Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <4753d58b@news.povray.org>, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at 
> vtSPAM.edu"> says...
>> Atheists can fall into the same trap, the difference being that the
>> perceived sin is a lack of scientific reasoning. I forget if it was
>> Dawkins or someone else who made a statement that amounted to religion
>> being a genetic hold over or even a mental illness.
>>
> 
> Just for the sake of argument, show me any case where blind faith that 
> something is true has every turned out to be right,

That I like pizza and* sushi, but not both at the same time. I've never
actually tried both at once, but I'm pretty willing to bet that I would
not enjoy it.

*technically, xor. But this is the English language.

> save by pure 
> accident, and more to the point, how any other case has *not* been based 
> on seeing evidence, forming a theory based on that evidence, and then 
> testing, in some fashion, if that conclusion was *actually* correct, or 
> needed modification... We start out with science, experimenting with our 
> world and figuring out what works and doesn't work, and forming 
> **justified** opinions about why and how. Then, about the point where we 
> start talking people start telling us that some things are better 
> explained by the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Jesus. I can't imagine 
> *why* atheists would think scientific thinking was the corner stone of 
> rational thought... Snort!
> 

I was not suggesting that scientific reasoning was bad. The connection I
was making was that both the very religious and the ardent atheists make
the same judgment about the other group: They are wrong and worthy of
scorn. What does that judgment actually gain either group, though? It
doesn't convince anyone else, it doesn't invite discussion. It just
alienates anyone who might have a question.

Post a reply to this message