Can Religious Thought and Intellectual Honesty Coexist?

Cool your chops - dude - it may happen at different ages, you could be next - next month. :wink:

It's interesting that those clergy separate science and the teaching of religion as separate, but the activists that want ID taught in our schools want to meld the two as offering "different views." They want their cake and eat it too!

Shame on you, Husker. You are not being terribly benevolent. Hey, there is such a thing as early onset Alzheimers'....................which means that none of you "young stuff" are immune! :wink:

I've never been a big follower or supporter of his or the 700 club channel.

Billy and Franklin Graham are good folk. You see the son stepping up in out of shadow of the father whille Billy is stepping aside.

I know he wasn't leaving me much room in his initial comment - you know me a little painless poke here and there. :wink:

Do Thought and Intellectual Honesty = Logic?
Religious or not.......

husker, If you had made that clear on the front end, none of the following would have transpired. However, it was my mistake, and I apologize, because I should know better of you.

Contrary to some believe.... age does not absolve anybody of any responsibility. A lesson a few on this board should heed.

Not all Christians are irrational and incapable of logical thought. Neither are they thoughtless sheep that follow something that they do not understand. The fact is, they do understand. Many have difficulty putting their faith into words so that their detractors can understand. Of course, in all of mankind, we also have people who are not logical. Doesn't matter if they are religious or not.

I think you would have to agree that many posters in the religious threads show a level of intelligence that the most logical of minds cannot dismiss. These same people have an abiding faith that the others cannot understand. Is the person who has faith incapapble of explaining it or is the person who does not have faith incapable of understanding it? It is very subjective.

A person of faith can also believe in scientific analysis and even in evolution....evolution as an extension of creation. that is. Many try to put their interpretation into real terms of 24 hour days and an absolute 6000 years. It creates cramped thinking to stay inside the box. One only has to look at the number of scholars that also have a faith. Are they all delusional?

You can review critical thinking skills here

Relative to our discussion, I think that this point is spot on!

Good article, Husker!

Hummmmm. I will reserve comment for now.




I quite agree. I remember back in the 1950's I met a Christian who....

...ahhh, well...

...maybe I'd better leave it at, I quite agree that not all Christians are irrational and incapable of logical thought.




Hey..."sheep" "shepherd" "flock"...are all words that come from Christian mouths all the time. I gotta take their word for some stuff....and this is one area where I think they are right on the mark.




Choose one:

a) Well why don't they act on it.

b) Well they certainly manage to hide that fact.




A lot of their problem, though, is that what they are trying to say does not make any sense...and is totally illogical.




Another area of agreement between us, Intrepid.

The agnostics posting here certainly do.





Ooops. Obviously you were not referring to the agnostics.

Sorry.




I suspect it is not something that should be "explained"...because most often, it does not make any sense.

"People of faith" should simply practice their faith...and not try to explain it, because it is not amenable to explanations. It is quite irrational.




Yup...once they get on that "believing" bandwagon...it is hard to get off.

I like to question both religious and scientific explanations...especially when they become dogmatic.




If you are asking for an opinion...and it appears you are...

...mine would be an unqualified and very loud "YES!"

Here's an example of "intellectual honesty" from the christian right:

From CNN:

Robertson: Chavez remarks misinterpreted
Broadcaster says 'take him out' didn't mean assassination
Wednesday, August 24, 2005; Posted: 1:40 p.m. EDT (17:40 GMT)
var clickExpire = "-1";


Pat Robertson discusses his comments about Venezuela's president on Wednesday.


if(!cnnUseDelayedCSI){cnnAddCSI('imageChanger0','/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/imgChng/p0-0.exclude.html','pNo=0');} (CNN) -- Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Wednesday that his remarks about the removal of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club" program.
The controversy began Monday when Robertson called Chavez "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson on Monday's program. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," he said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Venezuelan officials reacted angrily to the broadcaster's comments, while U.S. officials dismissed the remarks.

Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel accused Robertson of inciting violence and challenged the White House to take action against him.

"What is the U.S. government going to do about this criminal statement made by one of its citizens?" he asked.

In Havana, where he had met with Cuban President Fidel Castro to discuss ties between the two countries, Chavez told reporters he had never heard of Robertson.

Asked about the broadcaster's call for his assassination, Chavez said, "It doesn't matter to me."

"I don't know who that person is," he said. "As far as his opinion of me goes, I couldn't care less."

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday that Robertson has the right of any private citizen to say whatever he wants but added that the broadcaster's remarks "do not represent the views of the United States."

"His comments are inappropriate," he said. "Allegations that we are planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are completely baseless and without fact."

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also dismissed Robertson's comments Tuesday, saying "our department doesn't do that kind of thing."

But Venezuela's ambassador to the United States, Bernardo Alvarez, said Robertson was "no ordinary private citizen" and demanded the White House strongly condemn the remarks.

Alvarez said the Christian Coalition, which Robertson started but no longer leads, claims some 2 million members and helped jump-start President Bush's 2000 presidential campaign after his New Hampshire primary loss to Sen. John McCain.

"Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies," he said.

"The United States might not permit its citizens to use its territory and airwaves to incite terrorists abroad and the murder of a democratically elected president," Alvarez said. "Venezuela demands that the U.S. abide by international and domestic law and respect its country and our president."

Venezuela's vice president said the U.S. response "challenges the antiterrorist ideology of the American government."

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who ran against Robertson for the GOP presidential nomination in 1988, called the comments "stupid" and "ludicrous" and suggested the broadcaster apologize "very quickly."


Bush administration critical of Chavez
Chavez has built ties to Cuba since he was elected in 1998, becoming a close friend of Castro's and selling oil to the communist island at preferential rates.
The colorful former Venezuelan army officer has the widespread support of his country's poor.

His opponents, largely drawn from the country's middle and upper classes, accuse him of undermining democratic institutions.

Chavez was re-elected under a new constitution in 2000. In 2004, he won a recall referendum with the support of 58 percent of voters.

He has become an increasingly outspoken critic of the United States, which he accuses of having been behind a 2002 coup attempt that forced him from office for two days.

The Bush administration denied involvement but refused to condemn the attempted coup.

Assassinations of world leaders have been forbidden since President Ford signed an executive order in 1976. The rule came after congressional hearings in the 1970s documented CIA attempts to kill Castro and U.S. interference in the politics of other Latin American countries.

This month, Chavez warned that U.S. troops would be "soundly defeated" if Washington were to invade Venezuela.

But Tuesday, he offered to sell Venezuelan fuel directly to "people who are most in need within the United States" -- bypassing American oil companies to bring cheaper gas prices.

Administration officials have been sharply critical of Venezuela, the fourth-largest supplier of oil to the United States.

During her confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice singled out Venezuela as a "negative force" in the region, and Rumsfeld has suggested Chavez's government has interfered with the internal affairs of other countries in the region.

Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Rumsfeld to tone down his anti-Chavez rhetoric, warning that the United States needed Venezuelan help to battle the drug trade.

Venezuela has accused agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration of spying on Chavez's government. The Bush administration denies those allegations as well.

Controversial statements are not new to the 75-year-old Robertson.

He has suggested in the past that a meteor could strike Florida because of unofficial "Gay Days" at Disney World and that feminism caused women to kill their children, practice witchcraft and become lesbians.

CNN's Lucia Newman contributed to this report.

Well I've been unable to find the exact number of clergy in the US, but I've found some indications that there are around 486,000 churches. Assuming one clergy person in every church (a very conservative estimate), 7016 out of 486,000 (less than 1.5%) is quite definitely "just a few".

slk, You can't relate the response on an internet study to the whole as a small relative number/percentage. Most polls do not reflect close to 100 percent of any group, but it does represent the sentiment of the general population. When polling agencies take a poll to see how Americans are feeling about the Iraq war or Bush's performance rating, most polls use under 2,000 people. That number is extrapolated to represent the total US population with an error rate usually determined by statistics as about three percent.

It's not considered "just a few."

OK, If you insist, a few good men.

This statement from the letter IMO addresses the question of religious thought vs intellectual honesty. Do you have a disagreement with this statement?

ci, I'd agree if this were a study or even a poll, but its an internet letter which clergy are invited to "sign". It has a bare minimum of control by requiring one to send an email with your info on it (presumably keeps out all the Rev Mickey Mouses), but thats about all.

Yes, I disagree...first, a "theory" cannot be "scientific truth". Secondly, I am unaware of any natural law that is demonstrably proven by evolution alone, therefore I think it is presumptous to say much of human knowledge and achievement rests on evoluton. I'm open though to be convinced...for anyone who can tell me of some piece of human knowledge or some human achievement that relies on evolution as a foundation.

Now, I'll readily admit I am not a biologist and firmly believe that, if the Bible can't withstand scrutiny, than its not worth believing. But so far, if one considers the whole Bible, not simply select verses, no one has given me a view of humanity, meaning of life, etc., that fits everything together as well as the Bible does.

slk, But you presume that just because it's a internet poll, it has less credibility. Show us why?

I would like to know how the definitions are defined. One of the biggest problems with theses of type of research is that you can get the results you want by the way you word the questions and what you do and don't ask. The media has been working on redefining words for a long time in an effort to change Americans minds and influence the masses.

It's a religious poll conducted by the University of Wisconsin. I"ll assume at this point that they know how to conduct polls more than not.