Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
PS...a reminder to those who say religion does not have a trial and error, hypothesis and test model like science...i would strongly suggest a review of church history. Despite the best attempts of the western latin church, both the Eastern and protestant traditions, not to mention catholic dissenters did carry on with heterodoxy...what might be called heresy. I just cannot agree with the idea that religion is not a search for answers...it defies the study of church history, christian or not, it defies the current trends and methods of theology, christian or not, and defies the experience of believers around the globe, christian or not. To assume that because some religious sects focus on stability and easy answers, that all are like this is a logical fallacy...
|
last time i checked, all christian sects say their way is right and focus on that stability. they only seem to change under extreme pressure to do so. yes, there were heretics that changed their beliefs, disagreed with the status quo, gathered followers and went their seperate ways, but since founding the different protestant sects, those sects are now nice and rigid.
Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
I introduce to you a new fallacy. The Nine Times out of Ten arguement. In abscence of any clear data, a fictional 90% majority is constructed to represent the whole of a group. Any counter example is dismissed as the 10%, and no amount of evidence will shake the claim that 90% do X, Y, and Z.
In reality, it's something around 80-85% of Americans that support the teaching of evolution in public schools, even when a vast majority, around 90% IIRC, are at least nominally religious.
|
the number of american's that support teaching evolution vs. the number that are religious is inconsequential. the religous organizations are what easytiger's talking about. the people in charge who make the policy. not the people who merely go to their churchs.
also, calling it a fallacy doesn't seem quite right. it may be a misrepresentation, or an exaggeration, but for all you know, the data, although no hard data is quoted, could actually be that way.