Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

bunny · #1 01-18-2007, 07:14 PM

This has come up a few times recently. In my opinion it was one of the weakest arguments in The God Delusion (not that being directed at me had anything to do with it...).

Can someone explain to me how my faith is bad because it "shelters extremists", or whatever the argument is?

Some things I believe which may be relevant:

The bible is inspired but not divine dictation. It may be wrong and a literal interpretation is contradictory. It is useful as a tool, but you have to reflect on it and use it to make your own decisions, not as an instruction book.

Religion has very little to do with ethics, it's a metaphysical question.

I do not demand "respect" of my beliefs - in fact, I think they should be challenged and any flaws pointed out. (That's precisely the reason I post on this forum).

Other religions should also not be quarantined from discussion or criticism either. Further, they have an obligation (intellectual at least) to defend the claims they make and to justify them.

The chance of my religion being "true" is next to nil - it's just the best I can do at the moment.

It is wrong to force other people to do what you want them to.

Public decision making should be as rational as possible.

I'm sure there are more, but I wanted to make these explicit. I dont see how the "moderates are giving extremists a place to hide" applies to me at all. Further, I dont think I am particularly unusual amongst moderates in holding the above beliefs (although obviously some of the specifics of my faith are heretical and/or unpopular).

With all that in mind - can someone explain to me how I am doing anything wrong in continuing in my faith? Or why my faith should be fought against (I mean apart from the search-for-truth sort of fight. Obviously, an atheist who cares about getting the truth out there should argue with me).

I would appreciate it.

bunny · #2 01-19-2007, 09:49 PM

Alex-db? Any comments as this was kind of in response to one of your posts. College kid, too? Or have you changed your mind?

Anyone see any value to the argument? I think it's just plain wrong.

m_the0ry · #3 01-19-2007, 10:32 PM

Faith is belief without reason. Only in a hyper-idealized (and unattainable) democratic republic do people vote and act on reason alone. The more a subject resonates with one's faith the more likely he or she is to rationalize it in context to said faith and act without reason.

If we break faith down to philosophy, ritualism, and absolute morality, only the philosophical portion can exist in the mind without affecting others.

Skidoo · #4 01-20-2007, 05:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Faith is belief without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can reason itself be derived through reason?

soon2bepro · #5 01-20-2007, 05:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is belief without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can reason itself be derived through reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason is the only way we can predict future events. It's the only way we can think of anything. Everyone has it, most people just don't use it. Or more adequately put, they refuse to put their feelings aside when using reason.

Skidoo · #6 01-20-2007, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Faith is belief without reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can reason itself be derived through reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason is the only way we can predict future events. It's the only way we can think of anything. Everyone has it, most people just don't use it. Or more adequately put, they refuse to put their feelings aside when using reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason is indispensable, no doubt. My question is, if we define faith as belief not based on reason, what is belief in reason based on?

Lestat · #7 01-19-2007, 10:52 PM

His point (I believe), is that you are making the most irrational mistake of all.

If you believed the bible is the literal word of God, then you can be forgiven for all beliefs which follow. But if you do NOT believe the bible is the literal word of God, you are at the very least admitting God's meaning and desires are unclear. Therefore, you are making your OWN interpretations (or following other error prone human's interpretations), as to what is moral and what is not.

Do you see how this is circular? If parts of the bible aren't meant to be taken literelly, then there is no good reason to think that ANY of the bible should be taken literally. When humans start picking and choosing which of God's words we're suppose to believe are literal or not literal (such as right from wrong/moral and not moral), you don't need the bible at all anymore. In fact, you make a mockery of it.

So I believe what Dawkins is saying is, don't be wishy-washy. Either the bible is the literal word of God, or you can't be sure ANY of it is.

NotReady · #8 01-19-2007, 11:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If you believed the bible is the literal word of God, then you can be forgiven for all beliefs which follow. But if you do NOT believe the bible is the literal word of God, you are at the very least admitting God's meaning and desires are unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you spell metaphor? Do you think the gene is literally selfish?

[ QUOTE ]

So I believe what Dawkins is saying is, don't be wishy-washy. Either the bible is the literal word of God, or you can't be sure ANY of it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that carved in stone somewhere or did someone break the tablets? Maybe Pope Dawkins could tell us.

Lestat · #9 01-19-2007, 11:25 PM

So what should we set our moral compass by, if not the bible?

-Is it ok to for a man to sell his daughter, or not?

-Is it ok for a man to murder his fiance if she cheats on him, or not?

-What about slavery? Is it ok to own another human being, or not?

What should we assume the bible has to say on these subjects?

Praxis101 · #10 01-21-2007, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What you are doing (whether you realize it or not), is taking God out of the picture and inserting your own human version of morality. If this can possibly be justified, then it renders the biblical god as completely unnecessary!

Remember, our purpose is to try and philosophically discuss whether belief in a particular god and/or religion can be logically correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see where you're coming from. Tricky territory - the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, I think this is somthing we can all agree on.
Lots of philosophic works are huge allegories, and it is up to the reader to verify the accuracy.

The individuals who present the most logically/reasonably sound arguements, I suppose, are the ones who probably have the correct interpretations (though, of course, this is not exlusively the case.) It all comes down to the interpretation - the book means nothing without a precise interpretation. If it's too difficult to interpret with accuracy, it's fading from effectiveness. Whatever the case, I DON'T see Christians presenting the grand, main philosophy of the Bible - lot's of fighting over other matters.

If someone can clearly construct meaning behind the Bible's large allegory: that's what I'd be interested in. I'm not a Bible expert, all I have are loose ideas about what various things represent. Nietzsche is my territory (though Nietzsche suggests that jesus was perhaps one of the greatest A) philosophers AND B) psychologists of all time.) The real problem with the Bible is with the confusion and ridiculous stories that can be derived from the Bible - it's easy to see where the difficulty arises in interpreting the Bible's ideas. The churches have lots of problems (IMO) and don't represent the real philosophy well at all: but that's not really the church's purpose it seems.

In the end, though: the philosophy is all that matters. I really don't care where the idea is from - but if you've got the idea in your head and can present it effectively, that (IMO) is the good stuff.
If there's question as to where the ideas come from, those are important too - as that's where the evidence can be found.

Does the Bible's religion, philosophy, faith, or whatever work? That's what I'm craving. Some people, and I'm dying to meet them, must be willing to throw out their own ideas - their own ideas based on their own reality.
How should I read it? What should I keep in mind? Or, how about you just give me your interpretation, and I'll start from there? I care about other individuals, now, in the present, and the ideas that make them tick.

---> And that's the real problem with fundamentalism (IMO): the steadfast ability to point at one doctrine, cite it, and claim it as evidence. GIVE ME THE IDEA. Tell me how to interpret it! How do I get that exact idea in my head? Point me in the direction that you think works, and let me go nuts. Bible, poetry, allegories, literary works: anything so long as it's not dry, long, and boring (though that's necessary sometimes, I guess.)

So yeah, sure: take God out of the Bible. Read it as pure philosophy, find the precise philosophy. Or don't, I haven't. I don't care what "Christianity" says or what "atheism" suggests, I'm hurtin' for some good ways of looking at things. I don't think the Bible is unnecessary without God: I'd bet there are some messages in there that are worth something.

FWIW: yeah, I think the Bible's pretty outdated and it's coming time for a fresh form of communication.
The biblical God is not necessarily meaningless: he too must be put in context (I, having not read the majority of the Bible, cannot put any of its meaning into the proper context.)

And I seriously doubt that the conception of the Christian God requires the word-for-word literary meaning of the Bible (in fact, that probably draws away from the real understanding.) Most of the meaning is going to lie between the lines and certainly not bound within them (this much has to be obvious)... The conception of god is the model, the model from which to draw our own human morality.

I liked the whole "red-text" idea, though have yet to try it.