Cherry Picking Faith

Aarons Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcvRY1fyilY

His Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/aaronk1994?blend=1&ob=4

Citation:
"ATHEISM: The Case Against God" - George H. Smith
1989 Prometheus Books
Pgs. 99-100

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• God
• Atheism
• Theism
• Reason
• Science
• Jesus
• Religion
• Catholicism
• Christianity
• Islam
• Judaism
• Monotheism
• Faith
• Bible
• Koran
• Quran
• Skepticism
• Fundamentalism
• Moderate
• Agnosticism
• Superstition
• Spirituality
• Freethought

[PainefulMass]

Great video, but I have to disagree with knowledge being defined as "justified, true belief". No one in epistemology takes this as the definition since Gettier's famous problem. It doesn't affect your argument, since the modern definition is "justified, true belief + other stuff".

[djosephallen]

@PainefulMass

Thanks for that. I was trying to keep it simple, I know the discussion about what can be considered knowledge is deep and complex. But, as you said, I dont think my point is not really affected. However one wants to describe true knowledge, the biblical definition that Aaron tries to espouse, would make the meaning of faith unintelligible.

Thanks for your comment.

[djosephallen]

@shotinthedark90

Cool. Thank you for the interesting exchange.

[shotinthedark90]

@djosephallen I could go on, but like you said... agree to disagree. Thanks for the thought provoking video. Also, thanks for the responses to my comments, much appreciated.

[shotinthedark90]

@djosephallen In order to show that Christianity opposed to science you'd have to do some scripture interpretation that stands up to scrutiny.

The modern assumption is that science and religion are playing king of the hill for the truth, and religion somehow has impure motives, but science doesn't. Religion is playing for control of society or something, but science just wants the facts. In reality, religion searches for spiritual truth while science searches for physical truth. Same team.

[shotinthedark90]

@djosephallen Well, we can agree to disagree. I am in no way trying to argue that the Church was never against modern scientific theories. My point was that there must be a distinction between "the Church" and Christianity. You can easily make a justified claim that the Church was historically opposed to certain scientific theories which challenged its authority. BUT, you can not make a logical leap from "the Church opposed science" to "Christianity opposed science."

[djosephallen]

@shotinthedark90

In 100 years there will be a guy just like you, trying to argue that the Church was never against homosexuality or homosexuals. Its historical revisionism at its finest. (Sorry for the long response :)

[djosephallen]

@shotinthedark

There is no denying, from looking at history and what historical figures have left behind, that the churches have constantly been a force against scientific progress. Sure, there are some exceptions here and there, but I'm talking big picture. What you are doing, is exactly what some religious people are starting to do with homosexuality, claiming that ohhh, religions were never against it, it was just misinterpreted. (Cont...)

[djosephallen]

@shotinthedark90

Religions and the religious were against it on a basis of faith and scripture. And they would condemn as heretics and threaten with hell, people like Galileo that contradicted their religions notions. When have scientists EVER condemed each other, or killed each other over a scientific dispute? The answer is NEVER, They challenge each other on the basis of facts and evidence. (CONT...)

[djosephallen]

@shotinthedark90 Sorry for the belated response. It seems we can go on forever, so after this, I suggest we agree to disagree. But let me say this: Your example proves my point. Science and scientists are ALWAYS against science,but in a manner different from religion. Scientists that were against the Copernican revolution, did so on grounds of the perceived evidence and the resistance of a paradigm shift. (CONT....)