I Know What Best Describes a Reasonable Person!
Well, I know an essential characteristic anyway. You want to know what best describes reasonable people? I know.
Reasonable people are the ones who accept the results of science.
Conversely, unreasonable people are the ones who reject the results of science. Since religious believers (theistic or otherwise) believe in at least one doctrine that goes against the consensus of scientists working in their fields, then religious believers are not reasonable people to believe them.
Agnostics are also not reasonable people by the same standard. For by claiming not to know about a specific doctrine that has been shown to be false by science, they are not reasonable either. Saying they don’t know, when science knows, is to be a science denier.
----
Note:
Just consider the evidence of evolution, and/or the virgin birth, as two important test cases. Consider also how to think like a scientist, or putting faith in light of a host of cognitive biases. Compare the cosmology of the Bible, the lack of evidence for a soul, the probability we have as much free will as dogs, cats, elephants and chimpanzees, the lack of archaeology in defense of the biblical tales, including the credibility of the Exodus. Plus there is a lack of evidence that Nazareth existed at the time Jesus was alleged to be born, the lack of any scientific evidence for the alleged Bethlehem star, and scientific studies on prayer showing it doesn’t work any better than chance.
See my anthology, "Christianity in the Light of Science" (Amherst, NY” Prometheus Books, 2016).
See also "The Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences"
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2010/08/top-seven-ways-christianity-is-debunked.html?fbclid=IwAR1LBPyZEKYTJYgPzS7w-tYSiHc6I3NpW9FfMFO2tqGb_ZJVAMj84Md8Siw&
Reasonable people are the ones who accept the results of science.
Conversely, unreasonable people are the ones who reject the results of science. Since religious believers (theistic or otherwise) believe in at least one doctrine that goes against the consensus of scientists working in their fields, then religious believers are not reasonable people to believe them.
Agnostics are also not reasonable people by the same standard. For by claiming not to know about a specific doctrine that has been shown to be false by science, they are not reasonable either. Saying they don’t know, when science knows, is to be a science denier.
----
Note:
Just consider the evidence of evolution, and/or the virgin birth, as two important test cases. Consider also how to think like a scientist, or putting faith in light of a host of cognitive biases. Compare the cosmology of the Bible, the lack of evidence for a soul, the probability we have as much free will as dogs, cats, elephants and chimpanzees, the lack of archaeology in defense of the biblical tales, including the credibility of the Exodus. Plus there is a lack of evidence that Nazareth existed at the time Jesus was alleged to be born, the lack of any scientific evidence for the alleged Bethlehem star, and scientific studies on prayer showing it doesn’t work any better than chance.
See my anthology, "Christianity in the Light of Science" (Amherst, NY” Prometheus Books, 2016).
See also "The Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences"
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2010/08/top-seven-ways-christianity-is-debunked.html?fbclid=IwAR1LBPyZEKYTJYgPzS7w-tYSiHc6I3NpW9FfMFO2tqGb_ZJVAMj84Md8Siw&
0 comments:
Post a Comment