The Fallacy of Equivocation.
Utterly brilliant and simplistic. But the people that often commit equivocation will likely not get it.
I disagree with this statement.
Truly believing in one’s religion means trying to understand and gain a knowledge of everything around you, and then being able to justify your belief.
One of the ideas that John Stuart Mill presents in his work On Liberty is that freedom of freedom of thought/speech is necessary in order to keep truth alive. If one cannot disprove false opinions and justify one’s own, that opinion becomes empty, and we forget why we ever even had that opinion in the first place.
A lack of understanding leads to dead truths.
Excellently made points.
My issue lies not with the exception of mindful theists, but with the norm of dogmatic ones; in the idea that faith is an acceptable stand-in for knowledge and understanding; that there exist “truths” which one should blindly accept, rather than question and investigate with scientific rigor.
If an intelligent, mindful individual can hold a theistic system of belief which is logically justifiable in this manner—if they do not accept dogma above individual thought and observation—then they have my respect.
“How can heaven and hell coexist? How can any sane and loving human be happy in heaven knowing that millions of people, innocent or not, are being tortured for eternity? This heaven is a place void of empathy, an asylum for psychopaths. How is this heaven good?”
—Youtube commenter ‘mamba109’, via reddit.
An Oxford University dialogue on the subject of human origin, featuring prominent agnostic Richard Dawkins and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
This is really good. It’s an hour and a half long, but it’s really, really good.
Also, I would like to say as a firm agnostic that Rowan Williams is by far the most profound and intelligent theist I have ever heard speak. Also he happens to have an incredibly sexy voice, not unlike that of Stephen Fry.