|
Big can of worms here. I think children have a right to information, including the information we have about world religions. I think educating children on religion objectively about the religious practices of the world is the right thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
Getting back to topic (Philosophy of Science rather than Sociology) I still think it's a simple matter of distinguishing between scientific method and other reasons of belief. If a person says "Deep in my heart, I believe X", this has nothing to do with science and nothing more than this can be said, except that it's their own personal matter. I do not agree with Sam Harris, I can only agree with countering intolerant bigotry.
|
But if X happens to be a proposition that entails strong claims about the natural universe, then this is starting to become an issue of science. For example, if someone says "I strongly believe Jesus was born of a virgin" , this is a claim about religion, but it is also a strong claim about biology, and a false one. They are free to believe it, but it isn't just a religious claim.
I also think we can ask interesting scientific questions about that persons belief. Why do people believe impossible things? How does this help to bind groups? What is the worst that could happen? Religion is a natural phenomenon, just like global warming. I think we should study it with the same attitude that we have toward global warming: it may destroy us if we are not careful, and there may be absolutely nothing we can do about it. Either way, it makes for interesting science.
