More Anglicans support equal marriage than oppose it

[Shaker]

The problem that The CofE as a whole had finally with abortion was that unwittingly they gave the green light to universal abortion rights. Thank goodness that they did so, although some believe it is the memory of this that holds the church back from endorsing limited access to euthanasia.

Would that really matter in 2016, though? The C of E not only didn't endorse but was squarely opposed to equal marriage. And yet here we are with equal marriage, thank goodness - so even if that thesis is correct, and it may very well be, I can't see that their endorsement or the lack thereof makes any difference to anything.

[Rhiannon]

Aye! What's your point?

He's not the original boss of your church. He belongs to someone else as the first bishop - or Pope.

[Hope]

Try not to show yourself up to be an even bigger clown than you already are. In #31 you wrote:...

Shaker, it is you who is showing yourself up to be the clown.  I intentionally used the term 'purport' because the Gospels are attempts by 4 different people to record Jesus' teaching and, as necessary, to explain what that teaching means.  That claim was made by those authors, not by other people.  It also shows that I am happy to enterytain the possibility that they are not waht the authers claimed for them - but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea.  People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water.  I have simply asked that Susan produces evidence to support her argument.  I and others have asked you the same on a number of occasions, as we have of Floo and several others.  All we have in response is 'it must be untrue because 1) similar ideas have been claimed by other faiths and/or 2) it flies in the face of scientific possibility.'  The latter assumes that science is the sole arbiter of reality and you nor anyone else has been able to show that that is the case.  The former assumes that 'similar' is synonymous with 'the same'

... and that is an absolutely textbook example of the negative proof fallacy.

If anyone here uses the -ve proof fallacy to its best, it is the likes of you who put basically use the 'it can't be true' claim without providing the evidence to support that claim.

[Samuel]

The CofE used to be good at accommodating a wide range of perspectives in a way that it doesn't any more.

Do you think that's because all the liberal elements are leaving?

[Hope]

Would that really matter in 2016, though? The C of E not only didn't endorse but was squarely opposed to equal marriage. And yet here we are with equal marriage, thank goodness - so even if that thesis is correct, and it may very well be, I can't see that their endorsement or the lack thereof makes any difference to anything.

The church seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that they were always right in doing so?

Similarly, society seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that it was always right in doing so?

[Rhiannon]

Would that really matter in 2016, though? The C of E not only didn't endorse but was squarely opposed to equal marriage. And yet here we are with equal marriage, thank goodness - so even if that thesis is correct, and it may very well be, I can't see that their endorsement or the lack thereof makes any difference to anything.

It matters only for as long as they have any say in the legislative process. It's becoming less relevant.

One thing that needs to be born in mind that a third of the CofE clergy are Evangelicals. This explains in part why the church as whole appears less tolerant than in the past.

Some interesting statistics here.

http://www.modernchurch.org.uk/news-blog/717-results-of-yougov-survey-of-anglican-clergy-released.html

[Rhiannon]

Do you think that's because all the liberal elements are leaving?

Not all, but a lot are. Add to that the rise in the number of Evangelical clergy who now make up a third of the total - see previous post.

The church can't be changed by liberals from within, there aren't enough of them. It's a choice between supporting the church in all that it currently stands for or getting out.

[Outrider]

I intentionally used the term 'purport' because the Gospels are attempts by 4 different people to record Jesus' teaching and, as necessary, to explain what that teaching means.

Well, the Gospels are an attempt by someone to document a story, an attempt by at least two, and probably three, others to rewrite it, with subsequents edits to all four pieces in order to suit the politics and philosophy of the time.

These four all blatantly contradict the earlier work they are alleged to be a sequel to, completely change the foundation of the central character's personality, almost as though they weren't actually based on anything real.

That claim was made by those authors, not by other people.  It also shows that I am happy to enterytain the possibility that they are not waht the authers claimed for them - but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea.

That's because, as Christians, you are predisposed to ignore the obvious issues with accepting any tale of magic as 'history'.

People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water.

Yes, they have, because the Church was the institution with the political power and had the capacity to frame the debate as it chose. Now, in more enlightened times, we aren't given to just accepting fanciful claims.

All we have in response is 'it must be untrue because 1) similar ideas have been claimed by other faiths and/or 2) it flies in the face of scientific possibility.'

Two entirely valid points in their own right, however unnecessary given your inability to actually make your case in order for it to need refuting.

The latter assumes that science is the sole arbiter of reality and you nor anyone else has been able to show that that is the case.

No, it presumes that the scientific method is an incredibly well-validated system for deriving explanatory mechanisms for physical phenomena, and given that consistent performance you're going to need some exceptional justification for presuming that it's wrong in any given instance.

The former assumes that 'similar' is synonymous with 'the same'

You'd need to justify any differentiation qualitatively rather than quantitatively, and 'different book' doesn't change the fact that you have claims from an old book.

If anyone here uses the -ve proof fallacy to its best, it is the likes of you who put basically use the 'it can't be true' claim without providing the evidence to support that claim.

You make the claim, we don't have to accept it until and unless you can justify it. Any arguments or points made in excess of 'your claim is not adequately supported' are items for discussion, but unnecessary to the thrust of the point.

You claim 'God'. You fail to justify the claim 'God'. Therefore we have no reason to accept your claim 'God'. The burden of proof always falls on the claimant, and when it comes to religion the claimant is whomever claims a god.

O.
[/quote]

[Shaker]

Shaker, it is you who is showing yourself up to be the clown.

Which one of us can't put fingers to keyboard without some form of logical fallacy? Clue: it's not me.

I intentionally used the term 'purport' because the Gospels are attempts by 4 different people to record Jesus' teaching and, as necessary, to explain what that teaching means.  That claim was made by those authors, not by other people.  It also shows that I am happy to enterytain the possibility that they are not waht the authers claimed for them - but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea.  People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water.

Simply restating the negative proof fallacy in different words doesn't make it not-the-negative-proof-fallacy however much you seem to think it does.

I have simply asked that Susan produces evidence to support her argument.  I and others have asked you the same on a number of occasions, as we have of Floo and several others.  All we have in response is 'it must be untrue because 1) similar ideas have been claimed by other faiths and/or 2) it flies in the face of scientific possibility.'  The latter assumes that science is the sole arbiter of reality and you nor anyone else has been able to show that that is the case.

Outrider has dealt with this twaddle more than ably, as is always his way, so his response can stand for mine. If you think there's an arbiter of reality other than science, feel free to provide a methodology for it.

But of course, you won't.

If anyone here uses the -ve proof fallacy to its best, it is the likes of you who put basically use the 'it can't be true' claim without providing the evidence to support that claim.

You've asserted this before and have been asked, many times, to provide a single instance of where I've employed the negative proof fallacy (which you once asserted I use even more than you - as though that was even possible). And you've never once done so. Ever. At all. Know why? I do, but I'll give you thirty minutes to work it out, and feel free to ask for more paper and crayons if you need them.

[Shaker]

The church seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that they were always right in doing so?

Similarly, society seems to have endorsed a lot of things over the centuries; does that mean that it was always right in doing so?

This actually has nothing whatever to do with my point, which was and is that the opinion of the C of E on anything makes no difference. Rhiannon has just said that it matters so long as it has a say in the legislative process, but it had a say in the legislative process with regard to equal marriage - it wanted to prohibit it for everyone across the board, not just members of its own club - and that came to naught, thankfully. Equal marriage we have.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

He's not the original boss of your church. He belongs to someone else as the first bishop - or Pope.

As far as we are concerned, he is a Saint, and was the first Patriarch of Rome. They split from us, not the other way round, a thousand years later.

[ad_orientem]

He's not the original boss of your church. He belongs to someone else as the first bishop - or Pope.

St. Peter was Orthodox, as was the whole West at the time. "Rome" as we know it today didn't exist until about the Great Schism when the bishop of Rome's head finally got too big for its mitre.

[ProfessorDavey]

As HWB rightly reminded us above we're not discussing abortion here, but this is another example of the situation that pertains to both abortion and contraception in Catholicism - most Catholics use some form of artificial birth control, and certainly in the USA, most Catholic women support abortion rights. This means that a majority of members of an organisation or a club (for want of a better word) choose to stay in that club despite strongly disagreeing with some of that club's rules. Same principle at work here; a majority of Anglicans support a form of marriage that their club disagrees with (and tried to prevent even for non-members, as is always the way).

Not sure if anyone else has picked up on this, but there was also a sub-section of catholics within this poll, which was also supportive of equal marriage - indeed by a very slightly greater margin (46% to 35%) than for Anglicans.

[Shaker]

As far as we are concerned, he is a Saint, and was the first Patriarch of Rome. They split from us, not the other way round, a thousand years later.

Oh dear. That's no better than the "It's not me, it's you" of bad melodramas

[Rhiannon]

As far as we are concerned, he is a Saint, and was the first Patriarch of Rome. They split from us, not the other way round, a thousand years later.

'As far as we are concerned'. They see it differently. Which doesn't matter until either of church claims to be the 'true' one.

[Shaker]

'As far as we are concerned'. They see it differently. Which doesn't matter until either of church claims to be the 'true' one.

... which they all do.

[Rhiannon]

... which they all do.

Factions within the same denomination, frequently.

[Gordon]

- but in order to seriously entertain that idea I and and many others, not all of them Christians, need to see evidence to support the idea.  People have been trying to produce such evidence for nigh-on 2000 years but, to the best of knowledge, none of that 'evidence' has held water.

Nope: nobody has to provide contrary evidence in order to refute your claims, such as by showing your reasoning to be fallacious, where if you are claiming evidence then the burden of proof is yours.

Please also advise on those issues that you regard as being 'evidence that doesn't hold water' since if these are simply refutations of your claims then this isn't the same thing as presenting contrary or alternative evidence/claims, and I'm not sure you recognise the difference.

[Hope]

Nope: nobody has to provide contrary evidence in order to refute your claims, such as by showing your reasoning to be fallacious, where if you are claiming evidence then the burden of proof is yours.

Please also advise on those issues that you regard as being 'evidence that doesn't hold water' since if these are simply refutations of your claims then this isn't the same thing as presenting contrary or alternative evidence/claims, and I'm not sure you recognise the difference.

Gordon, I agree that anyone has the right to refute other people's beliefs, but to do so properly one has to provide evidence that supports that refutation.  Neither you, nor anyone else here has so far managed to do so.

As I've told Shaker, he and others - like you - make assertions about what could be called the universal pre-eminence of scientific thought.  Whenever you are challenged on this, all you do is argue that it has to be the case.  There is no concrete evidence to support your views.

[Outrider]

Gordon, I agree that anyone has the right to refute other people's beliefs, but to do so properly one has to provide evidence that supports that refutation.  Neither you, nor anyone else here has so far managed to do so.

There is nothing justified that requires refutation - you have assertions that we don't accept, and you've failed to adequately support them.

As I've told Shaker, he and others - like you - make assertions about what could be called the universal pre-eminence of scientific thought.  Whenever you are challenged on this, all you do is argue that it has to be the case.  There is no concrete evidence to support your views.

Science works. Science has a long, demonstrable history of working. There is nothing intrinsic to science that means it is the only means by which we can acquire knowledge, and indeed nothing in science that says there aren't other possibilities.

However, to date, no-one has actually presented any of those other possibilities with any sort of justification or validation. It's not the science is the only way to knowledge by definition, but that science is the best method currently available - where there is a conflict between science and other claims, in the absence of any sort of reliable support for other methods, we default to accepting the scientific view.

O.

[Gordon]

Gordon, I agree that anyone has the right to refute other people's beliefs, but to do so properly one has to provide evidence that supports that refutation.  Neither you, nor anyone else here has so far managed to do so.

Nope, the arguments/evidence can be refuted without contrary arguments/evidence, such as by exposing them as being fallacious in some way.

As I've told Shaker, he and others - like you - make assertions about what could be called the universal pre-eminence of scientific thought.  Whenever you are challenged on this, all you do is argue that it has to be the case.  There is no concrete evidence to support your views.

Science is the only reliable methodology that is currently available to us: do have you a comparable alternative?

[Shaker]

Science is the only reliable methodology that is currently available to us: do have you a comparable alternative?

I wish you the very best of luck in getting an an answer to that one. You'll need it

[Shaker]

There is nothing justified that requires refutation - you have assertions that we don't accept, and you've failed to adequately support them.

Science works. Science has a long, demonstrable history of working. There is nothing intrinsic to science that means it is the only means by which we can acquire knowledge, and indeed nothing in science that says there aren't other possibilities.

However, to date, no-one has actually presented any of those other possibilities with any sort of justification or validation. It's not the science is the only way to knowledge by definition, but that science is the best method currently available - where there is a conflict between science and other claims, in the absence of any sort of reliable support for other methods, we default to accepting the scientific view.

Well, that's the second time that the big O has beaten me to the punch today.

There's your answer, Hope, and exactly the one that I would have given you. Best of luck in presenting us with any alternative methodology for being able to evaluate claims and being able to know stuff which isn't scientifically based. There may very well be such methodologies for all we know, but we keep asking for them and you keep ducking the issue and we're not content simply to guess.

Now of course this is nothing that you haven't heard before, more than once and from a variety of sources, but - as with your inability to grasp why the negative proof fallacy is a form of defective reasoning that shouldn't be used - for some reason this sort of thing has to be repeated and reiterated and at the end of it all with absolutely no sign that it has taken.

So it goes.

[SusanDoris]

Well said as always, Outrider and Shaker, plus Gordon.

[Bubbles]

Here's what the Unitarians stand for.

https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/what-we-stand

Yes, I like them 

But I bet not all the Christians on here do......... 🌹

I bet ad o doesn't see them as being part of his 2000 year old church speaking for Jesus.