It would be hard to provide evidence that all religions substitute reason and evidence with empty claims, only because it is such a blanket statement.
Exactly.
I would rather say - and maybe JAK will agree with this - religious dogma substitutes evidence and reason with empty claims when evidence and reason is in conflict with a key tenet of said religious dogma.
That would be more appropriate, yes. But then he would have to provide examples of this in
every religion in order to say it exists in
all religion. You can't just assert something in blanket format and then dare everyone to refute you. He is simply trying to free himself of the burden of proof by plaving it on our shoulders, as if his "thesis" appears true if nobody refutes it by showing how every religion on the planet doesn't do this. And for him to concede to this version of his thesis would also mitigate the purpose of his agenda, which is to demean all religious belief.
Right. Not necessarily is not the same as not at all, though.
Right, but in accordance with JAK's thesis, it would necessaril have to be
all. I'm not arguing that no religion is guilty of this. I'm saying that this is not something intrinsic to religion or even to religion in general.
I agree that reason is certainly in the eye of the beholder, but I think you could have chosen a much better definition for reason. Here are a few I found quickly
I agree, and when there are more definitions, one needs to qualify the statement and explicate what he means by the term. JAK offers nothing but a conglomerate of logic terms mushed together in a bigoted "thesis."
It is possible, without providing "empirical evidence" to determine a belief is unreasonable
How do you do that? Because it is not based on known facts? That in itself doesn't make it unreasonable.
This is a wrong. Think about Russell's teapot.
First of all there is nothing supernatural about a physical tea pot orbiting the sun, so I'm not wrong to say the natural world and the supernatural claims of religion are on two different planes. It isn't expected that one can prove the veracity of the other. The reasonableness of this scenario must be deduced from answers to specific questions. It isn't something you just assert and expect people to believe. The existence of a tea pot in space can be tested by finding out how many space vessels are missing a tea pot. How else could a tea pot get there?
In short, you're expected to reason, even in religion - in most religions anyway. You're not expected to accept something because it was asserted. Everyone is expected to find their own answer and then induce the data to form their own conclusion. Even the most dogmatic of fundamentalists will try to
reason with you about their faith. I can't think of a single religion that simply says, "I'm right because I said so," as JAK seems to suggest all religions do (truth by assertion).
The problem is that they are constantly mixing supernatural events with the natural (visions, miracles, spiritual confirmations, etc). But in as much as logic and reason are used to determine the most accurate and sound theology, they are readily used in the arsenal of theologians. In fact, it is such commonplace in theology that most theologians tend to be philosophers.
I'm willing to discuss the danger in religions, but I don't think all religions are equally dangerous, and we must define "danger".
Yes, what precisely does he mean by all of this jargon? These are loaded terms that can carry a variety of meanings and implications.
I have never worried about Jain suicide bombers, or Amish mercy killings, but does dangerous have to mean that I am in physical danger? What about the amount of resources that are wasted by religions collectively and people individually on behalf of a belief in god or gods?
Well, I think religious organizations have probably spent more money helping others than Jim Baker spent on prostitutes.
What about the public policy that is inspired by religious dogma?
That's the nature of a democracy. The majority usually gets its way. But what is so dangerous about public policy inspired by religion?
What about the people wasting away in jail for victimless crimes (sins)?
??? You lost me on that one.
I already said the Amish are dangerous because they don't educate their children, but that could go for many other religions
Most children in America aren't getting educated anyway. I'd rather be raised in an Amish community than on the streets. So should we become anarchists since the government isn't doing its job?
Thanks for bringing up Betrand Russell's tea pot. Good call.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein