Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Northeast Stinger" data-source="post: 209815" data-attributes="member: 1640"><p>Religion and politics are two of the worst things I can think of to delve into on the internet. I always regret my part in these things.</p><p></p><p>I have no way out of this that will not devolve further. I may have to make one stab at explaining how I view these things and then call it good. I will say that I think there is a real dialectic when it comes to these things, that is, two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. Ridiculing someone just because of their religion is a bigoted thing to do. Holding a religious point of view out of ignorance and then using this to manipulate other people, especially in public policy, is reprehensible. Both things are true.</p><p></p><p>Let's use climate change arguments to illustrate how we might approach matters of faith. AE some times seems to assume that if someone does not have the working knowledge of a climate scientist on the subject and ends up with the "wrong position" it is because that person accepted on faith what 97% of scientists are saying on climate change. That strikes me as a false premise. One can study a topic as a lay person and take the arguments as far as you can given your limited math skills or understanding of physics and then draw a conclusion that seems most likely. That is not the same thing as acting in blind faith.</p><p></p><p>Likewise, when it comes to fundamentalism, whether in its Christian form, Jewish form or Muslim form, one can reject that position because one has at least made the effort to understand why a majority of scholars and religious teachers reject it. Religious fundamentalism in this country is supported by virtually no reputable bible scholars for a reason. Again, a half way intelligent lay person could read enough, without knowing Greek, Hebrew and all the nuances of historical theology to arrive at the same position as the majority of bible scholars. This too strikes me as not the same thing as acting on faith.</p><p></p><p>Acting on faith always involves a leap in understanding. This is true. But that is not always the same thing as saying I believe something because someone told me so and because they are an authority in my life I always believe what they tell me. In one sense I act on faith every day of my life, whether it involves getting on an airplane, driving my car or using my computer. But I do not have to be an expert in any of these areas to conclude that my faith in using these things is reasonable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Northeast Stinger, post: 209815, member: 1640"] Religion and politics are two of the worst things I can think of to delve into on the internet. I always regret my part in these things. I have no way out of this that will not devolve further. I may have to make one stab at explaining how I view these things and then call it good. I will say that I think there is a real dialectic when it comes to these things, that is, two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. Ridiculing someone just because of their religion is a bigoted thing to do. Holding a religious point of view out of ignorance and then using this to manipulate other people, especially in public policy, is reprehensible. Both things are true. Let's use climate change arguments to illustrate how we might approach matters of faith. AE some times seems to assume that if someone does not have the working knowledge of a climate scientist on the subject and ends up with the "wrong position" it is because that person accepted on faith what 97% of scientists are saying on climate change. That strikes me as a false premise. One can study a topic as a lay person and take the arguments as far as you can given your limited math skills or understanding of physics and then draw a conclusion that seems most likely. That is not the same thing as acting in blind faith. Likewise, when it comes to fundamentalism, whether in its Christian form, Jewish form or Muslim form, one can reject that position because one has at least made the effort to understand why a majority of scholars and religious teachers reject it. Religious fundamentalism in this country is supported by virtually no reputable bible scholars for a reason. Again, a half way intelligent lay person could read enough, without knowing Greek, Hebrew and all the nuances of historical theology to arrive at the same position as the majority of bible scholars. This too strikes me as not the same thing as acting on faith. Acting on faith always involves a leap in understanding. This is true. But that is not always the same thing as saying I believe something because someone told me so and because they are an authority in my life I always believe what they tell me. In one sense I act on faith every day of my life, whether it involves getting on an airplane, driving my car or using my computer. But I do not have to be an expert in any of these areas to conclude that my faith in using these things is reasonable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Just a reminder!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top