Comments on: Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Theology and Jurisprudence Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:03:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The Extended Cognition Blog http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons.html#comment-11391 The Extended Cognition Blog Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:58:43 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=1894#comment-11391 <strong>The Philosophers Carnival is Here...</strong> MandM make an argument that religious considerations shouldn't be excluded from political thought just because they may be infallible. Sounds obvious? They attribute the opposing view to Audi, so who knows…... The Philosophers Carnival is Here…

MandM make an argument that religious considerations shouldn’t be excluded from political thought just because they may be infallible. Sounds obvious? They attribute the opposing view to Audi, so who knows……

]]> By: Glenn http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons.html#comment-10665 Glenn Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:41:29 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=1894#comment-10665 Eric, while you are entitled to hold that view on religion, it is not the view that the state can take towards religion if it is to remain "liberal" in the sense that Audi (or Rawls) mean. So your position should be acknowledged, but it hasn't helped Audi. Eric, while you are entitled to hold that view on religion, it is not the view that the state can take towards religion if it is to remain “liberal” in the sense that Audi (or Rawls) mean. So your position should be acknowledged, but it hasn’t helped Audi.

]]> By: Shawn http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons.html#comment-10645 Shawn Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:49:19 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=1894#comment-10645 Eric, the problem with your take on the issue is that you assume that your subjective belief about what is "reality" is just your version of what you call the imaginary friend. You can no more prove infallibly that your version of reality is right and true than I can prove infallibly that my Christian view is right and true. All any of us can do is simply weigh with our rational faculties as much of the evidence as we can, and combine that with our personal experience, to come to some balance of faith and reason. You have done that just as much as I have. Calling your faith "reality based" does not change the fact that it is still faith based. Therefore any belief that it is right to exclude full Christian participation in the democratic process and the creation of laws is nothing more than a dishonest and hypocritical attempt to deny Christians their democratic rights in favour of your personal "reality based" religion. Eric,

the problem with your take on the issue is that you assume that your subjective belief about what is “reality” is just your version of what you call the imaginary friend. You can no more prove infallibly that your version of reality is right and true than I can prove infallibly that my Christian view is right and true. All any of us can do is simply weigh with our rational faculties as much of the evidence as we can, and combine that with our personal experience, to come to some balance of faith and reason. You have done that just as much as I have. Calling your faith “reality based” does not change the fact that it is still faith based. Therefore any belief that it is right to exclude full Christian participation in the democratic process and the creation of laws is nothing more than a dishonest and hypocritical attempt to deny Christians their democratic rights in favour of your personal “reality based” religion.

]]> By: Philosophy Carnival XCIX « Theology Geek NZ http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons.html#comment-10631 Philosophy Carnival XCIX « Theology Geek NZ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:06:12 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=1894#comment-10631 [...] and my post Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons is [...] [...] and my post Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons is [...]

]]> By: Eric Olthwaite http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons.html#comment-10594 Eric Olthwaite Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:26:23 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=1894#comment-10594 Of course there's a lack of symmetry. And so should there be. You can't seriously expect to invent an imaginary friend, claim that policy should be influenced by what you've pretended it to say, and think that you should be treated the same as reality-based folk. That's just ridiculous! .-= My last blog-post ..Why the Government Fails to Maintain Anything =-. Of course there’s a lack of symmetry. And so should there be.

You can’t seriously expect to invent an imaginary friend, claim that policy should be influenced by what you’ve pretended it to say, and think that you should be treated the same as reality-based folk. That’s just ridiculous!
.-= My last blog-post ..Why the Government Fails to Maintain Anything =-.

]]> By: Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons | MandM | autokinesis.com http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/11/audi-and-the-infallibility-of-religious-reasons.html#comment-10051 Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons | MandM | autokinesis.com Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:38:07 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=1894#comment-10051 [...] more from the original source: Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons | MandM and-the, Audi, defends-the, democracy, liberal, liberal-democracy, liberal-thesis, place, [...] [...] more from the original source: Audi and the Infallibility of Religious Reasons | MandM and-the, Audi, defends-the, democracy, liberal, liberal-democracy, liberal-thesis, place, [...]

]]>