Technically religious "theories" are actually something called immunized hypotheses. This is when an explanation is constructed in such a way as to avoid any attempt at falsification. IOW the hypothesis is immune to criticism. This is done by special pleading/moving the goal posts to the point of being supernatural, or by conspiracy mongering. In the case of religion it's special pleading. Any test you perform on religion can only confirm it, never disconfirm it. For example: if we pray for something and it happens, it's because God exists. If we pray for something and it doesn't happen, it's all part of God's plan, because he exists.
Since when is catholic god and jewish diferent? Seems inspid to think Windows 98 is really that different to xp....
Because in the Jewish faith the Jews are the chosen people. Only they can go to heaven.
I don't think so. An after life in heaven is really Christian dogma, not Jewish.
Yes and no but in the context I was using to the quote I think the point was made.
Another part of the problem is how hard it is to get someone to at the very least examine the contradictions in what they believe. I've seen some Christians left speechless when I argued that a god who would send everyone born before Jesus to hell, as well as everyone who was never exposed to Christianity, was not a loving or just god. I concluded that each person I had this discussion with was both intellectually and emotionally incapable of dealing with the consequences of my argument, and anyone who cannot engage in rational discussion is also "immunized" by their one irrationality. So I would add that irrationality and denial are the icing on the cake of a religious immunized hypothesis.
If you brought your post(s) (heh..) to Lennox at Oxford, what would he say? Not in the sense of afa, instead, a sit down to discuss. Can you create the scenario in your mind?
I imagine what he would say is that God is not a theory or explanation, but a person. God gave us science and so science cannot disprove God. This is, at least, what he says in some of his debates.
The mechanisms behind what you described are known as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. These are demonstrable, repeatable and well documented features of human intelligence. One wonders why God would need to include built-in hurtles to rationality when he designed intelligence, unless, of course, these mechanisms (and others like them) gave rise to God rather than God giving rise to the mechanisms.
I'd say that first, they are emotional/psychological phenomena against which intelligence forms an irrational defense. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an idea threatens something that's repressed, so various and sundry defense mechanisms kick in. And if you can structure an entire institution around those defenses--the more elaborate the better--you're in the driver's seat as far as upholding truth goes. The Spanish Inquisition was quite eloquent in that way, and got everyone to act like they believed. Human consciousness can be a terrifying thing.
Always for the sake of contemplation.
My views do not depend on eschewing emotions, but rather, carefully navigating them. Emotions are a wonderful and valuable tool of the human intellect. I believe that if one does not pay attention to emotion, one cannot be fully informed.
Are you really that insipid?
