Register to reply

Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, rick, santorum
Share this thread:
Number Nine
#379
Feb29-12, 10:05 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Ok, thanks, now we're getting somewhere. Which of Santorum's decisions/actions are ridiculous, and why?
His belief that 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia is one example. His belief that gays are responsible for the economic crisis is another (actually, everything he believes about gays qualifies).
Fredrik
#380
Feb29-12, 10:06 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Fredrik's Avatar
P: 9,248
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Why would you think that?
Because that definition is nothing at all like any of the others, and because it would mean that almost everything is a religion. To download pornography can be an "activity pursued with zeal". To run a campaign to bring back Firefly can be a "cause pursued with conscientious devotion". According to that definition, these things are both religions. That's why it's an absurd definition.

Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Anyway, it isn't a matter of whether one agrees with a published definition. It's published because it's part of the conventional vernacular.
I doubt that you know anything about why this was published. I don't think anyone considers that definition "conventional".

Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
It might not be the most common connotation of the word. But it is a connotation of the world. And it's something that theistic religious fanatics, like certain Christians and Muslims, use every now and then to equate their religiosity to, say, a zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method.
Yes, religious nuts sometimes claim that the word should mean something like this, just so that they can make the absurdly false claim that science is just another religion. This is very similar to how they also claim that the big bang theory says that "first there was nothing, and then it exploded". They do these things to make other people seem as irrational as they are. They use these tactics not to win arguments, but to allow themselves to stay ignorant.

It makes no sense for us to adopt their crazy definitions.


Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
So, what I'm asking is, how is Santorum's self professed zealous and conscientious adherence to Christian mythology/doctrine different from your or my zealous and conscientious adherence to standard logic and the scientific method? Why is one better than the other?
Do you really need me to tell you why knowledge obtained using scientific methods is more reliable than stuff we can read in a 2000-year-old book written by people with zero understanding of anything?

Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.
Of course they would. That's how they deal with uncomfortable truths.
ThomasT
#381
Feb29-12, 10:14 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
If you're a scientist you approach everything, even your own beliefs and methods, with a healthy dose of skepticism in the pursuit of truths. So, zealot? Maybe. But it beats taking things on blind faith, IMO.
Of course I agree with you. I'm zealous in my skepticism. I'm zealous in my requirement of physical evidence. I'm quite religious in my adherence to standard logic and the scientific method in my quest to improve my understanding of the world. I'm a fanatic.
Hobin
#382
Feb29-12, 10:20 AM
P: 194
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Of course I agree with you. I'm zealous in my skepticism. I'm zealous in my requirement of physical evidence. I'm quite religious in my adherence to standard logic and the scientific method in my quest to improve my understanding of the world. I'm a fanatic.
In other words, not all forms of fanaticism were created equal.
ThomasT
#383
Feb29-12, 10:21 AM
P: 1,414
@ Fredrik,
I suppose I should discontinue my involvement in this discussion. But you have to admit that it did get a few interesting replies.

The point is that Santorum and his ardent supporters are (for the most part, I'm assuming) theistic religious zealots. So, I'm wondering how best to deal with this, eg., wrt ad hoc conversations with various people, some of whom might be theistic religious zealots as well as Santorum supporters.
ThomasT
#384
Feb29-12, 10:23 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Hobin View Post
In other words, not all forms of fanaticism were created equal.
According to what criteria?
Hobin
#385
Feb29-12, 10:38 AM
P: 194
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
According to what criteria?
Pragmatism. Scientific hypotheses are falsifiable, whereas religious beliefs are not. When hypotheses turn out to be correct or incorrect, we've learned something valuable. In practice, everyone knows that, but in a heated debate people tend to forget.
Pythagorean
#386
Feb29-12, 11:36 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,262
There's a widely accepted definition of religion. The attempt to homogenize the definition is not very useful or genuine. The whole last page was basically a pointless semantic argument in an attempt to justify comparing religion to science.
ThomasT
#387
Feb29-12, 12:30 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
There's a widely accepted definition of religion. The attempt to homogenize the definition is not very useful or genuine. The whole last page was basically a pointless semantic argument in an attempt to justify comparing religion to science.
Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians. And I might say that semantic arguments/considerations are, always, very important. Anyway, it wasn't a matter of homogenizing the definition of religion. The fact of the matter is that if you're a conscientiously zealous adherent to the principles of standard logic and the scientific method, then, by definition, you're a religious adherent wrt those principles. It's just a word, and that's one of its conventional connotations.
Galteeth
#388
Feb29-12, 03:14 PM
P: 320
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians. And I might say that semantic arguments/considerations are, always, very important.
It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't have a problem with tautological reasoning. No Venn intersection of reality.
Gokul43201
#389
Feb29-12, 03:34 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Thomas:

A useful trait for a definition to have is that besides describing the thing it intends to describe, it shouldn't also describe everything else under the sun.

'A person that takes lives by intentionally swinging an axe at them' describes an axe-murderer, but also describes a woodcutter, or a class of hunter. Your preferred definition of religion is even broader than that. It's like defining an axe-murderer as a person that swings an implement to a calculated end.

The only defense I have for that definition is that it is perhaps referring to a metaphorical - almost idiomatic - use of the word 'religion'.

As in: 'Hockey is a religion in Canada'.

But in your defense, if you can not see a difference between Santorum's faith in the preachings of the Catholic Church, and your own faith in the scientific method, then perhaps you do treat science as a religion, and maybe you are indeed a religious fanatic, as you suspect.
Office_Shredder
#390
Feb29-12, 03:49 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,500
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
Apparently you haven't argued with many clever, cunning, shrewd fanatical Christians.
These are the sorts of statements that will cause you to lose arguments with fanatical Christians. They will laugh at you.

This is a bit ridiculous. Thomas won't even cop to his own argument, instead demanding you satisfy his proxy Christian evangelist.
SHISHKABOB
#391
Feb29-12, 04:01 PM
P: 614
doing something religousLY does not make doing that something into a religion
Number Nine
#392
Feb29-12, 04:28 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by SHISHKABOB View Post
doing something religousLY does not make doing that something into a religion
This is actually an extremely important point. Religious devotion has led to the idiom of sorts that a person who pursues something zealously is pursuing it "religiously", but this doesn't mean that the term "religion" actually applies to that pursuit.
jreelawg
#393
Feb29-12, 04:47 PM
P: 450
I don't think it is necessary to equate Santorums views with religion, although his religious beliefs certainly contribute to them.

For example, Santorum thinks that colleges are controlled by Satan. Where in the bible is it written that colleges are or would be controlled by Satan? This is his theory, which he puts into the context of his religious perspective, but is his own idea, not an idea which is represented by his religion.

Now there are plenty of people of the same religion, with very different views.

When he says though, that he thinks colleges are controlled by Satan, I take it that he hates colleges the same way that many U.S. churches used to say god hates black people.

I think some disturbed people incorporate there own views, dislikes, hatred, or whatever, into their religion. Then you end up with this addition to a religion being passed down as children learn from their parents etc.

The next thing you know, the religious tone has evolved in meaning according to some lunatics popularized hatred.

So when I look at Santorum, I don't really see him in terms of his religion so much as his character. I think he's just an angry little man.
Hobin
#394
Feb29-12, 05:10 PM
P: 194
Quote Quote by jreelawg View Post
So when I look at Santorum, I don't really see him in terms of his religion so much as his character. I think he's just an angry little man.
He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.
lisab
#395
Feb29-12, 05:21 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,976
Quote Quote by Hobin View Post
He's a little too popular for someone's who's just an angry little man, methinks.
Maybe "angry little man" is the Zeitgeist for the great recession.
Pythagorean
#396
Feb29-12, 05:43 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,262
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
This is a bit ridiculous. Thomas won't even cop to his own argument, instead demanding you satisfy his proxy Christian evangelist.
thus my lack of reply :)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Mitt Romney's candidacy Current Events 735
Rick Steves' Europe: Iran Current Events 4
Consider yourself Rick Roll'd General Discussion 20
Vote Rick James! General Discussion 6