Ideologies, philosophies and beliefs that are deemed to be above critique ?

achtungbarry

Should ideologies, philosophies or beliefs that see them selves as above criticism be subject to the strongest analysis of all ?

I have noticed that there are many that feel that their chosen religion is above critique. It seems that we have a right to analyze and critisize anything but religion whether it be Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Many feel that religion is "off limits".

Do you think that this should be the case ?

Should religion be treated with kid gloves ?

Personally I believe that history has shown us that any ideology, philosophy or belief that sees itself as above criticism has been quite dangerous.

Btw, this is the first thread I have stated on boards. I look forward to chatting and debating with all of you.

No,
no and
no.

You shouldn't pick on people just cos they are diferent.
People can believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect me.
No - if someone brings a particular subject up it is fair game.

condra

Wafa Sultan said:
"You can believe in a stone if you want, as long as you dont throw it at me."

I'd subscribe to that.

When other peoples religion interferes with my life, and the democracy of my country, that's when it stops being none of my business.

I think there is a growing trend towards secular people not "pussy footing" around religion anymore. This is partly fuelled of course by people like Dawkins and Hitchens.

achtungbarry

womoma wrote: »

Wafa Sultan said:
"You can believe in a stone if you want, as long as you dont throw it at me."

I'd subscribe to that.

When other peoples religion interferes with my life, and the democracy of my country, that's when it stops being none of my business.

I think there is a growing trend towards secular people not "pussy footing" around religion anymore. This is partly fuelled of course by people like Dawkins and Hitchens.

I agree with you that we should not go out of our way to criticise a particular belief but when there is cause to analyze and criticise a certain belief, it should be done despite the unwritten "religion is off limits" rule that seems to exist in society. Btw I also believe that atheism should be subject to as much analysis and criticism as religion.

PDN

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

Dades

womoma wrote: »

Wafa Sultan said:
"You can believe in a stone if you want, as long as you dont throw it at me."

I like that!

brianthebard

Its not just religions that try and put themselves above critique. In fact most if not all world views and ideologies do it. Semanalysis offers a continual cycle of self critique that is radically different to any other philosophy or system out there, but it is not something widely accepted outside of post-structuralism.

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

Agreed. I would however add modern versions of religion too. I don't the negative effects of certain aspects of religion ended in the middle ages.

The question of atheism in the Soviet Union is an interesting one. I would however assert that evil carried out by the Soviet leadership was not done in the name of atheism rather in the name of communism ( a prime example of an ideology that was deemed to be above criticism and was highly dangerous as a consequence ).

The evil acts perpetrated in Saudi Arabia/Iran/Nigeria (stonings and the like) are however done specifically in the name of religion.

The horrors of the Christian crusades and the Inquisition as well as the modern examples of Christianity distorting and supressing science in the USA are more examples.

It would be unfair of me to let atheism off the hook and I think one example where evil acts were committed in the name of atheism was in Albania under Enver Hoxha or the religious persecutions that followed the French revolution. These examples should be scrutinised every bit as much as the evil commited in the name of religion which I believe far outweighs the evil committed in the name of atheism.

ChocolateSauce

I believe that nothing should be above criticism (including the belief that nothing should be above criticism). I also believe strongly that the causing of offense is no reason to remain silent.

One thing that really gets under my skin is when people argue that freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to offend people, when that is exactly what it means.

When it comes to people's religion, I can only say it depends on the circumstances. In day to day life, while one should never capitulate their position to protect the feelings of someone, I don't think they should pursue an aggressive line of questioning.

The time to be merciless is in a structured debate, in a book about the subject, or on a television show. In these situations, which the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens are often part of, I believe no stone should be left unturned and no argument or statement shied away from.

Húrin

I agree, nothing should be above criticism. Most people would agree to this but, if you question some of our current taboos, such as saying that economic growth should stop, or that violent criminals should be forgiven, the reaction is typically vitriolic.

However, a lot of people seem to be completely tactless, impolite and downright uncivil in their efforts to "question and criticise".

achtungbarry wrote: »

The question of atheism in the Soviet Union is an interesting one. I would however assert that evil carried out by the Soviet leadership was not done in the name of atheism rather in the name of communism ( a prime example of an ideology that was deemed to be above criticism and was highly dangerous as a consequence ).

The evil acts perpetrated in Saudi Arabia/Iran/Nigeria (stonings and the like) are however done specifically in the name of religion.

It is impossible to commit an atrocity in the name of atheism because it is a negative position. You have to add on another ideology. In the USSR case it was communism, and I would say that atheism was an important pillar of their version of it.

Of course, most atheists today would not think in the same way as Stalin and Co, but the effort to make atheism's history look clean, and contrast it to that of religion is something I consider dishonest.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

Of course, most atheists today would not think in the same way as Stalin and Co, but the effort to make atheism's history look clean, and contrast it to that of religion is something I consider dishonest.

I think it is simply inaccurate to correlate atheism with Stalin and co. as their motive. This is why I dispute the idea atheism and evil have anything to do with each other, not because I want it to appear to be clean.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

Everything, without exception, must be open to questioning. As long as we're actually going to listen to the answers, of course. I'm reminded of one of the scraps of Nietzsche I actually know.

Nietzsche wrote:

Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think it is simply inaccurate to correlate atheism with Stalin and co. as their motive. This is why I dispute the idea atheism and evil have anything to do with each other, not because I want it to appear to be clean.

And I wasn't aware that anyone had asserted that atheism was their motive. However, this appears to be the standard Pavlovian response everytime someone mentions the elephant in the atheist room.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

However, this appears to be the standard Pavlovian response everytime someone mentions the elephant in the atheist room.

I guess that elephant only appear to non-atheists as I've never noticed it myself. Are you sure it's not just Ganesha in the corner by the piano?

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

And I wasn't aware that anyone had asserted that atheism was their motive. However, this appears to be the standard Pavlovian response everytime someone mentions the elephant in the atheist room.

People hostile to the atheistic and humanistic position(s) regularly assert that atheism and evil go hand in hand, and specifically use Stalin and co. as examples.

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

People hostile to the atheistic and humanistic position(s) regularly assert that atheism and evil go hand in hand, and specifically use Stalin and co. as examples.

I wasn't aware anyone had made that 'regular' assertion in this thread. Maybe it's just in your head.

So are you saying that evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin?

So which is it? He wasn't really an atheist? Or he was really quite a nice chap?

sink

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't aware anyone had made that 'regular' assertion in this thread. Maybe it's just in your head.

So are you saying that evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin?

So which is it? He wasn't really an atheist? Or he was really quite a nice chap?

He also had a moustache. For all the evidence we have it's just as likely to be as related to his evil deeds as his atheism.

asdasd

For all the evidence we have it's just as likely to be as related to his evil deeds as his atheism.

would you say that about Torquemada and his beard?

PDN

sink wrote: »

He also had a moustache. For all the evidence we have it's just as likely to be as related to his evil deeds as his atheism.

I believe you were allowed to shave off your mustache in Stalin's Russia.

However, you guys seem obsessed with arguing against a position that no-one here has advanced.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

However, you guys seem obsessed with arguing against a position that no-one here has advanced.

PDN you have moderated threads where people have made these assertions, and while I fully recognise you yourself disagree with them, it seems bizarre to claim you have never experienced them

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

PDN you have moderated threads where people have made these assertions, and while I fully recognise you yourself disagree with them, it seems bizarre to claim you have never experienced them

I've certainly not seen them in this thread. I made a reference to Stalin (counterbalanced by two religious examples) and it appears to have triggered some touchiness.

aidan24326

achtungbarry wrote: »

I have noticed that there are many that feel that their chosen religion is above critique. It seems that we have a right to analyze and critisize anything but religion whether it be Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Many feel that religion is "off limits".

Do you think that this should be the case ?

Should religion be treated with kid gloves ?

No it shouldn't. Religious belief should be open to debate and scrutiny like everything else, and as much as Dawkins gets bashed (often by atheists too it must be said) the fact that people like him and Sam Harris are opening up this debate to a wider audience can only be a good thing. And I agree with them 100% that the major religions like Christianity and Islam cannot be allowed to hide behind a veil of untouchability so long as they wield the influence that they do.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The time to be merciless is in a structured debate, in a book about the subject, or on a television show. In these situations, which the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens are often part of, I believe no stone should be left unturned and no argument or statement shied away from.

Why just in a book or tv show? Someone spouting nonsense deserves to be told so. The priest chanting gibberish from his altar deserves to be told he's a faker, and it's a pity (imo) that religion has this cloak of all-importance whereby people feel the need to pussyfoot around it.

The one time I would hold back is where a person is dying and is taking comfort from the knowledge (in their mind) that they will go to heaven and meet loved ones again. I wouldn't have the heart to say anything in that situation.

PDN wrote: »

I've certainly not seen them in this thread. I made a reference to Stalin (counterbalanced by two religious examples) and it appears to have triggered some touchiness.

The link between Stalin being a)an atheist and b)a murderous monster is very tenuous to say the least and is merely a ham-fisted attempt by theists to counteract the claim (which I'll admit is overplayed) by atheists that religion fuels war and evil. In any case whether religion does or does not fuel evildoing that is not my primary reason for rejecting it and I believe most atheist posters here would say the same.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I've certainly not seen them in this thread.

I actually surprised you'd stoop to playing that card.

We're all aware of the 'Godwin's Law' nature of Stalin arguments when it comes to atheism. Just because that old nut isn't specifically spelt out in this thread doesn't mean we're all not aware of the implied ideas behind it. After all it's not as if we don't know every regular user's (including your own) views on it having been around that particular block many times before.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I made a reference to Stalin ... and it appears to have triggered some touchiness.

Well no actually you didn't. You made a reference to atheism as a philosophy in the Soviet Union. Someone else mentioned "Stalin and co." and then you asked (apparently straight faced) who mentioned atheism?

Er, you did. Here

Your rush to proclaim, with faux surprise, that this subject is "touchie" would suggest that you are simply trying to wind people up.

oeb

Communism (Such as that that was present in the Soviet Union, or that is currently in existance in North Korea) is based on a personality cult. This has more in common with religion than atheism.

The 'icons' scattered everywhere should have given that away.

knoxor

oeb wrote: »

Communism (Such as that that was present in the Soviet Union, or that is currently in existance in North Korea) is based on a personality cult. This has more in common with religion than atheism.

The 'icons' scattered everywhere should have given that away.

Thats a good point. Take Mao as well, I think atheism could have been the vehicle they used to get rid of religion and its icons and replace them with Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong-Il imagery.

I've not seen anyone discuss this as a possibility before.

asdasd

oeb wrote: »

Communism (Such as that that was present in the Soviet Union, or that is currently in existance in North Korea) is based on a personality cult. This has more in common with religion than atheism.

The 'icons' scattered everywhere should have given that away.

The fact that it replaced religion with "religious" type imagery does not make it religious, only belief in a God would do that.

You are basically criticising the human condition. I dislike any new ideology which blames the old ideology rather than humanity itself for our excesses. If by religion atheists mean not just monotheism, but paganism ( which was a form of religion) for wars, killings, genocides, empires; then in effect you are blaming all of humanity, and all forms of human governance, for thousands of years for humanity's malfeasance.

Even if atheism had not been tried this would be a spurious argument, the fact that it has, and that it produced "religious like" iconography and ancestor worship ( lenin the embalmed saint) tells us something about the human condition, the need for living heroes and dead saints, the desire for a perfect society, the worship of imperfect men as perfect, the ultimate failure of planned perfection on an imperfect species.

The fault is not in the stars, or the Gods, but in ourselves.

oeb

knoxor wrote: »

Thats a good point. Take Mao as well, I think atheism could have been the vehicle they used to get rid of religion and its icons and replace them with Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong-Il imagery.

I've not seen anyone discuss this as a possibility before.

If I remember correctly there is a fair bit about it in either 'The God Delusion' or 'God is not Great'. The point that was made is they just took the god out of religion and slotted themselves in there instead.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually you didn't. You made a reference to atheism as a philosophy in the Soviet Union. Someone else mentioned "Stalin and co." and then you asked (apparently straight faced) who mentioned atheism?

Try reading the thread again. :rolleyes:

I mentioned atheism in the Soviet Union (along with medieval Catholicism and Islam in Iran) as examples of how setting a philosophy or ideology as being unquestionable is a sign of weakness. I think I was more than even-handed in that I cited 2 religious examples along with the 1 atheist example. So only a paranoid buffoon could interpret my reference as a bash against atheists.

and then you asked (apparently straight faced) who mentioned atheism?

No, I asked who had even suggested that atheism was the cause or motive of Stalin's crimes. And the answer, of course, was that nobody had.

I actually surprised you'd stoop to playing that card. We're all aware of the 'Godwin's Law' nature of Stalin arguments when it comes to atheism. Just because that old nut isn't specifically spelt out in this thread doesn't mean we're all not aware of the implied ideas behind it. After all it's not as if we don't know every regular user's (including your own) views on it having been around that particular block many times before.

Ah, and here we have the elephant in the room, don't we?

The merest mention of the Soviet Union sends certain posters into a defensive tailspin because, over the last 100 years, the vast majority of atheists in the world have been so, not by choice, but because it was forced upon them by repressive regimes.

Now, you know my views well enough by now. I do not think that historical fact infers anything about the morality or otherwise of modern day atheists in Western Europe. I am honest enough as a Christian to freely talk about the atrocities committed by religious people in the past - and I have a low tolerance level for Chrisian posters who talk as if the Crusades, Inquisition etc. never happened. However, I also have a low tolerance level for those atheists who want to point to the evils committed by religion but talk as if the history of atheism over the last 100 years is an unblemished record of enlightened altruism.

However, since it's Christmas, I will try to ignore the pachyderm and instead I will state my agreement with the OP and say "No ideology or philosophy should be treated as above criticism. Islamic fundamentalism, medieval Catholicism, and all other forms of dictatorship simply accentuate their weakness when they stifle dissent."

Is that better?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The merest mention of the Soviet Union sends certain posters into a defensive tailspin because, over the last 100 years, the vast majority of atheists in the world have been so, not by choice, but because it was forced upon them by repressive regimes.

The merest mention of the Soviet Union sends certain posters into a tailspin because they know someone is about to suggest that the Gulags were full because of Stalin's 'atheistic ideology'. And we all know there will be no agreement there.

Insofar as an elephant in the room represents and uncomfortable but obvious truth, that would suggest this particular character is more then likely just a drunken guest with a big nose.

PDN

Don't mention the war!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

The problem though is that some groups will only accept criticism that they can deal with. For example, many Christians are not interested in evolution because it might challenge their comfort zone too much.

This just begs the question when is a group accepting rational criticism and when is it avoiding criticism that isn't fair or relevant. It's a difficult question to answer.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The problem though is that some groups will only accept criticism that they can deal with. For example, many Christians are not interested in evolution because it might challenge their comfort zone too much.

This just begs the question when is a group accepting rational criticism and when is it avoiding criticism that isn't fair or relevant. It's a difficult question to answer.

I must say I've never actually met a Christian who wasn't interested in evolution because it would challenge their comfort zone.

I know Christians (a minority) who feel challenged by evolution and therefore they discuss it all the time.

I know other Christians who happily accept evolution, don't see it as any challenge to their comfort zone, and probably discuss it about as often as does the general population.

Then there are others, like myself, who don't see evolution as being particularly important compared to other issues, so we rarely discuss it except when responding to people like yourself who seem rather obsessed with the subject. If evolution is true then that doesn't challenge my comfort zone in the slightest. If it were to be somehow proved false then that wouldn't disturb me either. Indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject.

"indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject" - that's just rhetoric.

Indifference to a subject may be because there is an inability to deal with the subject or because there is no inability but for another reason.

So which is it?

Based on the initial reactions to Darwin, the reaction of many other Christians to evolution to this very day, I can't help but feel this is because you (and all of them) are afraid of it.

Sorry.

Darwin changed how intelligent / educated people look at the Universe and life. This was irrespective of people keeping their faith or loosing it.

ChocolateSauce

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't aware anyone had made that 'regular' assertion in this thread. Maybe it's just in your head.

So are you saying that evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin?

So which is it? He wasn't really an atheist? Or he was really quite a nice chap?

Who said anything about assertions being reserved to this thread? I just said regular assertions.

I am saying evil and atheism didn't go hand in hand with Stalin, yes. There is no reason to believe he did what he did because he was an atheist, nor is there any reason to think someone who was a theist (of any denomination) was incapable of doing like things.

I'm also saying that it is an example used time and time again, easily refuted, and that card was played when Stalin was mentioned.

The mention of the Soviet Union by anti-atheists in a debate on the subject is touchy because it (the idea that atheism is at fault for Stalin) is an offensive and ignorant argument that is used far too often for the intellectual good of humanity.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Indifference to a subject may be because there is an inability to deal with the subject or because there is no inability but for another reason.

I would suggest in most cases indifference to a subject. Not everyone has been, or wants to be educated to an 'internet forum-level' of knowledge of evolutionary biology.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

"indifference to a subject does not equate to an inability to deal with that subject" - that's just rhetoric.

No, it's a clear distinction between two very different concepts which you appear to be conflating. Nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric.

I am totally indifferent as to who will be the Christmas #1. That is not because I cannot deal with the subject but because I don't think it is important.

Tim, you may disagree with points I make. If you can state your disagreement in a coherent way then wwe might be able to have a decent discussion. But just using waving the term 'rhetoric' every time you disagree with something is absurd.

Indifference to a subject may be because there is an inability to deal with the subject or because there is no inability but for another reason.

So which is it?

The other reason is that I don't see the importance of the subject.

It makes no difference to my faith whether God created mankind through a process of evolution or by some other means.

If other people get excited over this issue then I'm very happy for them. However, I think your obsession with getting me interested in the subject is bordering on stalking.

Based on the initial reactions to Darwin, the reaction of many other Christians to evolution to this very day, I can't help but feel this is because you (and all of them) are afraid of it.

Sorry

I'm not quite sure how you want me to respond to your admission that you can't help jumping to unwarranted assumptions.

Initial reactions to Darwin were many and varied. BB Warfield, a prominent evangelical and author of the classic text on biblical inerrancy, hailed Darwin as one of the noblest souls that ever lived. Maybe you should stop judging everyone according to your rather narrow stereotypes? That would be more productive than apologising yet continuing to post nonsense.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No, it's a clear distinction between two very different concepts which you appear to be conflating. Nothing whatsoever to do with rhetoric.

I am not conflating. I even clarified the two possibilities whereas you insinuated there may only be one.

Tim, you may disagree with points I make. If you can state your disagreement in a coherent way then wwe might be able to have a decent discussion. But just using waving the term 'rhetoric' every time you disagree with something is absurd.

More rhetoric. Where have I not been coherent?

The other reason is that I don't see the importance of the subject.

Well would you accept that for a lot of people:
1. They loose their faith when they understand fully understand evolution.
2. Fully understanding evolution makes them reflect about their faith, even if they don't loose it.

It makes no difference to my faith whether God created mankind through a process of evolution or by some other means.

The way you say things like that, it comes across as that you still do't realise that in scientific terms evolution is sound. You talk as if it's all up for grabs a la Mick Huckabee.

If other people get excited over this issue then I'm very happy for them. However, I think your obsession with getting me interested in the subject is bordering on stalking.

I made no reference to you when I brought this point into the debate. You brough a reference to yourself in at 13:05.

I'm not quite sure how you want me to respond to your admission that you can't help jumping to unwarranted assumptions.

Unwarranted?

Initial reactions to Darwin were many and varied. BB Warfield, a prominent evangelical and author of the classic text on biblical inerrancy, hailed Darwin as one of the noblest souls that ever lived. Maybe you should stop judging everyone according to your rather narrow stereotypes? That would be more productive than apologising yet continuing to post nonsense.

'Stereotypes', 'Nonsense' more rhetoric...

Darwin himself was terrified of what he found out. The reactions from the prominent Christian leaders was well documentated. Some of these reactions persist to this very day.

This is because that once we have replicating DNA, we categorically don't need a creator. We have explanations for every single species on our planet.
We have conclusive evidence for this.

Before Darwin, practically every European intellectual believed the Bible literally. This all changed, so much so that most intellectuals either don't believe it at all or just believe parts of it as allegories.

You can always find exceptions and anecdotes. Well done. But that doesn't change the fact that Darwin changed intellectually thought on how we view life, radically.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Based on the initial reactions to Darwin, the reaction of many other Christians to evolution to this very day, I can't help but feel this is because you (and all of them) are afraid of it.

Irrespective of the religious beliefs someone holds, you simply have to take peoples word for it when they tell you that their lack of interest in evolution stems from a lack of interest in evolution. It's that simple.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Before Darwin, practically every European intellectual believed the Bible literally.

Are you serious? Do you understand anything about the Enlightenment and the beliefs of major intellectual figures in the Eighteenth Century?

I'm at a loss to know how to proceed here. How do you discuss anything with someone who posts blanket statements which demonstrate they don't have an inkling of what they're talking about? Congratulations, Tim. You have rendered me speechless - and I assure you that is a very rare event indeed! :eek:

knoxor

this may be digressing... but I'd like to propose a different tact.

I put it to some of our believing friends. I'd like to know exactly why you believe there is a God.

Is this through your own experiences or simply because you default to this belief system as it was taught to you from a young age ?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you understand anything about the Enlightenment and the beliefs of major intellectual figures in the Eighteenth Century?

I'm at a loss to know how to proceed here. How do you discuss anything with someone who posts blanket statements which demonstrate they don't have an inkling of what they're talking about? Congratulations, Tim. You have rendered me speechless - and I assure you that is a very rare event indeed! :eek:

Ok, I accept they didn't believe the biblical literally and that was a bad choice of words, but far more of the Scientific community were believing Christians pre Darwin than post Darwin.

Do you agree with that or do we need to list them?

Dades

knoxor wrote: »

this may be digressing... but I'd like to propose a different tact.

Much as I'd love to read something in this thread other than TR trying to beat PDN to death with the Stick of Logic™, there's a whole other forum for that question.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok, I accept they didn't believe the biblical literally and that was a bad choice of words, but far more of the Scientific community were believing Christians pre Darwin than post Darwin.

Do you agree with that or do we need to list them?

I agreed that there has been a steady decline in the percentage of the Scientific community that were believing Christians over the last 500 years.

The reasons for this are varied - including the invention of the printing press, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the removal of the Church's monopoly on intellectual activity, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution etc. I don't think that Darwin's role in this secularising process is anything like as pivotal as you seem to think.

The fact is that a large number of intellectuals were deists long before Darwin.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I agreed that there has been a steady decline in the percentage of the Scientific community that were believing Christians over the last 500 years.

The reasons for this are varied - including the invention of the printing press, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the removal of the Church's monopoly on intellectual activity, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution etc. I don't think that Darwin's role in this secularising process is anything like as pivotal as you seem to think.

The fact is that a large number of intellectuals were deists long before Darwin.

Ok, perhaps we should start another thread w.r.t. Darwin's role in secularisation?
I would look forward to hearing your expanded opinions and others contributions.

The last thread I started was poorly worded so I need to make a better effort for this one.
That would require sometime which I don't have at this moment as I have to get some work done right now.

So I suggest, if you give me sometime I'll create a separate thread which I think would be interesting.

Kind Regards

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Any ideology, philosophy or belief should be subjected to examination and criticism. To try to prevent or stifle such examination and criticism is IMHO a glaring sign of weakness. This applies across the board - eg medieval Catholicism, Islam in present day Iran, or atheism in the former Soviet Union.

What about present day Christianity ?





.... wonders if the Soviet Union will be mentioned in the answer:D

asdasd

What about present day Christianity ?

Where is modern day Christianity prohibited from being questioned?

AtomicHorror

asdasd wrote: »

Where is modern day Christianity prohibited from being questioned?

The bible is considered infallible by many. Its authority over-rides reason for many.

Hence we end up with homosexuality condemned as immoral in the absence of the negative consequences normally required to label a thing as such and creationism presented as literal fact despite contradiction by simple observation of nature.

achtungbarry

asdasd wrote: »

Where is modern day Christianity prohibited from being questioned?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to name one example from the Catholic faith.

formerly known as

The Holy Office of the Inquisition.


The treatment of Islamic apostates to name another.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

What about present day Christianity ?





.... wonders if the Soviet Union will be mentioned in the answer:D

I can't think off hand of any versions of present day Christianity that are deemed to be exempt from criticism. I would certainly think that would be a sign of weakness.

AtomicHorror

achtungbarry wrote: »

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to name one example from the Catholic faith.

formerly known as

The Holy Office of the Inquisition.

Well now that was unexpected...