Faith is a virtue...It should be the enemy instead.

[Prodigy54321]

I've been thinking recently about faith. I'm talking specifically about belief that is not based on evidence. It seems that this silly idea of faith as a virtue is widely accepted..even heroic characters in film and such are often made out to be virtuous because of their faith in something.

faith will always work out just like it does in poker...you may take 2:1 on you money that you will hit the flush with one card to some becuase (like most poker players /images/graemlins/grin.gif) you have a feeling that the flush is coming...you have faith...and just like in any other situation, you may win, but as we all know, this faith has a negative expectation....the problem is that faith is most other contexts doesn't just hurt you, it hurts others...and supporting the idea that faith as being a virtue hurts others exponentially...

I've never been a big fan of faith and I look at people who support this idea of faith as fools, but I have never considered them to be evil in any way.

but I'm beginning to think that supporters of the idea of faith are worthy of being despised more than any other group of people. This idea of faith should be the enemy of all people..it is liable to cause more harm and pain than ANY other idea in the history of mankind (and for all time)..decisions made with respect to faith rather than evidence will always be more likely to lead to an outcome that was not the intention of the decision maker.

surely even christians see how muslims' faith in their religion is harmful to the world...but you cannot just say that THAT faith is immoral..

christians believe that christian faith is good..muslims believe that muslim faith is good..there is no way to distinguish between the two..

a truly unbiased religious person will see that these different faith's negate eachother as far as arguments as to validity are concerned and will toss faith to the wind and evaluate the religions based on evidence rather than faith.

faith is all the same...although faith in a specific outcome may indeed be beneficial, it CANNOT help a person come to any conclusion..so whether the outcome is beneficial or not is irrelevent....and when people claim that their faith has brought them to a comclusion..it should have zero respect and zero credability

If there IS a "goal" for mankind or any intelligent being, it is to destroy faith...and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith

[/endrant] obviously

[reb]

Faith is obviously not the issue here, having faith in a belief that is discriminating and harmful, interfering with other people in a negative way are. I cannot see how having faith in a personal belief that does neither of these things and bring you peace of mind can be counter-productive or otherwise be bad, also pushing certain beliefs unto others is obviously bad, but faith alone is not, it only depends on what you have faith in.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Which do you value more, truth or some notion that makes you feel good?

And if the two are not in perfect alignment then how can the latter not be harmful at some point?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is obviously not the issue here, having faith in a belief that is discriminating and harmful, interfering with other people in a negative way are. I cannot see how having faith in a personal belief that does neither of these things and bring you peace of mind can be counter-productive or otherwise be bad, also pushing certain beliefs unto others is obviously bad, but faith alone is not, it only depends on what you have faith in.

[/ QUOTE ]

if your desire is an action that is the least "discriminating and harmful, interfering with other people in a negative way", having faith in what leads you to take that action undermines your desire.

there is no way to evaluate faith...expecially as it relates to evidence, but faith frequently undermines evidence.

certain beliefs infuence further beliefs..

you might say that a personal faith based belief in a god that is personal does not hurt anyone, but as we all know, beliefs like this one can and do harm others....when evaluating further decision, you don't stray from this faith based belief, you use it as a basis to make other decisions...(and with religious beliefs, you CANNOT stray from the initial faith based belief...it demends that you consider it when making decisions)

my major beef is not necessarily with specific faith based beliefs, but rather the widespread admiration for the "faithful"...as if it is some admirable quality...

[Prodigy54321]

relating to several comments made basically saying that since faith is a virtue, god does not clearly reveal himself because then faith wouldn't be why people believe in him....a question..

surely he must know that faith based belief is harmful to his creatures (in all other situation other than belief in Him obviously)..why would he support such a thing?

it seems that he is sacrificing the well being of humans in order fulfill some arbitrary desire to have people believe in him because of faith rather than evidence.

that seems pretty evil to me

[SleeperHE]

[ QUOTE ]

and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith

[/endrant] obviously

[/ QUOTE ]

So if someone has faith they should be hated? I'm having a hard time understanding how you arrive at this conclusion? Really is hatred the end goal here? Faith may not be a virtue to you; but is not the right to religious freedom of utmost importance. Wouldn't you agree that everyone should be able to live as they see fit, as long is it does no harm to their neighbor?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
So if someone has faith they should be hated? I'm having a hard time understanding how you arrive at this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said IF because I do not necessarily think that anyone shoud be hated..

but if one were to decide that they "hate" a murderer that say, has killed 10 people for what we would consider to be no good reason...then I would say that a supporter of faith should be hated as well..

they support a belief system that (besides being irrational) has and will for all time be responsible for much more pain, death, other false beliefs, and many other things we would deem negative than anything some murderer could do in his lifetime...

a person who has faith that there is a god..and this god would not want us to do certain stem cell research because these embryos has "souls", and helps to stop this research from happening, I would say is to be despised because they are partially responsible for a lot of pain, suffering, and death. *I don't really know much about stem cell research, but I'm pretty sure this accurately get's my point across

[ QUOTE ]
Really is hatred the end goal here?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, the goal is a world without faith

[ QUOTE ]
Faith may not be a virtue to you; but is not the right to religious freedom of utmost importance

[/ QUOTE ]

we don't allow people to make human sacrifices (and most animal sacrifices I believe) just because of their religion...

that's not to say that people should not be legally allowed to hold faith based beliefs, but their opinions on any subject, which may be influenced by this faith based belef, should not be considered as reasonable by anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't you agree that everyone should be able to live as they see fit, as long is it does no harm to their neighbor?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, and I don't believe that is in conflict with my position

[morphball]

The idea of "faith" is simply a euphemism for allowing sheep to feel good about the fact that they are incapable (or unwilling) to think for themselves.

[RJT]

Not quite your point, but just a thought that occurred to me with your post:

When one relies on odds, in poker for example, isn’t one really having faith in odds? When we act according to pot odds, we are relying on the odds working out. In the short run, if we are the favorite - or have the odds to act - we are not guaranteed it works out.

Sure, in the long run (who’s to say how long the long run is) it isn’t faith - the odds will work out.

But, in the short run, aren’t we really relying on faith in odds?

[Prodigy54321]

we have solid evidence of what the odds of a certain event occurring are..this is a belief based on evidence...

I don't quite know what you mean when comparing the short run to the long run...I'm no poker pro (or probability pro)..I am a fairly low level STT player (lol donkaments)..but I don't believe the short run and long run are any different in the ways which would make what you are saying true.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Not quite your point, but just a thought that occurred to me with your post:

When one relies on odds, in poker for example, isn’t one really having faith in odds? When we act according to pot odds, we are relying on the odds working out. In the short run, if we are the favorite - or have the odds to act - we are not guaranteed it works out.

Sure, in the long run (who’s to say how long the long run is) it isn’t faith - the odds will work out.

But, in the short run, aren’t we really relying on faith in odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I'm not betting on a hand with faith I will win, I'm betting because I have to make a choice, and I am using evidence to make that choice. I don't see how this is relevant to faith at all. Its almost like the ludicrous argument that says "This is a one-time only situation, the long-run won't happen." You don't do it because it will even out in the long run, you do it because it is the more likely to result in a positive outcome in EVERY trial.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
If there IS a "goal" for mankind or any intelligent being, it is to destroy faith...and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you like literally foaming at the mouth when you wrote this?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
but if one were to decide that they "hate" a murderer that say, has killed 10 people for what we would consider to be no good reason...then I would say that a supporter of faith should be hated as well..

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think faith should be criminalized?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not quite your point, but just a thought that occurred to me with your post:

When one relies on odds, in poker for example, isn’t one really having faith in odds? When we act according to pot odds, we are relying on the odds working out. In the short run, if we are the favorite - or have the odds to act - we are not guaranteed it works out.

Sure, in the long run (who’s to say how long the long run is) it isn’t faith - the odds will work out.

But, in the short run, aren’t we really relying on faith in odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I'm not betting on a hand with faith I will win, I'm betting because I have to make a choice, and I am using evidence to make that choice. I don't see how this is relevant to faith at all. Its almost like the ludicrous argument that says "This is a one-time only situation, the long-run won't happen." You don't do it because it will even out in the long run, you do it because it is the more likely to result in a positive outcome in EVERY trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am mostly “thinking aloud” here. I mean it is kind of like “results oriented” play. When we talk about bad beats and such. Yeah, I got it all in with AA against QQ and lost. I should have won. I relied on odds. I had faith in odds.

I lost this one time, even though I “should have” won. Well, let’s do that 100 times and I will make money in the long run.

So, I was just thinking that in the short run of things we often rely on our “faith” in odds.

I am not really going anywhere with this - like I said, I was just thinking aloud - trying to see if the thought can go anywhere. Guess not.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there IS a "goal" for mankind or any intelligent being, it is to destroy faith...and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you like literally foaming at the mouth when you wrote this?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I admitted it was a pretty mindless rant /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if one were to decide that they "hate" a murderer that say, has killed 10 people for what we would consider to be no good reason...then I would say that a supporter of faith should be hated as well..

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think faith should be criminalized?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, I suppose that just as with most things, the actual act which is harmful to others is the only thing that could/should actually be criminalized...this could involve simply endangering others..like not installing smoke detectors because you have faith that the building won't catch on fire...(I'm sure the ACers probably wouldn't see a problem with this /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but I'm assuming our current society)

I see this more a moral thing..for the betterment of humanity (and if I get a response about how there is no morality without God I'm going to go insane /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I lost this one time, even though I “should have” won.

[/ QUOTE ]

but this isn't true

you "should" win roughly 80% of the time (now I am obviously not a poker pro since I'm sure it's more like 81% or 79% or 75% with a 4% chance of splitting or something /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

you should just play with Sklansky Bucks...there are no short and long runs /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

Riddle, riddle. What's the difference between faith and expectation?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Riddle, riddle. What's the difference between faith and expectation?

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much everything? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[John21]

Faith is simply believing in something without the evidence or proof to support that belief.

Faith is what a theoritical physicist uses when he talks about super-string theory.
Faith is what an astro-physicist uses when he talks about the singularity from which the big bang emanated.

I know faith has been used and abused, but it's also contributed untold value to mankind. If faith causes someone to completely reject established facts and truths - then it's wrong. But if is used to explore the unknown - it's the only way for science and mankind to advance.

Faith is not the culprit - the true culprit is the use and/or misuse of faith.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Riddle, riddle. What's the difference between faith and expectation?

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much everything? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. One can be measured, the other cannot. But the range values for each approach are the same.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is what a theoritical physicist uses when he talks about super-string theory.
Faith is what an astro-physicist uses when he talks about the singularity from which the big bang emanated.


[/ QUOTE ]

how are either of these faith?

1) they are to some degree supported by evidence..
2) what does talking about these things have to do with faith...that doesn't mean that they believe it to be true
3) for most scientists, there is no belief associated with these things...it is not an either/or proposition and there is nothing forcing them to "believe" in something...most scientists are comfortable with dealing with the "likelihood" that such a theory is true based not on faith, but on evidence.

if someone were to believe that one of them was definitely true, not because it has been proven, but because they had a "feeling" or had "faith" that it is true, then yes, it would be frowned upon and this person should have no credability on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
I know faith has been used and abused, but it's also contributed untold value to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain..I doubt there is evidence that it has "contributed untold value to mankind"..so I guess we should have faith that this is the case...I can't see how that would help.

[ QUOTE ]
But if is used to explore the unknown - it's the only way for science and mankind to advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is this..I guess it would be true if your two statements above were true, but they are not...exploring questions of science are not matters of faith..you don't need to blindly believe something in order to examine it and find out whether or not it is the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is not the culprit - the true culprit is the use and/or misuse of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is no good use of faith..they are all misuses

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
But the range values for each approach are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain..I am confused but intrigued /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

The probabilities for a result never get under 0 or over 1.

Faith's just less effort-intensive. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

When you take on both problems, weird probabilities happen. But, still, it's 0-1.

[David Sklansky]

He screwed up an otherwise excellent post by bringing up the word "hate". So you win that point. Now would you care to comment for the crux of what he was saying?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
The probabilities for a result never get under 0 or over 1.

Faith's just less effort-intensive. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

When you take on both problems, weird probabilities happen. But, still, it's 0-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm not sure why I didn't see that..over 3000 posts and I'm still a moran

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't you agree that everyone should be able to live as they see fit, as long is it does no harm to their neighbor?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like Christian lawmakers who decide I can't play poker because god thinks it's wrong?

Or Christians who think a gay couple should be discriminated against because their god justifies their prejudice?

Or Muslims who treat women like crap because their god says that's how it's supposed to be?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
He screwed up an otherwise excellent post by bringing up the word "hate". So you win that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

as I already explained above..

[ QUOTE ]
I said IF because I do not necessarily think that anyone shoud be hated..

but if one were to decide that they "hate" a murderer that say, has killed 10 people for what we would consider to be no good reason...then I would say that a supporter of faith should be hated as well..

they support a belief system that (besides being irrational) has and will for all time be responsible for much more pain, death, other false beliefs, and many other things we would deem negative than anything some murderer could do in his lifetime...

a person who has faith that there is a god..and this god would not want us to do certain stem cell research because these embryos has "souls", and helps to stop this research from happening, I would say is to be despised because they are partially responsible for a lot of pain, suffering, and death. *I don't really know much about stem cell research, but I'm pretty sure this accurately get's my point across


[/ QUOTE ]

although this may be off since...you may not consider letting someone die when you could saving them (depending on the cost to you) as the same as killing them

and some other things, but this is basically the only reason I used "hate"...I guess I should have used "despise" like I did throughout..but as IronUnkind already pointed out..I was foaming at the mouth as I typed that sentence /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bunny]

Very good post, although I dont think faith is the problem. I think it is people allowing their faith to overcome their sense of what is morally right.

I seem to be alone in this view, but I dont regard religion as about ethics - I think it's a metaphysical question. So if you have faith that God exists, I dont see that causing any problem - I dont see any objectiv evidence for or against god's existence and if you want to form a view using faith that's up to you. If you have faith that God exists and that it is right for you to murder the infidel, then I think you actually have evidence against your view - namely your own moral values.

I'm kinda agreeing with you, but I think the problem is thinking that faith can answer an ethical problem, I dont think there is any harm caused from using faith to answer the "does god exist?" question.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
He screwed up an otherwise excellent post by bringing up the word "hate". So you win that point. Now would you care to comment for the crux of what he was saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

"If there IS a "goal" for mankind or any intelligent being, it is to destroy faith...and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith."


There’s the rub - in the context of the OP, there is no “goal” for mankind. Any point to the OP then is moot.

[FortunaMaximus]

There are goals. There is no endpoint.

A very slight difference, but I happen to think it matters.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
..so whether the outcome is beneficial or not is irrelevent....and when people claim that their faith has brought them to a comclusion..it should have zero respect and zero credability

[/ QUOTE ]

that's about how I do react to it. Even to the low level "wearing my lucky shirt, so I called" type.
It's like the blind spot in our eye and male nipples, it's a left-over from construction issues in evolution. It seems like our pattern-recognition skill misfiring along side our cause-and-effect view of things. Normally very useful, but faith is where we pay for it.

luckyme

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Very good post, although I dont think faith is the problem. I think it is people allowing their faith to overcome their sense of what is morally right.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might as well say Muslim fundamentalists would be great people, if they didn't want to kill Christians. Their faith is where their twisted sense of morality comes from in the first place.

IMO this oft-repeated argument that "faith isn't really the problem" is a dangerous nod to political correctness, and it ignores the obvious. Faith is absolutely the problem. It is completely irrational and leads people to do irrational things, like fly planes into skyscrapers because an invisible spirit wants them to.

[bunny]

I agree with what you are saying but I think what you are referring to is more than faith. What I mean by faith is believing something where there is no evidence for or against. I think the suicide bombers/abortion clinic bombers/etc are believing something for which they have evidence against - ie their moral faculties. Quibbling perhaps, but I think the distinction means something.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You might as well say Muslim fundamentalists would be great people, if they didn't want to kill Christians. Their faith is where their twisted sense of morality comes from in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they would be great people. I think their faith overrides their morality (which is where I think the problem lies).

[ QUOTE ]
IMO this oft-repeated argument that "faith isn't really the problem" is a dangerous nod to political correctness, and it ignores the obvious. Faith is absolutely the problem. It is completely irrational and leads people to do irrational things, like fly planes into skyscrapers because an invisible spirit wants them to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm no fan of political correctness, I can assure you. I happen to believe faith and rationality can coexist - I just dont think many people do it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the suicide bombers/abortion clinic bombers/etc are believing something for which they have evidence against - ie their moral faculties.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they would be great people. I think their faith overrides their morality (which is where I think the problem lies).


[/ QUOTE ]

it isn't that they faith is overriding their morality, it is that their faith is the BASIS for their morality

if they could come to their morality through rational means..it would be very different, but their faith in God influences their morality.

christians suffer from the same thing

christians don't fight against gay marriage even though their morality knows that it is ridiculous..they fight against it because truly believe that it is wrong...their faith in God dictates their morality

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to believe faith and rationality can coexist - I just dont think many people do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you don't mean simultaneously. Humpty had it right, "it's a matter of who's the master." If faith never steps up in charge then it's much more benign, but it's usually claimed as the lead chair.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

Talking egg, coffee mug, it's all in how entropy is explained. Some versions just make for better omelets.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
it isn't that they faith is overriding their morality, it is that their faith is the BASIS for their morality

if they could come to their morality through rational means..it would be very different, but their faith in God influences their morality.

christians suffer from the same thing

christians don't fight against gay marriage even though their morality knows that it is ridiculous..they fight against it because truly believe that it is wrong...their faith in God dictates their morality

[/ QUOTE ]
Well this is where I seem to be alone. I dont think faith says anything about morality, despite the fact that the faithful say that it does. I think they have a moral faculty that's telling them they are wrong, which is why I think it is more than faith - faith is believing with no evidence, not believing contrary to evidence - the latter is indefensible in my view.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I happen to believe faith and rationality can coexist - I just dont think many people do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you don't mean simultaneously. Humpty had it right, "it's a matter of who's the master." If faith never steps up in charge then it's much more benign, but it's usually claimed as the lead chair.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
As I define it I dont think faith is irrational(ie I do mean simultaneously). I dont think it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, nor is it rational (is arrational a meaningful concept?)

When faced with a question for which there is no evidence, you may adopt the view of being undecided or you may believe a particular answer on faith. Neither of these is more rational than the other.

[Lestat]

Good post.

While faith certainly can be a substitute for thinking, it nevertheless has played a very necessary role in human evolution. Without faith, we wouldn't be where we are today. That's at least worth keeping in mind.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> When faced with a question for which there is no evidence, you may adopt the view of being undecided or you may believe a particular answer on faith. Neither of these is more rational than the other.
</font>

I agree with this 100%. The problem comes in when you add gullibility.

When faced with an unanswerable question, it is human nature to form some type of belief about it. As I stated previously, this was most likely an evolutionary necessity. What is totally unnecessary is to extend a faith to include grandiouse fabrications in the answer. Of course, I'm talking about however many virgins await, burning bushes, people coming back from the dead, etc.

When faith is extended to include the unwarranted and unbelievable, you enter the realm of brainwashing. This is where immorality begins. Uh, and that's YOUR version of morality. The the brainwashed, they are acting on completely justifiable moral principles.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there IS a "goal" for mankind or any intelligent being, it is to destroy faith...and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you like literally foaming at the mouth when you wrote this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was the only blemish in his post. No reason to hate OR destroy faith. Just eliminate the brainwashing, and educate the gullible. That would suffice.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
He screwed up an otherwise excellent post by bringing up the word "hate". So you win that point. Now would you care to comment for the crux of what he was saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your standards of excellence must be lower than mine. When his post is not venomous, it is prosaic. Part of the problem is semantic. Faith just doesn't mean the same thing in all contexts, so the bells of conspiracy need not toll every time the word is used. The faith of literature and film is usually not the same one that causes a roulette player to bet his last nickel on his lucky number. But even if it were, it's pretty silly to let it annoy you. Anyone who can't tell the difference between Maverick and Matusow shouldn't be allowed to go to the movies.

Anyhow, the wheels come off about halfway through the post when he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
but I'm beginning to think that supporters of the idea of faith are worthy of being despised more than any other group of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I need not catalogue the examples which defeat this silly thought.

[ QUOTE ]
surely even christians see how muslims' faith in their religion is harmful to the world...but you cannot just say that THAT faith is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite sure that their faith, or more properly, faithfulness, is not the problem. And here, in fact, he presents a good example of why faith is morally neutral.

Now, I don't know enough about Islam to comment on the harmfulness of its tenets. But for the sake of argument, let us say that it explicitly advocates suicide bombing. Well, I can assure you, my scattered limbs won't be able to tell you if it was cold logic or manic hysteria which drove my attacker. And they won't much care. His problem is with the ideology, not the manner in which its adherents approach it. Blaming faithfulness for 9/11 is like blaming intelligence for Hiroshima.

[ QUOTE ]
although faith in a specific outcome may indeed be beneficial, it CANNOT help a person come to any conclusion..so whether the outcome is beneficial or not is irrelevent....and when people claim that their faith has brought them to a comclusion..it should have zero respect and zero credability

[/ QUOTE ]

No brilliant insights here, but I agree that people shouldn't draw to inside straights because "it feels right." This is a faith not borne out by the facts. But there are plenty of mundane example where faith does serve us well.

A suckling baby, for instance, trusts its mother even without the aid of empirical evidence. And our faith that a television will work will allow us to enjoy Star Trek even if we think a cathode ray is what comes out of a Spock's phaser.

"But you're changing things," you say. "One has faith that a television works because his logic tells him that past experience can be trusted."

Quite so, but this only illustrates why faith can't be anathematized. Some of its forms derive from logic.

What of that other kind of faith? The faith that doesn't spring from from experience, but appears ex nihilo in the heads of the "irrational"? Well now we are getting into the dark waters of epistemology, and we do well to point out the problem of underdetermination threatens all of our precious axioms.

If any of us dares to decend far enough down the ladder of justification, we either end up at (potentially) arbitrary foundations (fundamental axioms) or fall into an abyss of infinite regress (robust skepticism). Either way, faith is not injured any more than, say, the scientific method. It is quite reasonable to say, then, that Faith is not Reason's enemy, but rather Reason's matrix.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
..Just eliminate the brainwashing, and educate the gullible. That would suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suffice for what? The goal that FM talks about? What is that goal?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
..Just eliminate the brainwashing, and educate the gullible. That would suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suffice for what? The goal that FM talks about? What is that goal?

[/ QUOTE ]
The op says that if there is a goal its to eliminate faith. Which of course is a statement of faith.

I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[Did something similar with puzo's last book and was let down, in his defense he was dead at the time].

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite sure that their faith, or more properly, faithfulness, is not the problem. And here, in fact, he presents a good example of why faith is morally neutral.


[/ QUOTE ]

no, that is not the argument I made...

faith about two possibilities like christianity and islam is ACTUALLY neutral when considering only faith as our means of coming to conlcusions....as I said, there is no way to come to any conclusion based on faith can always be countered by faith in the opposite position...

but when you intoroduce faith to matters which are even slightly supported one way or the other by evidence, you will always be less likely to come to the correct conclusion...

if the evidence for proposition A over proposition B is 90% (or even 100% actually)...then introducing faith into this matter..you will (even if the "faith" is evenly split between propositions), this percentage will drop...and since there is no way of guaging strength of "faith"...there is no limit on how much this "faith" counts towards this matter...and since matters often only cause action at a specific liklelihood of being the truth, this could affect our decisions..and it will always be more likely to be the wrong decision when we involve faith...

when other faith based biases are introduced, we almost always do NOT get an even split in what "faith" points towards..and this can do extreme damage considering that the power of this "faith" often overwhelms the evidence on the matter..

my position is not that faith is morally neutral..it is that it is never beneficial, rarely neutral, and almost always harmful.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that your "peculiar trust" in this author is actually supported by some evidence..have you read anything else by him and enjoyed it..is there any reason to believe that his style of writing or what not would change going to this book..have you seen or read an interview and have reason to believe that he is an intelligent person who would be instightful on the matter...

it brings up an interesting point that sometimes matter which may seem like faith (like your peculiar trust)..may actually be supported in some way by evidence, but we simply don't understand ourselves fully enough to realize this.

if your "peculiar trust" IS simply a matter of faith, then wouldn't you agree that your likelihood of actually "being glad I[you] read it" is less likely to be sufficient for you to actually decide to read it?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
A suckling baby, for instance, trusts its mother even without the aid of empirical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is instinct, not faith..the baby doesn't really even trust its mother..it doesn't have a choice

if the baby actually were aware enough to evaluate the evidence (and could choose whether or not to trust his mother), this bably could still come to the conclusion that his mother should be trusted...if the baby doesn't trust his mother he will most likely die.

and by the time that the child actually begins making decisions, there is usually good reason to believe that he cn trust his mother (and he also largely depends on her)

[Grisgra]

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
--Kurt Vonnegut

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
--Mark Twain

We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
--Bertrand Russell

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I need not catalogue the examples which defeat this silly thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

feel free to give examples..I don't doubt that there are many..

but that is not the point...see my post above where I address why faith is NOT morally neutral

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The op says that if there is a goal its to eliminate faith. Which of course is a statement of faith.

I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is easy to equivocate, so would the type of faith you're referring to fit the OP?
Yours seems more like an inductive one..sun rose morning so far. Author has pleased you in the past, odds are he'll please you again ( but may not).
Unsubstantiated faith would run more ... I believe this author will end up pleasing me even if he doesn't please me. Or, even though he's never pleased me in the past because this title rhymes with Willy, and I've liked books that rhymed with Willy in the past.
examples not meant to be bang-on, just to stir up an answer.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that your "peculiar trust" in this author is actually supported by some evidence..have you read anything else by him and enjoyed it..is there any reason to believe that his style of writing or what not would change going to this book..have you seen or read an interview and have reason to believe that he is an intelligent person who would be instightful on the matter...

it brings up an interesting point that sometimes matter which may seem like faith (like your peculiar trust)..may actually be supported in some way by evidence, but we simply don't understand ourselves fully enough to realize this.

if your "peculiar trust" IS simply a matter of faith, then wouldn't you agree that your likelihood of actually "being glad I[you] read it" is less likely to be sufficient for you to actually decide to read it?

[/ QUOTE ]
It a little bit of faith, certainly less then displayed in the op.

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
If there IS a "goal" for mankind or any intelligent being, it is to destroy faith...and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

upon a good night's sleep I would like to clarify my position...

[ QUOTE ]
If there IS a "goal" for mankind or any intelligent being, it is to destroy faith

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by this fully..I actually do not believe that there is a "goal" for mankind ", at least not in the sense that we would commonly think about it..but I can think of no greater cause than the cause of ridding the world of faith...I simply can't fathom any other thing that could cause as much harm as faith.

[ QUOTE ]
and if there is a person to truly be hated...it is a supporter of faith


[/ QUOTE ]

I already stated what I meant by "hate"..but I want to adjust this further...

I compared a supporter of faith as a murderer (intentionally murdered for no good reason)...

I'd like to take this back..I acknowledge that most supporters of faith are not intentionally harming others..they truly believe that it is not harmful..but beneficial instead...

is ignorance a worthy excuse?? although it may not be when talking about believing in God /images/graemlins/grin.gif..I would say that it is actually sometimes a fine excuse..at least in the context of whether or not a person should be despised or hated..

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The op says that if there is a goal its to eliminate faith. Which of course is a statement of faith.

I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is easy to equivocate, so would the type of faith you're referring to fit the OP?
Yours seems more like an inductive one..sun rose morning so far. Author has pleased you in the past, odds are he'll please you again ( but may not).
Unsubstantiated faith would run more ... I believe this author will end up pleasing me even if he doesn't please me. Or, even though he's never pleased me in the past because this title rhymes with Willy, and I've liked books that rhymed with Willy in the past.
examples not meant to be bang-on, just to stir up an answer.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Its faith that this author is aware that his readership includes people like me and will take care not to let us down. Its very different to his other books.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
--Kurt Vonnegut

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
--Mark Twain

We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.
--Bertrand Russell

[/ QUOTE ]

It's too bad Russell never hung around long enough to read this forum. He'd have to defend his view that having confidence that 2+2=4 or that the earth is round is not faith to several posters on here. RIP.

luckyme

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that your "peculiar trust" in this author is actually supported by some evidence..have you read anything else by him and enjoyed it..is there any reason to believe that his style of writing or what not would change going to this book..have you seen or read an interview and have reason to believe that he is an intelligent person who would be instightful on the matter...

it brings up an interesting point that sometimes matter which may seem like faith (like your peculiar trust)..may actually be supported in some way by evidence, but we simply don't understand ourselves fully enough to realize this.

if your "peculiar trust" IS simply a matter of faith, then wouldn't you agree that your likelihood of actually "being glad I[you] read it" is less likely to be sufficient for you to actually decide to read it?

[/ QUOTE ]
It a little bit of faith, certainly less then displayed in the op.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

if you are talking about my "goal" remark..I tried to clarify that I do not actually believe that there is a "goal" for mankind..I need to start capitalizing AND bolding by "if"s

if you are referring to other part, please quote them..

although most of it I would say there is good evidence to support..such as how faith cannot help us come to correct conslusions and how faith is never beneficial, rarely neutral,and almost always harmful..

but I admit that (at the time) it was mostly just a mindless rant.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Its faith that this author is aware that his readership includes people like me and will take care not to let us down. Its very different to his other books.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it Dennett's latest? That would fit your description.
Are you of the opinion that tentatively thinking string theory may explain quantum issues is the same 'faith' as believing there are 17 virgins waiting for me etc. ?
Words lose meaning for me when they become sweeping. I don't mind recycling them with modified definitions, but I don't see value in just adding all the definitions together.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that your "peculiar trust" in this author is actually supported by some evidence..have you read anything else by him and enjoyed it..is there any reason to believe that his style of writing or what not would change going to this book..have you seen or read an interview and have reason to believe that he is an intelligent person who would be instightful on the matter...

it brings up an interesting point that sometimes matter which may seem like faith (like your peculiar trust)..may actually be supported in some way by evidence, but we simply don't understand ourselves fully enough to realize this.

if your "peculiar trust" IS simply a matter of faith, then wouldn't you agree that your likelihood of actually "being glad I[you] read it" is less likely to be sufficient for you to actually decide to read it?

[/ QUOTE ]
It a little bit of faith, certainly less then displayed in the op.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

if you are talking about my "goal" remark..I tried to clarify that I do not actually believe that there is a "goal" for mankind..I need to start capitalizing AND bolding by "if"s

if you are referring to other part, please quote them..

although most of it I would say there is good evidence to support..such as how faith cannot help us come to correct conslusions and how faith is never beneficial, rarely neutral,and almost always harmful..

but I admit that (at the time) it was mostly just a mindless rant.

[/ QUOTE ]
you said "if there's a goal it's to eliminate faith."

That's a faith based statement, mine's "If there's a meaning to life its test cricket"

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its faith that this author is aware that his readership includes people like me and will take care not to let us down. Its very different to his other books.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it Dennett's latest? That would fit your description.
Are you of the opinion that tentatively thinking string theory may explain quantum issues is the same 'faith' as believing there are 17 virgins waiting for me etc. ?
Words lose meaning for me when they become sweeping. I don't mind recycling them with modified definitions, but I don't see value in just adding all the definitions together.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Its "Author Author" by David Lodge. I have no good reason to believe he even realises that someone who likes his works would struggle with this one. Yet I find myself believing it, which as a highly skeptical person I found strange enough to notice.

Sounds like faith to me.

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
While faith certainly can be a substitute for thinking, it nevertheless has played a very necessary role in human evolution. Without faith, we wouldn't be where we are today. That's at least worth keeping in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

although this is all just speculation, I would say that, you are right..."we wouldn't be where we are today", we would most likely be better off.

I'm not sure why you would think otherwise..

maybe you think that experimentation or action requires faith..I wouldn say that it doesn't at all..

I say "most likely" because just as faith works out, it may have contributed to innovations that, without them, we would be much worse off...but overall it is harmful..

it is like taking those bad odds and drawing out to win...if you only play once (as we do in this game of life) it may seem like a good decision...but in reality it wasn't.

[Lestat]

My only point RJT is that faith is part of human nature and I don't think it would be beneficial to eliminate it.

The problem comes in when faith is extended to include the preposterous. Of course, I'm talking about burning bushes, virgins when you die, and coming back from the dead. These are fabrications put forth by other humans to gain further control over the masses and require an element of gullibility.

In other words, if you want to postulate a god because you don't know where else the universe coudl've came from, or what it all means, that's fine. But when people start believing in things that go AGAINST their own common sense and defy logic as they know it, well... That's a problem. And that's where your immorality issues come in. To them, even the most hideous acts are justifiable and moral given what they've been led (read-- told), to believe.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading a book on faith at the moment. I'm not enjoying it and I'm not interested in the subject matter. but I've a peculiar trust in this author so I have faith that when I'm finished I'll be glad I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that your "peculiar trust" in this author is actually supported by some evidence..have you read anything else by him and enjoyed it..is there any reason to believe that his style of writing or what not would change going to this book..have you seen or read an interview and have reason to believe that he is an intelligent person who would be instightful on the matter...

it brings up an interesting point that sometimes matter which may seem like faith (like your peculiar trust)..may actually be supported in some way by evidence, but we simply don't understand ourselves fully enough to realize this.

if your "peculiar trust" IS simply a matter of faith, then wouldn't you agree that your likelihood of actually "being glad I[you] read it" is less likely to be sufficient for you to actually decide to read it?

[/ QUOTE ]
It a little bit of faith, certainly less then displayed in the op.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

if you are talking about my "goal" remark..I tried to clarify that I do not actually believe that there is a "goal" for mankind..I need to start capitalizing AND bolding by "if"s

if you are referring to other part, please quote them..

although most of it I would say there is good evidence to support..such as how faith cannot help us come to correct conslusions and how faith is never beneficial, rarely neutral,and almost always harmful..

but I admit that (at the time) it was mostly just a mindless rant.

[/ QUOTE ]
you said "if there's a goal it's to eliminate faith."

That's a faith based statement, mine's "If there's a meaning to life its test cricket"

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

alright..I assumed that by "goal" you would all assume that I meant...whatever is most beneficial to humanity..and that what is beneficial to humanity is less unnecessary death, pain, and more overall happiness...

I assumed way to much..

so my statement actually meant.. if there is a way to do "whatever is most beneficial to humanity..and that what is beneficial to humanity is less unnecessary death, pain, and more overall happiness", it is to eliminate faith...

and I stand by this...

I beleive it is true if my argument...

[ QUOTE ]
faith cannot help us come to correct conslusions and faith is never beneficial, rarely neutral,and almost always harmful..

[/ QUOTE ]

is true...(I went into detail a bunch of posts abover about why, although there are sometimes immediate benefits, I maintian that my statement is true)

here

[ QUOTE ]
faith about two possibilities like christianity and islam is ACTUALLY neutral when considering only faith as our means of coming to conlcusions....as I said, there is no way to come to any conclusion based on faith can always be countered by faith in the opposite position...

but when you intoroduce faith to matters which are even slightly supported one way or the other by evidence, you will always be less likely to come to the correct conclusion...

if the evidence for proposition A over proposition B is 90% (or even 100% actually)...then introducing faith into this matter..you will (even if the "faith" is evenly split between propositions), this percentage will drop...and since there is no way of guaging strength of "faith"...there is no limit on how much this "faith" counts towards this matter...and since matters often only cause action at a specific liklelihood of being the truth, this could affect our decisions..and it will always be more likely to be the wrong decision when we involve faith...

when other faith based biases are introduced, we almost always do NOT get an even split in what "faith" points towards..and this can do extreme damage considering that the power of this "faith" often overwhelms the evidence on the matter..

my position is not that faith is morally neutral..it is that it is never beneficial, rarely neutral, and almost always harmful.


[/ QUOTE ]

do you agree that it is valid? if not sound"

chez, you are probably much more intelligent than I am, so I'm just trying to figure out why we disagree.

[FortunaMaximus]

Even if he ain't, there's plenty to find disagreement with, within this discussion.

It's about weighing the relative values of faith and hope, and how less relevant they become as the physical nature of the Universe becomes more apparent to us.

Devalue those two concepts slightly more, with the more we know.

Just doesn't mean we'll get rid of 'em... That they make human nature the wonder that it is, and, well, certainly makes things more amusing.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez, you are probably much more intelligent than I am, so I'm just trying to figure out why we disagree.


[/ QUOTE ]
see there you go again /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

but anyway, you need to consider that faith can make people happier and doesn't neccesarily cause problems.

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its faith that this author is aware that his readership includes people like me and will take care not to let us down. Its very different to his other books.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it Dennett's latest? That would fit your description.
Are you of the opinion that tentatively thinking string theory may explain quantum issues is the same 'faith' as believing there are 17 virgins waiting for me etc. ?
Words lose meaning for me when they become sweeping. I don't mind recycling them with modified definitions, but I don't see value in just adding all the definitions together.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Its "Author Author" by David Lodge. I have no good reason to believe he even realises that someone who likes his works would struggle with this one. Yet I find myself believing it, which as a highly skeptical person I found strange enough to notice.

Sounds like faith to me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

you didn't answer my last question in my first response you,and I am curious..do you doubt that...

[ QUOTE ]
if your "peculiar trust" IS simply a matter of faith, then wouldn't you agree that your likelihood of actually "being glad I[you] read it" is less likely to be sufficient for you to actually decide to read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its faith that this author is aware that his readership includes people like me and will take care not to let us down. Its very different to his other books.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it Dennett's latest? That would fit your description.
Are you of the opinion that tentatively thinking string theory may explain quantum issues is the same 'faith' as believing there are 17 virgins waiting for me etc. ?
Words lose meaning for me when they become sweeping. I don't mind recycling them with modified definitions, but I don't see value in just adding all the definitions together.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Its "Author Author" by David Lodge. I have no good reason to believe he even realises that someone who likes his works would struggle with this one. Yet I find myself believing it, which as a highly skeptical person I found strange enough to notice.

Sounds like faith to me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

you didn't answer my last question in my first response you,and I am curious..do you doubt that...

[ QUOTE ]
if your "peculiar trust" IS simply a matter of faith, then wouldn't you agree that your likelihood of actually "being glad I[you] read it" is less likely to be sufficient for you to actually decide to read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds right. All my reason says it ain't worth me reading, yet I struggle on.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds right. All my reason says it ain't worth me reading, yet I struggle on.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Can faith turn out to be right?
I'll take the 'no it can't' position.
My belief is "there are 17 virgins waiting for me, I just know it". The actual situation turns out to be "there are 17 virgins waiting for me."

There are 1M people in a lottery, each on has faith they are going to pick the one black ball in 10,000,000 whites. One of them picks it. Was he right?

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds right. All my reason says it ain't worth me reading, yet I struggle on.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Can faith turn out to be right?
I'll take the 'no it can't' position.
My belief is "there are 17 virgins waiting for me, I just know it". The actual situation turns out to be "there are 17 virgins waiting for me."

There are 1M people in a lottery, each on has faith they are going to pick the one black ball in 10,000,000 whites. One of them picks it. Was he right?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
4 outcomes

1) wasting my time, Lodge didn't care about readers like me
2) wasting my time, Lodge did care about readers like me but it didn't help
3) enjoyed the book but not because Lodge did care
4) enjoyed the book , because Lodge did care.

Even in cases 2) and 3) you could say my faith was misplaced but that's the same as religous faith.

Basically I agree, faith isn't propositional and is nothing to do with the true of false or right or wrong. its more like humming a tune.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds right. All my reason says it ain't worth me reading, yet I struggle on.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Can faith turn out to be right?
I'll take the 'no it can't' position.
My belief is "there are 17 virgins waiting for me, I just know it". The actual situation turns out to be "there are 17 virgins waiting for me."

There are 1M people in a lottery, each on has faith they are going to pick the one black ball in 10,000,000 whites. One of them picks it. Was he right?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If he thinks it was worth the try, how is he ever wrong?

[Lestat]

Sometimes the probability of being correct is aside from the need to choose.

[Quanah Parker]

Life is a game of incomplete information.

Faith is one's best guess, in the form of a belief.

Over time Darwin sorts out the losers.

Not guessing hurts your chances for success.

Folks need to have faith and question everything.

[FortunaMaximus]

Hokay hey.

Very nice, Quanah.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Life is a game of incomplete information.
Faith is one's best guess, in the form of a belief.Over time Darwin sorts out the losers.
Not guessing hurts your chances for success.
Folks need to have faith and question everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it faith if you think it's probably not going to happen, but it's the most likely of the 21 options so we go with it? If it is then we need a new word for those 'leaps of faith' whether the standard religious ones or even mini ones like "I know snakeyes is 35-1 but I know it's happening this time, bet the farm".

luckyme

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
and by the time that the child actually begins making decisions, there is usually good reason to believe that he cn trust his mother (and he also largely depends on her)

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, I was right to draw to the inside straight After all, my card DID end up coming!

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
no, that is not the argument I made...

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Because it's the argument I was making. That you can't differentiate is troubling. Your real problem is with religion, not with faith.

[ QUOTE ]
my position is not that faith is morally neutral..it is that it is never beneficial, rarely neutral, and almost always harmful.

[/ QUOTE ]

So being right can be morally correct, and doing good can be morally wrong? Here's a riddle: If Dudley Do Right does right cuz he's dumb, does he still do right?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I know. Because it's the argument I was making. That you can't differentiate is troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

forgive me, I meant to say that my example does not support the argument you said it does...and I explained why

[ QUOTE ]
Your real problem is with religion, not with faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do have problems with religion, but I also have them with faith..which is what I am talking about in this thread

[ QUOTE ]
So being right can be morally correct, and doing good can be morally wrong? Here's a riddle: If Dudley Do Right does right cuz he's dumb, does he still do right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you got this...

what do you mean by "morally correct"?

it's not about being right or wrong...having faith in anything decreases the chances of you being right..ultimately causing more harm than good..

causing more harm than good is morally wrong..

therefore, having faith is morally wrong

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and by the time that the child actually begins making decisions, there is usually good reason to believe that he cn trust his mother (and he also largely depends on her)

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, I was right to draw to the inside straight After all, my card DID end up coming!

[/ QUOTE ]

the actual outcome does not matter...just because the card came doesn't mean that choosing to take those odds was the correct decision..aren't you a poker player?

and I already said that instinct and faith are two different things, the child's faith didn't turn out to be right anyway..he didn't have faith in it at all

[IronUnkind]

Technology increased the chances that Jews would be killed in The Holocaust.

The death of Jews is morally wrong.

Therefore, technology is morally wrong.

This is obviously not true because technology can be used for good or for evil. The Nazis used it to build the autobahn and the crematory. The only conclusion that follows logically from your premises is that faith can be dangerous, not that it is immoral.

[Lestat]

I somehow missed this reply from you. See my reply to your newer post on this subject. You are misunderstanding faith. Or at the very least, you are not considering ALL aspects of it. Faith is not just about God. It has been (and remains), a survial mechanism, which has been used by man since climbing down from the trees.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I somehow missed this reply from you. See my reply to your newer post on this subject. You are misunderstanding faith. Or at the very least, you are not considering ALL aspects of it. Faith is not just about God. It has been (and remains), a survial mechanism, which has been used by man since climbing down from the trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to address this in the other post about benefits of faith

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Technology increased the chances that Jews would be killed in The Holocaust.

The death of Jews is morally wrong.

Therefore, technology is morally wrong.

This is obviously not true because technology can be used for good or for evil. The Nazis used it to build the autobahn and the crematory. The only conclusion that follows logically from your premises is that faith can be dangerous, not that it is immoral.


[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, overall, technology has done (and will do) more good than harm...
IMO, overall, faith has done (and will do) more harm than good...

if we consider what is morally right to be doing what does more good than harm....

then if my assumptions are correct, it would me morally right to contribute to technology...but morally wrong to contribute to faith...

*but this doesn't mean much because... with both of these..they can be separated..just as you said...into more sections...for instance contributing to technology like the "bad" kinds you discussed could be considered as morally wrong..

and contributing to faith like the "good(actually neutral IMO)" kind I discussed in my other thread, could be considered as morally right(or neutral)

obviously my opinions have changed a lot over the past few days...I now disagree with many things originally said in my OP

[Matt R.]

SMP is what happens when an internet forum looks to Richard Dawkins as their foremost religious philosopher.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
SMP is what happens when an internet forum looks to Richard Dawkins as their foremost religious philosopher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read any of Dawkins' books about religion and faith...although one will soon be coming in the mail /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Matt R.]

I hope it's a good read. From what I've read about him (and from him), he's a little too over-the-top and biased for my tastes.

In your last post, I see that you stated you disagreed with many things you originally said. Out of curiosity, before I decide whether to continue or not, do you now think that faith can potentially be "good" in some instances, and is often "neutral"? By good/neutral, I mean in terms of benefit(s) for humanity in a general sense.

Note that I'm not wondering if you believe the sum total impact of faith is good/neutral. I'm just wondering if you now think specific instances of faith-based acts can potentially be good/neutral.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope it's a good read. From what I've read about him (and from him), he's a little too over-the-top and biased for my tastes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read as much by his as I would like to, but I actually feel somewhat the same way from what I have read and seen of him...

it's extrememly hard to be unbiased when you would prefer a specific outcome or effect of your action (and that's the feeling I get from him)..although not impossible..

[ QUOTE ]
In your last post, I see that you stated you disagreed with many things you originally said. Out of curiosity, before I decide whether to continue or not, do you now think that faith can potentially be "good" in some instances, and is often "neutral"? By good/neutral, I mean in terms of benefit(s) for humanity in a general sense.

Note that I'm not wondering if you believe the sum total impact of faith is good/neutral. I'm just wondering if you now think specific instances of faith-based acts can potentially be good/neutral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the sum total impact of faith is negative...but we are dealing with matters that are not exactly quantifiable..although I would say most people would agree with estimates that could lead us to this conclusion.

In my other post about a benefit of faith..I gave an unlikely situation where I would admit that faith could be neutral (possibly positive)

but I would also argue that no belief is had that does not to some degree influence action...

these actions may still be positive (or hae positive effects), but I tried to argue that since we have used "faith" to come to the conclusion that dictated this action, it will always be more likely to be the wrong action (in the sense that it has an effect that was not the intention of the person who made that action.)

[Matt R.]

OK, didn't see that other thread. I just now read your post regarding happiness, but I'll try to go one further and demonstrate that faith can have a positive impact on other people (not just internal happiness).

Imagine a fascist dictator along the lines of Hitler or Stalin -- one who kills people at will if it suits them, has no moral qualms about killing and war if it increases their power, etc. Now, suppose somewhere along the line that this Hitler/Stalin dictator came to find faith in a religion. We'll say it's Christianity, since it's the one I'm most familiar with (note that I'm not saying it's the only option, just using it as an example).

Now, Christ's primary cultural teaching was "treat your neighbor as you would have him/her treat you". Some may argue that Christ's teachings were bad... but let's not go down that route for now. Assume that this was one of his primary teachings, as it is commonly accepted. He also taught (basically) that those who followed this and had faith in God would be "rewarded", if you will, by God in the afterlife.

Now, suppose our terrible dictator was influenced by this religion at some point. He begins to have faith that Christianity, at its core, is true. He realizes, "hey, maybe I shouldn't be killing all these people because, as Jesus said, I wouldn't want them doing it to me!" He also believes that if he does not stop his immoral actions, God will not reward him in the afterlife. Also, if he kills innocent people, God may punish him. He has no PROOF that God exists, but he has faith that he does. In this instance, faith clearly has a positive impact on humanity, as it decreases the number of murders our Hitler/Stalin clone commits.

Now, you may say it is impossible that faith would influence someone like this in such a drastic way. But I would argue that faith influences people like this every single day. They may not have the sudden change that I was illustrating in my example, but they are certainly influenced by it.

Now, would you agree that if faith in something does not cause harm to other people, it is inherently good/neutral? Not just internally, but externally as well (i.e. it helps, or can help, those around you)?

I do agree that faith can be harmful. Just like science, politics, gambling, love, food, drinking, family, medication, etc., etc., etc. can potentially be harmful -- if they are USED to cause harm. Does that mean they are inherently bad and we should eliminate them as we see fit? Of course not.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously my opinions have changed a lot over the past few days...I now disagree with many things originally said in my OP

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to hear. I haven't been reading your replies to other people, but we seem to be in agreement now.

[Prodigy54321]

let's assume that you are correct that IF hitler or stalin would have have faith in christianity the negative things that happened wouldn't have (which is a far stretch IMO...although it was a factor, there were other bigger ones in play)

but there is a problem here..faith doesn't work like that...it doesn't bring people to conclusions..

you can't just say that faith in christianity in that situation is good, so faith in that situation is good...you must consider that they could have faith, yet be brought to a completely different conclusion

consider hitler...

if hitler gives into faith..there are possibilities...

1) he has faith in christianity (positive result)
2) he has faith in natural selection (his view of natural selection and that it should be helped along by killing off the inferior) (negative result)..
...and there are many more..but

which conclusion does faith bring him to?

the correct answer is...neither more than the other..faith cannot help you come to the best or better or correct conclusion on anything..

so although you are right...he could have faith in christianity and it could save millions of people, there is just as much a chance that his faith would bring him to the other harmful conclusion...

but if he were to make this decision without using faith, there is a greater chance that he comes to the correct conclusion.

you cannot argue that faith in conclusion x is good and faith in conclusion y is bad...

therefore, just should have faith in conclusion x..but not in conclusion y

it doesn't work that way..faith can not bring you to that conclusion over any other...only evidence can

it is just like saying, faith in christianity is good, faith in islam is bad...

so we should have faith in christianity and not islam..

you cannot be brought to the conclusion that christianity is correct by faith any more than you can be brought to the conclusion that islam is correct by faith

but evidence can

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, suppose our terrible dictator was influenced by this religion at some point. He begins to have faith that Christianity, at its core, is true. He realizes, "hey, maybe I shouldn't be killing all these people because, as Jesus said, I wouldn't want them doing it to me!" He also believes that if he does not stop his immoral actions, God will not reward him in the afterlife. Also, if he kills innocent people, God may punish him. He has no PROOF that God exists, but he has faith that he does. In this instance, faith clearly has a positive impact on humanity, as it decreases the number of murders our Hitler/Stalin clone commits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy this argument. You could just as easily argue the opposite. Take a rational human being who knows it's wrong to murder innocent people. He then develops faith in a god that allows (or encourages) him to murder. The Inquisition, burning witches at the stake, Muslim terrorists, etc.

You could quite easily argue that Pope John Paul II was responsible for more death and human suffering than Hitler. Irrationality in any form is dangerous.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
You could quite easily argue that Pope John Paul II was responsible for more death and human suffering than Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christopher Hitchens much?

[David Sklansky]

"Faith is not just about God. It has been (and remains), a survial mechanism, which has been used by man since climbing down from the trees."

WRONG. It is not faith you are talking about. It is "going under the assumption that" which is the survival mechanism.

As I said in my thread, there are many times that you will choose an action that is exactly the same as the action you would choose if you were 100% sure of something. Even though you aren't 100% sure. But that doesn't mean that you have faith that the information you are going by is definitely true. At least not the way religions define faith.

[RJT]

33,


[ QUOTE ]
…Take a rational human being who knows it's wrong to murder innocent people…

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really the poing of your post, but I thought I would point out that - -

This seems like a valid statement - and fairly innocuous, but, just for the record, it is not necessarily a true statement.

1) We can’t assume it is wrong to murder innocent people. Too many variables - -according to what rules, who decreed it is wrong, what does wrong mean, etc.?

2) Do all rational folk have to think this?

3) Do all rational folk have to know this?

4) How can anyone - rational or irrational - know whether it is or isn’t wrong (or irrelevant) to murder innocent people?

RJT

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
WRONG. It is not faith you are talking about. It is "going under the assumption that" which is the survival mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Going under the assumption" expends much more energy than faith. Only those accustomed to expending that kind of intellectual energe tend to "go under the assumption."

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WRONG. It is not faith you are talking about. It is "going under the assumption that" which is the survival mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Going under the assumption" expends much more energy than faith. Only those accustomed to expending that kind of intellectual energe tend to "go under the assumption."

[/ QUOTE ]

From this, do you think faith may be more emotionally based, than an intellectual process?

It seems that along with faith is a desire (an emotion) for a particular outcome.

[madnak]

Well, depends on what you mean. I'm defining faith (loosely) as the absence of doubt. Faith in the sense of actively resisting evidence against a proposition is something else.

I think it takes less energy to believe in what you hope to be true than it does to confront unpleasant realities (even if you end up believing what you had hoped as a result).

[John21]

I'm not completely sure it's a question of effort. Any guy who's had an argument with a girl over what her 'feelings' were, regardless of the rationale behind them, knows the futility of the feeling vs intellect battle.

I'm just wondering if some people are more pre-disposed to making decisions based on feeling - and allow "what feels right" to be the ultimate judge when confronting the unknown.

[vhawk01]

The thing is, in my experience, "what feels right" is really just describing the same process of rational calculation that you do in words. Your brain just does this in a quick and dirty fashion. The reason people use the PHRASE "it just feels right" is because they are uncomfortable verbalizing their thoughts rationally and are afraid that their quick and dirty calculations wont stand up to scrutiny.

EDIT: Take baseball scouts. You have these old-school guys who would rather just watch a player a bunch of times, and then he can 'just tell' which guys have it. Other guys would rather analyze his mechanics, take a look at all of his stats and come to some decisions. The first guy is basically doing the same as the second guy, he is just doing it less rigorously, in general. However, there are probably (certainly) things being missed by both scouts. Neither approach is perfect, but I think the errors made by the second guy are more exposed, and therefore easier to find and correct. The errors that the first guy is making will either never be detected or be detected when the guy hasn't found a winning prospect in ten years. Its tough to check his figures.

[Lestat]

I agree that probabilities are best used when available.

But are you saying that in the absence of probability it is better to reach no conclusion at all?!!

[Edit:] Yes, "going under the assumption may be what I mean. Maybe I'm misdefining the word "faith", which I took to mean simply "without proof". But my main point is, proof and sometimes even probabilities aren't available. When this is the case, taking some action (any action), is often better than taking no action at all. A "best guess" so to speak. So yes, I guess that is "assumption". But you don't always need proof to believe (have faith), in something. Do you disagree with that?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, in my experience, "what feels right" is really just describing the same process of rational calculation that you do in words. Your brain just does this in a quick and dirty fashion. The reason people use the PHRASE "it just feels right" is because they are uncomfortable verbalizing their thoughts rationally and are afraid that their quick and dirty calculations wont stand up to scrutiny.

EDIT: Take baseball scouts. You have these old-school guys who would rather just watch a player a bunch of times, and then he can 'just tell' which guys have it. Other guys would rather analyze his mechanics, take a look at all of his stats and come to some decisions. The first guy is basically doing the same as the second guy, he is just doing it less rigorously, in general. However, there are probably (certainly) things being missed by both scouts. Neither approach is perfect, but I think the errors made by the second guy are more exposed, and therefore easier to find and correct. The errors that the first guy is making will either never be detected or be detected when the guy hasn't found a winning prospect in ten years. Its tough to check his figures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think poker players fit well into your model. There's a great deal of information being exchanged on a sub-conscious level, and for alot of players, instinct or the feeling they get, plays a major part in their decision making process - even though they can't rationalize their decision.

That type of scenario seems to be taking place when people discuss faith. They can't explain the rationale behind their belief to a high enough degree to satisfy a skeptic.

[vhawk01]

Yes, I should have definitely used the poker example. I think its a good one, for the exact reasons you mentioned. The 'feel' players are really doing the same thing, they are just doing it more informally and they don't necessarily recognize what they are doing.

My point was that people who claim to believe things on faith really don't, they believe things for rational or pseudo-rational reasons, they just don't think about those reasons all the time and don't do it consciously. This doesn't preclude them from making good decisions, but by hiding it behind the false curtain of faith it prevents them from discovering errors in reasoning or inconsistencies. Or at least it makes it harder.