Posted: Feb 21, 2014 10:03 am
I don't understand the concept of a 'truth' being settled by a debate. I've heard of holocaust deniers winning debates FFS.
There's such a difference with reading science and religion. When you read a science book the author points out evidence. There's usually figures and pictures. They explain what they figures are, what they mean and what they point to. They explain what we know and how we know it, often with demonstration.
Now you read a religious book and they're telling you what they already believe and why it's true. They mention an "empty tomb" which they can't point to, and doesn't necessarily infer their belief. They say their hero must be a "lord, lunatic or liar" and argue the former, and totally ignore the elephant in the room, he is misquoted and distorted by word of mouth. They give philosophical justifications which fail at the first premise because they are making erroneous assumptions about beginnings in the real world.
In the world of ideas there should be no doubt about who is putting the work in, who is making the effort, discovering, examining, investigating, testing, inquiring and probing and who is sitting on their arse claiming to already know all the answers and using minimal effort to justify their position and abuse the hard work of those who have bothered.
It takes some effort on your own part to read up and discover and understand the wonders people of science have uncovered for you. It takes a random conversation on the back of a bus with a charismatic stranger to discover all the 'truths' religion has to offer and be filled with conviction. It's no wonder the latter is so appealing to many, and less of a wonder why they are so big-headed about it.
There's such a difference with reading science and religion. When you read a science book the author points out evidence. There's usually figures and pictures. They explain what they figures are, what they mean and what they point to. They explain what we know and how we know it, often with demonstration.
Now you read a religious book and they're telling you what they already believe and why it's true. They mention an "empty tomb" which they can't point to, and doesn't necessarily infer their belief. They say their hero must be a "lord, lunatic or liar" and argue the former, and totally ignore the elephant in the room, he is misquoted and distorted by word of mouth. They give philosophical justifications which fail at the first premise because they are making erroneous assumptions about beginnings in the real world.
In the world of ideas there should be no doubt about who is putting the work in, who is making the effort, discovering, examining, investigating, testing, inquiring and probing and who is sitting on their arse claiming to already know all the answers and using minimal effort to justify their position and abuse the hard work of those who have bothered.
It takes some effort on your own part to read up and discover and understand the wonders people of science have uncovered for you. It takes a random conversation on the back of a bus with a charismatic stranger to discover all the 'truths' religion has to offer and be filled with conviction. It's no wonder the latter is so appealing to many, and less of a wonder why they are so big-headed about it.