|
PeonForHer -> RE: Children exposed to religion have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction (7/25/2014 2:38:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
And I find it interesting that rather than answer my question, you chose to answer with a question. So I believe I will wait for your answer to my original question before I answer any further.
Yes, it's irritating, isn't it? It's one of the examples of pomposity that led me to making the comment that you're asking about. Questions, digs, but sidesteps away from answering.
As you will of course have noted, I pointed to the pomposity of both sides in this debate, exemplifying with GotSteel on one side, and various religionists on the other. I will say that the pomposity of religionists sticks out for me more, though. This is firstly, because I already know the arguments of anti-religionists and atheists. It doesn't matter how they're presented, I can glide through them. I cannot do with this with religionists' arguments. Secondly, I have a strong sense that religionists have something to offer - but they frequently kill it for me in the act of conveying it. I see and hear defensive wind.
Thirdly, this is a mainly American forum and arguments about religion reflect that in a way that always seems somewhat alien to me. Actually, this forum is the only place in which I've come across religious arguments in a big way, since I left school. My experience in the UK is that religionists and atheists (to use an overly crude dichotomy) simply leave each other to it for most of the time. Religionists leave scientists to do what they do best and don't try to 'muscle in'. The idea of an anti-Darwin movement here, for instance, would be shocking to most people. They don't try to play the scientists at their own game. In particular - and something I see frequently here - they don't launch arguments that depend on the view that 'science is as bad as religion, in respect of x, y and z'. I find that so damned dismal. I want to know what religion has that science does not. Again, I already know plenty of sources of windbagism. I don't need more of it.
On the flip side, here in the UK, my feeling is that there's a sense of respect for religion, or its leaders, anyway, that exists very widely. Part of that is to do with their not convincing by their arguments, but by convincing as a result of *who they are and how they act*. They stick up for the underdog, they take the government to task and ...
... they are far less markedly associated with the political Right. Which brings me back to the question I asked you in my last. Though, as is implicit in the foregoing, I already think I know some of the answer.
|
|
|
|
