Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

Show Notes for Episode 154

Posted by Ethan Clow on February 22, 2012

Radio Freethinker Episode 154 – C-30 and Vic Toews, CAM in Oz, Vatican loses Tax-Exempt status, and Legislating Morality?

Download the Episode Here!

Skeptical News:

C-30 and Vic Toews

Australian Universities Defend Alternative-Medicine Teaching

Vatican loses Tax-Exempt status on commercial property

Topics:

Legislating Morality

Skeptical Highlights:

Brother Guy Consolmagno

H.R. MacMillan Space Centre

Feb. 25, 2012, 7:30 pm

The Vatican astronomer and planetary scientist lectures on how science and religion handle changes in our understanding of reality

http://stmarkscollege.ca/townlecture/.

The third annual Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 7:30pm
What is the Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown?
It’s fun and challenging! But more specifically it is a British-style pub-quiz focussing on critical thinking and scientific topics. It occurs every year in multiple locations across Canada with local and national bragging rights at stake. It’s happening at the Billy Bishop Legion in Vancouver.

Facebook Event here

About these ads

3 Responses to “Show Notes for Episode 154”

  1. After listening to the skeptical highlights for episode 154, I have an opposing view on your comments regarding ‘Brother Guy’. I don’t remember who specifically mentioned it, but basically the thought was that a representative of the church being apologetic came too many years too late and that the church wasn’t apologetic when they were doing their wrongs. While I agree that the church has been responsible for many unpleasant things in the past, those living today are neither responsible for those events so far in the past, nor should they be held accountable for them. Perhaps instead, they should be expected to improve their current ways and work to prevent misguided actions, especially harmful ones, from occurring in the future.

    I feel this is especially true given that, it appears at least, some from theologic community are coming forward to say, “Hey, maybe we are/were wrong, but we’re willing to change and move forward.”

    For the record, I think all theology is ‘woo-woo’ and I don’t support any religious group directly. However, I think that allowing ourselves to move on towards a better future and allowing others to do the same is a wise approach.

    Otherwise, I love the show, guys. Keep up the good work!

    • I could not agree more. It was not fair of us, nor did we truly intended to say “too little too late”. We sometimes get caught up in the skeptic short hand. It is great that at least some (most?) of the religiously inclined accept at least some (most?) of the tenets of science.

      However, I think the implied (obviously not clearly implied) was not to condemn the church THEN. What they did then was wrong, but the specifics of the instance can be excused. We are not really worried about them THEN, at least beyond historical interest.

      Why we bring the past up is to point to the systemic faults that caused the error and that, in our opinion, will allow similar abuses to reoccur in the future. Of course, apologists are not worried about the THEN either.

      Why our comments were ungenerous is because what apologist do is to excuse the instance of error while maintaining (and often re-enforcing) the mechanisms that caused the error/abuse in the first place…in this case largely dogma.

      What they say is “look we got this wrong, sorry, let’s just forget it and move on”…that’s co-dependency and will ultimately no progress is made…errors/abused will be repeated.

      What they should be saying, and I think this is what you just said, is “look we got this wrong because we have an inflexible belief system. We need to change that otherwise we will make the same mistake in the future. He is one way maybe we can do that….”

      Thanks for the input.

      Don

      • Precisely! ‘Forgiving’ is good, ‘forgetting’, to the extent that it allows repeated behavior, is not. I trust you had the right thought in mind. :-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 302 other followers