The war on faith.

[DougShrapnel]

In a different thread andyfox post this link

some excerpts

"Americans answered the atrocities of September 11, overwhelmingly, with faith. Attacked in the name of God, they turned to God for comfort; in the week after the attacks, nearly 70 percent said they were praying more than usual."

"After hearing once too often that "[t]o blame the attacks on Islam is like blaming Christianity for the fighting in Northern Ireland," Dawkins responded: Precisely. "It's time to get angry," he wrote, "and not only with Islam.""

"These authors have no geopolitical strategy to advance; they're interested in the metaphysics of belief, not the politics of the First Amendment. It's the idea of putting trust in God they object to"

"It is not just extremists who earn the wrath of Dawkins and Harris. Their books are attacks on religious "moderates" as well—indeed, the very idea of moderation. The West is not at war with "terrorism," Harris asserts in "The End of Faith"; it is at war with Islam, a religion whose holy book, "on almost every page ... prepares the ground for religious conflict." Christian fundamentalists, he says, have a better handle on the problem than moderates: "They know what it's like to really believe that their holy book is the word of God, and there's a paradise you can get to if you die in the right circumstances. They're not left wondering what is the 'real' cause of terrorism." As for the Bible, Harris, like the fundamentalists, prefers a literal reading. He quotes at length the passages in the Old and New Testaments dealing with how to treat slaves. Why, he asks, would anyone take moral instruction from a book that calls for stoning your children to death for disrespect, or for heresy, or for violating the Sabbath?"

But it's more than that. To those that have faith the world is being managed by a fair god. Why would they question anything that happens here? Earthy affairs do not matter to those with faith. For NotReady and Txag, the 2nd coming cannot get here soon enough. If we keep destroying our already incredible shaky relationship with Islamic nations the end of the world may be sooner than you think. Radioactive Jesus riding a mushroom cloud bringing salvation, BluffThis might rejoice.

Avian flu. When God gets mad he often sends plagues. Most of the world will be praying to an imaginary being when a major outbreak hits. Those of us who don't prey should have no trouble getting a vaccine, considering how well stocked we always are ever year in flu vaccines. I mean who could see the flu coming?

If we continue to abuse the environment in the fashion that we do in order to help some of the more unethical businessmen among us, the religious might just get to able to watch us burring in hell. The only problem is that they won't be on the right hand of jesus. No mater they'll say at least they got to watch the righteous punishment of the sinners.

Hawkins believes that if you extend the time line far out enough, a major calamity capable of destroying the human race becomes a certainty. Far out enough to him is 100-1000 years. This doesn't bode well, xtianity still going strong after 2k years, and Muslim has an even later arrival. I sense a strong possibility that enough people will not care about this mortal coil to stop the impending doom. One of the earliest religions espoused the belief that death was just the cure for the ills of life. It seems that the disease we named religion will finally cure us of life permanently.

edit: to add a math question
If something will happen with near certainty(99.9%) within 100 to 1000 years what range of is the probabilty of it happening in a single year?

[madnak]

Hawkins is one of the few people with the courage to tell it like it is. Many people I know who aren't religious go on and on about "respecting the beliefs of everyone" or trying to coexist peacefully with people who believe they'll be scourged from the earth and burned in hell for eternity.

Dawkins should be admired for recognizing faith as the danger that it is, without letting popular opinion drive him into compromise.

[Matt R.]

Saying that religious faith, in general, is the cause for war and fighting is like saying video games are the cause for violent behavior in teenagers. Perhaps we should hold the individuals responsible, rather than making some blanket statement about a fundamentally "good" (or at least neutral) concept that is distorted by humans to promote their agenda? A lot of things can distort an unthinking person's sense of ethics, justice, or whatever. Blaming religion because a subset of religious folk happen to be crazy extremists is ridiculous.

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that religious faith, in general, is the cause for war and fighting is like saying video games are the cause for violent behavior in teenagers.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? This is completely wrong. I have never heard any of those violent teenagers (Columbine, etc.) say that they killed people because a video game told them too, or because they were inspired by a video game. It's the parents and amateur psychologists who say that. On the other hand, terrorists routinely slaughter people and readily admit that their religous faith was the cause for their violence. Therefore, saying that religous faith is the cause of war and fighting is nothing at all like saying video games are the cause of deviant teenage behavior.

[Jshuttlesworth]

Also to OP,
None of this implies a "War on Faith." 92% of Americans believe in god while only 4% call themselves atheists. Many people would like creationsim to be taught in schools instead of evolution. Our president ends every speech with "god bless America." There is no war on faith in this country.
However, there should be. By definition, to believe something on faith is irrational and immoral. It means that you believe something is true without any evidence. After all, if you had evidence for your beliefs, you wouldn't be using faith. In almost every facet of life besides religion (science, everyday decisions), this is considered to be a massive gap in thinking.

[Matt R.]

No, but the teenagers will sometimes (often?) admit to getting their ideas from video games, music, or whatever. It may not be the source of their hatred -- but neither is the terrorist's "religion".

Do you really think religion is the cause for the terrorist's violence? Or do you think it is their hatred for America (or whoever they are fighting against)? They use religion to help *justify* their hatred and their actions, but it is not the root cause. It is pretty easy to distort the meaning of a millenia old religious text to suit your agenda and make it seem like God is on your side. If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, to believe something on faith is irrational and immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. Edward Witten, possibly the smartest man on the planet, believes that string theory is correct. He does so despite having no experimental evidence to back up his belief that his assumptions are right. He has *faith* that the theory is right because it describes phenemena in our universe remarkably well. In his opinion, because the math is so symmetric and beautiful and the physics works out so well, it is unlikely that the theory works by mere coincidence. However, because there is no experimental evidence to verify the assumptions, it is possible that an equally (or more) valid and more accurate model for particle physics is out there, and that string theory is "wrong".

The direction Witten's research goes is dependent in large part on faith. His faith just happens to have a more logical foundation than a religious fanatic's that somehow distorts their religion to make suicide bombing "correct".

However, saying that believing in something on faith is "irrational and immoral" is wrong. Everyone has faith in something.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If we continue to abuse the environment in the fashion that we do in order to help some of the more unethical businessmen among us . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where your credibility tends to zero.

Why exactly does an OP about religion need an anti-business environmental dig stuck in the middle of it? It doesn't. In the eyes of many readers (perhaps half) this labels you as a loon. Many stop reading immediately, and others dismiss what you've written out of hand.

What I'm saying is, stick to the topic at hand.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your premises are both wrong. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase.

[Jshuttlesworth]

[ QUOTE ]

This is silly. Edward Witten, possibly the smartest man on the planet, believes that string theory is correct. He does so despite having no experimental evidence to back up his belief that his assumptions are right. He has *faith* that the theory is right because it describes phenemena in our universe remarkably well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a form of evidence.

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone has faith in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you really think religion is the cause for the terrorist's violence? Or do you think it is their hatred for America (or whoever they are fighting against)? They use religion to help *justify* their hatred and their actions, but it is not the root cause. It is pretty easy to distort the meaning of a millenia old religious text to suit your agenda and make it seem like God is on your side. If all religion is bad, and it is not the individual's fault for using religion to suit them, then why do so many people who practice the *exact* same religion condemn the fanatics who go around killing people in God's name?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when certain religous texts instruct true followers of that religous to kill non-members of that religion and that in return, they will be rewarded with infinite pleasure in the afterlife, then I have no problem blaming that religion for violence perpetrated in its name. Even if people absolutely hated the USA, they wouldn't be willing to die for that cause if they thought they would rot away after they died. Religion is what instructs them that they will NOT rot away. Thus, religion greatly facilitates terrorist's violence.