Until we stop allowing people to define “religion” as only those beliefs related to a god or gods, people are going to continue to fail to question the rationality of their beliefs. They will continue to fall for the semantic argument and false dichotomy that as long as some belief isn’t related to a god or gods then it isn’t “religious” and therefore must be “scientific” and rational.Unfortunately it seems that almost nobody is learning that they can have unscientific and irrational beliefs that are unrelated to gods or supernatural explanations.[1]
According to the un-religion, only in the lofty precincts of Georgetown society, the MSM, and academe do rationality, decency, fidelity to facts, compassion, and learning reign unhindered by superstition, hypocrisy, greed, lust, envy, ancient class oppression, fanaticism, rank ignorance, the unseemly lust for political power, and hick laws.
The un-religion is not to be confused with Methodism, Calvinism, Judaism, Christian Science, Trinitarianism, Rastifarianism, the worship of Baal, Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, Scientology, witch doctorism, or voodoo. That is some serious idiocy.
No, wait. Can we get back to you on Islam, witch doctorism, and voodoo? Our debt to Islamic scholars is enormous and you just have to appreciate people who keep it simple, real, and authentic. Apart from that, that is some serious idiocy.
Notes
[1] Comment by Nimrod on "The Alternative Reality of Sweden." By Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna 3/18/15.
2 comments:
As you may know by now, I responded to Nimrod too.
It's apparent that almost nobody knows that religion also mean "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
You have gone on to lay out other interests of extreme importance, and that's great because it exemplifies the point I made.
But what I'd love to see happen, before the courts have become completely useless, is to fight AGW in govt.
E.g., people have lost jobs in NASA for fighting the belief in AGW. That gives them grounds in court.
Their rights have been violated under 2 explicit portions of the constitution.
§VI, ¶ 3, the no religious tests clause be required for serving.
and the first phrase of the 1st Amendment.
That's a good point, that sanctioning of skeptics of AGW reflects requiring bureaucrats to be subject to a religious test indeed, to the extent that the superior officials adopt ideas such as "the science is settled." Very clearly it has not.
Arguing the "religion" aspect of this problem is probably a loser in court but AGW should be amenable to attack under the normal rules of using expert testimony in court. The feds went to some trouble to keep "junk science" out of the courtroom some time ago, as you probably know. AGW isn't the first doctrine of dubious scientific validity to be dragged into the courtroom and its claims can be tested as in other cases.
Post a Comment