I just happened to take a gander at the Debunking Christianity blog today, and saw John's post about Christian/Atheist (we deserve a capital letter too!) debates. In the post he said religion would always be around. Someone commented that he was saying Christianity/religion can't be debunked. Talk about misunderstanding!
Just because a school of thought, or set of beliefs, manages to stick around with some folks does not mean that it's ultimately true. Just because someone acknowledges that religion isn't going away doesn't mean he can't give some pretty damn good evidence why religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is most likely not true.
It's hard for me as a Christian turned Agnostic that others can't see what to me are now glaring facts...but then, there was a time I couldn't see them either. As I've mentioned before, there is sorrow on both sides of this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simply as a keen student of the meaning of words I have to applaud that. Deliberately or otherwise, the person has chosen to interpret ‘debunk’ as ‘disprove’, which is not the case. To a pure philosopher (and an agnostic, almost by definition), nothing at all can be either proved or disproved. But to debunk means to draw attention to things that are hollow and lacking in substance, deliberate shams or popular misapprehensions, and beliefs based on specious reasoning.
ReplyDeleteOf course debunking implies disproving: if you debunk a stage magician’s tricks it means you show them to be fraudulent to everyone’s satisfaction. But when it comes to something like religion, it becomes a matter of showing beyond reasonable doubt: absolute proof can never be supplied, and even if it were it would be rejected by true believers. It’s the same with anything that runs on faith rather than logic, whether it be Christianity or conspiracy theories. These too will also persist.
And there goes someone who apparently hasn't read the rest of this blog, lol
ReplyDelete