RE: "With or without religion.." Quote. Is Weinberg wrong?
December 30, 2014 at 6:13 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2014 at 6:15 pm by Alex K.)
Well, Weinberg obviously is one of the quickest bulbs in the shed when it comes to physics, but I never found this one to be terribly convincing. First of all, all kinds of ideologies can make good people do bad things, it doesn't have to be religion, unless you define religion really loosely. What's more interesting here is the statistics - how likely are people in each group to do X - of course there are tons of correlations and confounding factors which render such studies meaningless very easily.
In philosophical discussions, I care about the truth of religious claims first and foremost, whereas their impact on society is important, but something different entirely if you ask me. Religion could be pure poison, but still be true. Weinberg's argument is not so much concerned with the veracity of religion, but instead primarily aims to attack the very common notion that religious faith is a virtue.
In philosophical discussions, I care about the truth of religious claims first and foremost, whereas their impact on society is important, but something different entirely if you ask me. Religion could be pure poison, but still be true. Weinberg's argument is not so much concerned with the veracity of religion, but instead primarily aims to attack the very common notion that religious faith is a virtue.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
