This article was certainly an interesting one
. I found the part about free will to be confusing however, especially this part:
Quote:
|
According to Ron, it is NOT spiritually permitted to override a skeptic’s freedom to choose their beliefs; in practice this means that skeptics always have to have an out. Either they can’t be there to see what would shock them, or they have to be able to dismiss such reports as false, exaggerated, pure luck, etc. A skeptic cannot be shown proof of what they doubt.
|
This doesn't make any sense to me. Science proves certain things to be true and false in a very convincing manner, such that it forces people to give up their old beliefs for new knowledge. Like when Galileo proved that the Earth was round - this meant that everybody would have to abandon their long-held belief that the Earth was flat. Isn't this exactly what Ron said was morally wrong - for people to be shown proof of what they doubt?
So why is this immoral when it comes to matters of spirituality? If it is the case that certain spiritual beliefs are true and others are bunk, then why encourage people to hold onto their inaccurate religious beliefs? What makes matters of spirituality/religion morally immune to criticism?
I realize that Steve is just relaying what Ron said to him, but since I can't ask Ron directly
I'll have to ask Steve and my fellow readers for some explanation.