Debating religion
There came a point in my life when I just chose to believe, because living without faith, hope, and love was something I just couldn't do. Was it psychologically weak? Intellectually dishonest? Maybe, but I don't care.
This is a standard of evaluation which Sullivan, like any intelligent person, rightly rejects when any type of belief other than a religious one is under discussion -- he has regularly denounced other writers for believing what they wanted to believe about politics or the Iraq conflict, when those beliefs were contrary to the evidence.
Here is a clarifying and well-written response from an atheist blogger.
I have a lot of respect for Andrew Sullivan; he is his own man and doesn't slavishly follow any party line, and on issues other than religion he always has solid reasons for taking whatever position he does, even if I disagree with him. But like many people, he somehow manages to set religion off in a separate compartment in which it is exempted from evaluation by the standards of evidence and logic which apply to everything else.
Labels: Religion
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogspot account and aren't sure how to comment, please see here. Fair warning: anything supporting transgender ideology, or negative toward Brexit, or in favor of a military draft or compulsory national service, will be deleted. I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent.
On work days there is likely to be a substantial delay in approving comments, since I can't do blog stuff in an office. For this I apologize.
Please be respectful -- no political comments on non-political posts, please.
<< Home