Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

[bunny]

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]

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]

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.

[Lestat]

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]

[ 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]

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?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
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...).

[/ QUOTE ] It's a weak argument agianst belief in God. However it's a strong argument against aqueiscing(sp).

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ] Sam Harris makes better arguments than Dawkins does on this point. But it's not just that "you" are protecting xtians, but "you" are sheltering muslims as well. You are in quotes here because you are a strange breed that I really have ZERO argument with. I'd rather have you on the side of justice and truth than the side of lies and dogma. I believe that you are on the correct side. Moreover if God exists and he is just you will likely get to heaven, where as most moderates and fundamentalists won't.

AS far as what you are doing wrong goes I'd need more info then I currently have to make a better judgement. Paticularly the downsides where you would disagree with dawkins kind.

[JayTee]

bunny,

It sounds to me like you aren't what Dawkins is refering to when he discusses moderates who shelter extremists. The main point I take from it is that moderates are those who don't take a literal interpretation and use it to define what is morally right where extremists do (by this criteria I guess you would be considered moderate).

Where your stance differs from Dawkins definition is in the fact that you think that beliefs should be questioned. The moderates that Dawkin's refers to are the ones who don't question the beliefs of extremists because they don't want to attract attention to their own irrational beliefs.

The harm that these moderates do is not in their own actions but in the shield that they provide to extremists by shutting the door on questioning religious beliefs. Its as if they are embarrased about some teachings of the bible (as any compassionate believer should be) and don't want to face the tough questions.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]


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



[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to elaborate?

[Matt R.]

bunny,
What, exactly, does Dawkins mean by "sheltering" fundamentalists?