"all of it is faith based."
I'm afraid you sound a bit like the creationists here- trying to insist the Bible is a relevant as evolution, in a science class, because both things are "faith" based. It's a totally false equivalency of belief. The problem, as I see it, is that logic allows for new information, and logical systems actually seek new information- as science does, and it's testable and repeatable- in fact it's founded on that. Religion, untestable as it is, is pretty much a closed system. Look at the ossification of the Christian Bible, the Torah or the Koran. When were these things written? And by whom? And how could anyone believe the words of primitive nomads or agrarian tribesman would be the way to order a life now, any more than the Eddas would be.
Some religions claim to admit new information, and I believe the Dalai Lama has said that when his religion and science are in conflict, the religion must make room for science, and bend to new information. I'd be less anti- religion if all religions did that. I think I've actually read Rorty. |
