I’m not sure what you mean about religious groups’ aid being secular. It seems like you are saying medicine and food are “secular” things, while prayer is a “religious” thing. Sure you can’t pray money into existence, so it’s sort of a “secular thing”, but the useful question is really who is giving the thing, not how it came to be.
The issue at hand is what organization is at the source of the charitable donations—a secular organization or a religious one. That’s a question that is worth asking. Whether or not the aid they are giving has been originally created by a god, magic or science isn’t really important for this question.
I didn’t downvote you, but I suspect whoever did shared this reasoning.
It seems like you are saying medicine and food are “secular” things, while prayer is a “religious” thing.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
The issue at hand is what organization is at the source of the charitable donations—a secular organization or a religious one. That’s a question that is worth asking. Whether or not the aid they are giving has been originally created by a god, magic or science isn’t really important for this question.
First, you say both that the source or origin does matter and that the source or origin does not matter. Which is it?
Second, as I said in my original post, “help where help is most effective or meets your needs best.”
Thank you for your reply. If I have erred, please help me correct my argument.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The “source or origin” meaning the group doing the donating does matter, but the physical creation of the thing is irrelevant. A Dollar isn’t a “secular thing” or a “religious thing”—it’s just a thing.
Things-which-can-be-donated cannot be secular or religious, but people and organizations can, the way I see it.
I’m not sure that I am the right authority to be correcting anyone’s argument—the above comments are just my, an amateur rationalist’s, personal response to your argument.
I’m not sure that I am the right authority to be correcting anyone’s argument—the above comments are just my, an amateur rationalist’s, personal response to your argument.
Fortunately there are no authoritative sources of knowledge and all claims may be challenged. I’ve had fingers wagged my way here for quoting Karl Popper, so instead I’ll suggest a few links 12345 from my blog.
I don’t have time at the moment so I’ll have to check those out later.
At a very quick skim I saw:
“Tradition is – apart from inborn knowledge – by far the most important source of our knowledge.”
Which I must say irks me real badly, but I’ll try to keep an open mind.
At the risk of inviting bias, may I ask what the justification for the finger-wagging was? I am unfamiliar with Popper (which is sort of nice, actually. blank slate)
I’m not sure what you mean about religious groups’ aid being secular. It seems like you are saying medicine and food are “secular” things, while prayer is a “religious” thing. Sure you can’t pray money into existence, so it’s sort of a “secular thing”, but the useful question is really who is giving the thing, not how it came to be.
The issue at hand is what organization is at the source of the charitable donations—a secular organization or a religious one. That’s a question that is worth asking. Whether or not the aid they are giving has been originally created by a god, magic or science isn’t really important for this question.
I didn’t downvote you, but I suspect whoever did shared this reasoning.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
First, you say both that the source or origin does matter and that the source or origin does not matter. Which is it?
Second, as I said in my original post, “help where help is most effective or meets your needs best.”
Thank you for your reply. If I have erred, please help me correct my argument.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. The “source or origin” meaning the group doing the donating does matter, but the physical creation of the thing is irrelevant. A Dollar isn’t a “secular thing” or a “religious thing”—it’s just a thing.
Things-which-can-be-donated cannot be secular or religious, but people and organizations can, the way I see it.
I’m not sure that I am the right authority to be correcting anyone’s argument—the above comments are just my, an amateur rationalist’s, personal response to your argument.
Fortunately there are no authoritative sources of knowledge and all claims may be challenged. I’ve had fingers wagged my way here for quoting Karl Popper, so instead I’ll suggest a few links 1 2 3 4 5 from my blog.
I don’t have time at the moment so I’ll have to check those out later.
At a very quick skim I saw:
Which I must say irks me real badly, but I’ll try to keep an open mind.
At the risk of inviting bias, may I ask what the justification for the finger-wagging was? I am unfamiliar with Popper (which is sort of nice, actually. blank slate)