This is getting ridiculous and predictable. So let me get this straight, okay? In order to believe, Flannagan must denigrate science. Get it.? What utter rubbish. This alone should cause believers to question why they believe what they do based on their upbringing in a Christian culture. Science is the only antidote to how easily we can believe and defend what we were taught on our Mama's knees.
I had said:
You see, when you examine other religions you use the tools of science. All I’m saying it that you should use these same tools to examine your own. This is not a radical skepticism I’m proposing whereby someone must be skeptical of science or a material world. I’m proposing using the same level of skepticism you use to examine other faiths to your own faith.Now read Matt's response closely:
So, what you are saying is that you don’t apply the OTF to the “tools of science” which are the premises you use to reject religion, but you do to religion and the premises religious people appeal to to defend religion.It there any reasoning with believers? There is a good reason why I say they are brainwashed, a really good reason. If a Christian philosopher says this there is no hope for the people who blindly accept what he has to say, since they cannot see through his obfuscations, non-sequiturs, and special pleading ways. See the tag below, "denigrate science to believe."
But that’s my whole point, you apply it inconsistently, if you applied it consistently you would embrace a radical scepticism.
So in order to be skeptical of religious faith I must be skeptical about science? Science gives us the tools to be skeptical at all! Science has overthrown superstitious thinking since its inception. It is a given.
I don't understand how recognizing the limitations of science is equal to "denigrating" science. Loftus and many atheists have long recognized that science brings up more questions than it answers. This is one of the powers of science. I see nothing in anything Dr Flannagan has said that could be construed as saying "ignore anything you can learn from science." What does it really mean to "denigrate" science. Loftus seems to equate "denigration" with "blasphemy". By merely suggesting that you apply skepticism to the tools of science, Flannagan is asking for consistency. We all must admit that our reasoning powers and senses - tools of science - are not trustworthy. They can lead us down the wrong path. Why would one not carefully analyze all the evidence available to us - even scientific? I'd be just as worried about the truth of what we learn from fallible scientists as we do "from our Mamas." Let's us at least be consistent.Seems like Dr Flannagan struck a nerve as if he blasphemed a religion or something - because to John Loftus, he did.
Debunking Christianity: Dr. Flannagan Denigrates Science, Why Am I Not Surprised?