on 3/7/02 11:25 pm, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, William T Goodall wrote:
>>
>> Someone who believes the pernicious nonsense of
>> religion is capable of *any*
>> evil act.
>>
>> This follows from basic logic. If you insert a false
>> axiom into a system
>> ("There is a God" for example) you can then prove
>> *anything at all* to be
>> true, and thereby justify any act.
>>
>> --
> To call all religion "pernicious nonsense" is
> unjustifiable overkill; there is without question a
> great deal of foolishness and outright absurdity in
> any religion,
I think one of the pillars of evil is dishonesty - lying to others or to
oneself. Whatever good might be mixed in with religion is outweighed by the
untruthfulness.
> but what nonsense is it to ask that 'one
> love one's neighbor as oneself?' Or to have compassion
> for the weak, sick or poor, and to respond to the
> needs of those less fortunate than oneself? Most of
> the major religions teach this - although admittedly
> far too few 'adherents' actually follow those
> precepts.
These are fine ideas, but are not logically connected to religion. Religion
adopts them as the sugar coating on the poison pill. Who would adopt a
belief in a religion of it consisted of pure nonsense without some
attractive and reasonable ideas?
>
> Because of the excesses of the past (particularly in
> Christianity, since I grew up in that faith) -
> pogroms, the Inquisition, witch hunts, (etc.)Nth - I
> call myself 'spiritual' rather than 'religious,' but
> there are many good people, who have worked to combat
> poverty, educate the ignorant and heal the ill (just
> to name a few), who _do_ identify themselves as
> 'religious.' It doesn't mean that they've turned off
> their brains or slavishly follow all the dictates of
> their church or are "capable of *any* evil act." And
> yes _of course_ there are too many who have, and
> do...but one only has to look to the former USSR's
> history to know that atrocity is _not_ limited to
> people who believe in a deity for justification of
> their actions.
>
> As for "justifying any act," why then would there be
> laws/commandments supposedly sent by a god and whose
> breaking would lead to severe punishment ('hell' or
> 'Gehenna' or reincarnation as a cockroach)?
> Fundamentalists of all ilk certainly try to justify
> their hate-mongering by proclaiming it to be the "will
> of God," but they have to ignore (at least part of)
> their messiah's message. {For the record, I would
> _not_ claim that executing child molesters was God's
> will -- but it damn well would be MINE.}
Actually I was making a (possibly abstruse) point about the nature of
rational argument. Logical arguments, whether one is using Boolean algebra
or predicate calculus or whatever are only *truth preserving*. Garbage in,
garbage out. If you adopt a falsehood as a premise you can get anything to
come out. Constructing a particular plausible-looking argument for
something obnoxious is an exercise for the reader...
>
> And (now I'm nit-picking) how can you _disprove_ an
> unprovable premise eg "There is a God?" (All those
> catechism lessons, and I only remember that Martin
> Luther said, "Faith alone!" - OK, and nailed the 95
> Theses to the door at the Diet of Worms (Wurms?) and
> started the Reformation...or something like that
> <sheepish grin>.)
Of course, and evolution is just a theory, right? This is just playing with
different meanings of 'proof'. I can't prove that the world wasn't created
yesterday at 11.35 am complete with fake geological record and fake memories
for everyone. Not in the way I can prove a mathematical theorem.
But I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, as in a court of law. And in
scientific terms the 'yesterday at 11.35am' hypothesis raises more questions
and provides fewer answers than the standard view of reality.
I think it is also beyond reasonable doubt that God/gods/ghosts/supernatural
stuff doesn't exist. I can't see any way rational way of disagreeing with
that, and irrational ways don't interest me.
It is also clear that we don't get a better understanding of how anything in
the world works by supposing an extra supernatural element. It just isn't
necessary. [And if it could be included it wouldn't be supernatural anymore
anyway]
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
