[ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook

[Lee Corbin]

Russell and Kevin stand up for aspects of religion:

Kevin says

> Very good points [Russell] ...All of them. One thing I would like to add is
> that most mainstream religions don't allow you to look at the boble as you have.
> You see the bible as I do - a great source of wisdom and examples... of human
> morality. But what we are up against is the Christian dogma that states that if
> you do not believe that noah fit 2 of every species into this "ark", or if you do
> not believe that Jesus literally walked on water as a miracle (not on rocks),
> you are damned to hell...

Now if one contemporary politician wrote a lot of "lies" about another, 
would you defend these if his *moral* point was well taken? Isn't
there a basic lack of respect for the truth itself in your analysis here?
It's *not* just that certain people want to damn others, it's that they
says lots and lots of things that you and I just know are not true.

> This is the battle that has to be won. Not necessarily the removal
> of the religion itself, but the changing of the dogma surrounding it.

But you focused on the dogmatic parts that featured intolerance.
Good untruths are okay? 

Russell had said


> On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote: 
> > Yes, and, as I say, most well spoken.  One good sign, however, is that the
> > post-modern crap is fading from view.  And even by 1980 I noticed that
> > the "truth is relative" crowd had seemed to retreat a little. 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not one of the "truth is relative" crowd, but I find myself in
> more sympathy with the liberal theologians than with the fundamentalists
> of either side.

Just out of curiosity, have you read Bartley's "The Retreat to Commitment?"

> First, it is not at all clear to me that there is a fact of the matter regarding
> the existence of God.

How about Santa Claus?  Do you really think that there is a fact of the
matter regarding an individual who lives at the north pole and arranges
for gifts to somewhat magically be delivered on Christmas day to 
deserving children around the world?

Do you think that there is a fact of the matter as to whether or not the
Angel Moroni delivered eight golden tablets for the inspection of Joseph
Smith?  Is there a fact of the matter whether water can be turned into
wine any time around the first century AD?

> If the facts are all we're interested in, shouldn't we throw out all our
> copies of Hamlet, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars? There aren't
> really any such things as ghosts or elves or the Force, after all, so
> why waste time on stories about them? 

It is perfectly clear, even to any child, that these are *stories* of
make-believe. Thus there is a huge difference between them and
religious doctrines that for no-foolin' make all sorts of preposterous
claims. Either we're going to stick together and denouce falsehoods
or we're not.

> Because those stories contain profound moral truths, wisdom
> about the human condition and how we should live; and this is
> a sort of knowledge that we cannot live without,

Oh, no argument there. No, the question is about whether you
want to denounce falsehood or not.

Lee