Politics of the Day - Flameage Edition
Note to Hugh Hewitt, who seems to have missed the Enlightenment: the reason we reject religious arguments is that they're based on faith, not driven by evidence or logic. In short, empiricism and rationalism are why we reject religious arguments against, for example, stem-cell research, theocratic governments, and being rapture ready.
Empiricism is not a 'sneer' at faith - the great achievement of the Enlightenment was that empiricism was a more efficient way to understand the world around us. A simple experiment can demonstrate the existence of light's wave/particle duality, and reject the hypothesis that light is 'miasma' (or whatever). What can religious arguments demonstrate? What is the support for their claim to moral superiority?
I would really like an answer to this question from Hewitt, although as someone who's lived
under a theocratic government, I already know the answer a bit too well: there is no answer
How do we know this? Because the same arguments have gone on for well > two millenia. Example. It's an ancient debate, which won't end soon - but it should be happening in Saudi, not in the US. Perhaps Hewitt would feel better living in a society where the appropriate length of beard is considered a compelling topic of debate.
Related humor of the day:
Quantum Christodynamics. Funny stuff.