Excuse me? Scientific fundamentalism?

Sorry, but if there is some weird retardation of science being practiced somehwere, that does not like to be challenged, I'd like to 'see' it, as you do. Seems as though if it didnt accept challenges, it wouldn't be science, by any definition I know of the term.

Science, by definition, demands to be challenged. That is the process through which it makes progress. There is no stubborn belief in science, and scientists are always ready to change their mind. It only takes one thing for that to happen: evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, is quite the opposite - unchanging no matter what discoveries about the world are made. That is a very dangerous and stupid way to be.

The most amazing gift humans have been given, the gift we use every day, the gift you are using to read and type right now, is that of critical thinking and reason. Science is simply the natural extension of that method of thinking. Faith, by contrast, demands suspension of critical thinking. Even though you rely on evidence and logic for every other problem you encounter in your life, the moment it comes to possibly the most important questions (that of the nature of the universe and life), that process is abandonded.

What sounds more fundamentalist to you?

It always strikes me as deeply paradoxical when religiously sympathetic “thinkers” begin their wonderfully rational arguments from profoundly irrational premises (e.g., that there exists an omnipotent being that pervades our entire existence and universe, providing unequivocal answers to questions of truth, beauty and goodness – fundamentally HUMAN concepts). If you, Mr Perrottet, have any regard for questions of legitimacy when it comes to making logical deductions and inductions, you may want to spend some time thinking critically about your premises first. Otherwise you risk fostering a culture in which dogmatic assertions are accepted – and not challenged as they should be – as regular fixtures of debate. The overwhelming problem with faith (all faith) is that it demands – by its very nature – the suspension of critical thought; that is to say, the suspension of rationality. Instead of fostering a culture in which people are encouraged to ask critical questions, such as why a small cluster of cells should warrant anything near the same ethical consideration as a sentient adult human (or non-human animal) cable of feeling and suffering, people are encouraged to blindly accept the word of doctrine. For Christians, doctrine is based on an almost incomprehensibly naïve belief: namely, that the rambling proclamations of a man who lived 2000 years ago to the effect that he was the son of an omnipotent being were and remain true! What kind of premise is this to begin logical argument?! You can’t pick and choose when to be rational when you’re living in Phantasmagoria. You certainly can’t decide to stand on your logical high horse and rationally deconstruct the bizarre premises of other religions, such as Scientology. And you even forfeit your right to criticise the actions of religiously inspired terrorists. For the beliefs of Scientologists and Martyrs, like all good Christians, are simply a matter of faith, not reason. So until, Mr Perrottet, you gain the courage to stand on your own two feet, think through ethical questions philosophically and question the logical and ethical validity of your own deepest faith, your wonderfully logical arguments will forever remain self-defeating.

hmm, three articles on the same thing, albeit different viewpoints. Wonder which one will win the post count?

Faith vs. Reason. An old argument but not exactly a total dichotomy.
Everyone has some degree of faith in something, even if it isn't a God. One would have to know all there is to know about everything in order not to have a belief or some faith somewhere.
So the anti-faith scientism worshippers should not feel so inflated, nor should the holier-than-thou followers of a sub-division of a sub-denomination think themselves superior either.
One who reasons generally doesn't argue against the faith of another without having investigated it themselves. One who has faith generally does not feel threatened by those who endeavour to reason.

The church has every right to participate in public debate about key policy issues, especially those with a moral flavour.

The church also has the right to counsel and correct its own members in matters of conscience and faith.

Where is crosses the line inexcusably, in my view, is in using the second prerogative to try to coerce members with political influence into furthering its agenda in the public policy arena, especially if this runs against their own consciences. This is the church at its bullying, authoritarian narrow worst.

Members of Parliament have their own obligations to represent their constituents, promote policies they believe right and proper and make decisions based on the community interest. They are emphatically not in Parliament to represent their faith, whatever that may be. By trying to subvert these obligations and responsibilities Pell is trying to make his flock behave unethically.

“Catholics who deny basic tenets of their faith do not have very well-formed consciences.” What breathtaking arrogance, as well as setting up beautifully a circular argument – any conscience which contradicts dogma is a faulty conscience and cannot be relied upon.

'Donnie' provides an apt demonstration of shaky philosophical premises, adopting the agnostic, compromising, fence-sitting, 'I’m so open-minded and ultra-tolerant of all types of knowledge so I must be right” approach – though I’m still going to use logic and rationality to argue my case because deep down I know that this is the only form of argument that isn’t self-defeating.

Your core idea that “One would have to know all there is to know about everything in order not to have a belief or some faith somewhere” is deeply flawed and indicative of the typical agnostic mindset. You think that because one cannot disprove the existence of God or whatever, then one should adopt the position of a modest suspension of critique: ‘well I can’t disprove it, so I guess I should entertain the idea that it might exist…’. But if you follow this line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion, you would be required to maintain a modest suspension of critique with regard to ALL faith-based ideas – even those held by religiously motivated terrorists: you can’t DISPROVE that their actions are the will of Allah, so therefore you must entertain the idea that their claims MIGHT be true.

Furthermore, advocating a healthy scepticism that is derivative of the critical-logical mindset does not equate to reductionist scientism. What is being advocated by supporters of reason is that all positive statements of knowledge (e.g. this is wrong, this is true, this is beautiful, etc) are premised on either evidence or reasoned argument; not necessarily scientific argument, but PHILOSOPHICAL argument based on reason and/or supportive evidence. So reasoning people are happy to spend time and energy arguing against the evidence and arguments of other reasoning people – that is the essence of the intellectual conscience; but why should a reasoning person bother seriously investigating the “faith” of a person whose views are wilfully derived from anthropomorphic fantasy and dogma, and who would be unwilling to engage in debate about their faith (given the very meaning of faith) in any case?

LSH, what you yourself demonstrate is a hasty jump to a conclusion based on limited facts. You have built me up as some sort of agnostic fence sitter. You've even dreamt up what i think and what my line of reasoning would be on the subject of God. Yet all you have is the one or two lines of text i wrote above, or perhaps you have read all my previous posts first to try and really investigate what i might think (but i doubt it), and even then i reckon you'd still not have sufficient facts to predict my thinking, given i'm prone to a bit of irony and tongue in cheek at times, and i've been known to change my mind now and then also.
So why would you assert knowledge of something (ie what i think and believe) without enough "evidence"? I thought that is what you are criticizing of the religious?
It seems you argue on the side of reason but do not employ reason.

"why should a reasoning person bother seriously investigating the “faith” of a person whose views are wilfully derived from anthropomorphic fantasy and dogma?"
Well if you presuppose such a derivation you wouldn't bother would you? But if you didn't make such a presupposition, you might find reason to investigate.

"and who would be unwilling to engage in debate about their faith (given the very meaning of faith) in any case?"
Given that faith is a sort of "sureness" about something with or without supporting facts, maybe someone who is strong in faith is not so much unwilling to engage in debate, but moreso they probably don't feel any need to engage in debate. ie they have no need to defend their beliefs, nor any desire to prove them. That's my speculation anyway.