Faith is OK

OK, I am going to go out on a limb here (seeing as I am agnostic leaning toward athiesm) and try to address some of your comments.

Love is not irrational. It is a biological fact. If asked the question "why do I love this person?" the answer is "biology".

I am not convinced this is true. Biology can easily explain why we want to have sex with other people, why we feel compelled to breed...but love? As in, the love that exists between two people who, after 50 years, have not produced offspring, or on the other hand, between two people who over the course of 30 years have managed to produce 13 kids? I have seen both played out...and somehow there is something which, against all reason, makes them still want to be together. Something more than a biological imperative directed at the continuance of the species. It is often misplayed, misunderstood, in our society, but I do not think that you can factually claim that love is simply biological in origin.

That's flawed logic. Faith is bad because it allows bad things to be justified just as easily as it allows good things to be justified.

Actually, reason can just as easily be used to justify "bad" things. Plato used reason to justify the removal of children from their parents...and while that might make a certain amount of logical sense, it ignores other aspects of human development. Nietzsche used reason to posit the benefit of a master race, even while ignoring many long term cultural effects of such an agenda. The thing about reason is that it is extremely difficult to factor in all variables, in order to arrive at a truly "reasonable" conclusion. Most of us pick and choose which factors we will allow into our analysis, and rely on a composite of intuition and life experience to fill in the gaps. There is, thus far, only so much data the human brain can process at one time.

Intolerance of people is not the same as intolerance of false ideas and bad logic.

Here, however, I completely agree with you. There is a trend I have seen which attempts to equate intolerance of people with intolerance of faulty logic, and it is...intolerable!! It is not at all the same to recognize the faulty premise of an argument as it is to condemn swaths of people unmet. This does, however, have to apply universally. I can fault Paddy's argument where he says

The fact that faith is to blame for evil acts is balanced by all the good that faith has produced.

for it is a debatable concept, and has not yet run its course. If we were capable, Paddy, of enumerating every single incidence of kind acts inspired by faith vs. cruel acts inspired by faith, are you really so sure that kindness would come out on the winning side? I have in my own life seen much more cruelty inspired by religious faith than kindness, but I am willing to concede that this may be influenced by my particular circumstances. To me, the jury is still out on this argument.

On the other hand, to condemn all religious folks simply because they are religious is to say that there is no possibility that they choose that path with complete awareness and responsibility...which is also something my life experience has shown me not to be true. Some who invest in the matter of faith do so with a great recognition of what they do, why they do it, and where their limits are. There is no such thing as a "model" anything. If we are truly rational, we must be willing to examine each individual on a case by case basis.

Even love among older couples is hormonal according to studies. There are several different kinds of hormones which cause the different kinds of love. There is some information here. There is also a great article from the Economist here, but unfortunately they now require a subscription to view it. There's also some information in the book The Female Brain (which talks mostly about females, obviously).

Actually, reason can just as easily be used to justify "bad" things.

Bad reason can just anything. Good reason can only justify things which can be justified by reason. Of course we can never have all of the information (as you pointed out), so there is going to be some leeway in any non-trivial problem, but you won't arrive at utterly arbitrary results like you do with religion. Even if you and I come to different conclusions using reason we can both see if the other is using false information or false logic. Our positions can be refuted with new information. Try that with religion. It's impossible.

The confusion I see most often in debate this conclusion: Faith and religion (ntm, social & political issues) are inseperable - or, even, the same - commodities. Such a statement is an absolute. They are not inseperable commodities. Neither are they always mutually exclusive. I find it hard to reconcile the idea that one could be inspired by spiritual faith to commit a cruel act. Religion? Yes. Fundamental, unquestioning doctrine? Yes. The order of a person to whom one was faithful? Yes. Politics? Definitely.

I think Adam has hit on an important distinction, something that is sorely missing from current debates. Religion is a set of doctrines that decree what one should/shouldn't do and believe to be 'properly' faithful as a member of that particular denomination or 'brand' of faith, if you will. Religions also have interior sects and denominations, each of which have its own doctrines. On the fringe are the most strict - those that encourage blind faith, which no religion or philosophy teaches at its core. Unquestioning/unseeking devotion to any ideology is inherently dangerous. Faith in itself must not be so or everyone who proclaims a faith would be rampaging around the world committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam or bombing abortion clinics in the name of Christianity. Not all (dare I say, not most) do.

Absolutisms are what got us where we unfortunately are right now. Debating linear modes of thought from one extreme to the other.

The word 'Faith' is often thrown around in political discourse inextricably tied to some misuse or misinterpretation of religious doctrine: Attempting to legislate one's own religious doctrine upon others; using extremist doctrine as a tool to further extremist causes; etc.

The truth is that faith produces good and bad results.

Did you mean people of faith produce good and bad results? Is it faith or human nature that has the capacity to turn good faith bad?

PS. My current understanding is that both Agnostic and Atheist ideologies do not proclaim there is no God, but that the existence of God cannot be proven and/or proven conclusively, with those who are atheist having decided conclusively one does not exist. Is this correct?

Adam Kemp:

Love is not irrational. It is a biological fact. If asked the question "why do I love this person?" the answer is "biology". That's the reason, and it's perfectly logical. You're just approaching it from the wrong angle.

Do you really mean that seriously?

So, if a woman loves the man who beats her every second day, her love for him is not irrational?

Love for another person can be a bad thing. But love as such is certainly not a bad thing!

Love is basically irrational.

Love is not irrational. It is a biological fact. If asked the question "why do I love this person?" the answer is "biology".

This can only be argued in the case of romantic love (and even there I'm not sure I buy it). What about altruistic Love of Fellow Man or Nature or Beauty? Where is the biological imperative that drives one to, for instance, throw oneself on a hand grenade in the name of Love? Note: an atheist is probably just as likely to do this as a theist, IMO.

Dawkins answers that pretty sufficiently with The Selfish Gene, I think. Pinker talks about it as well. Essentially, we protect others in our "in-group" at the expense even of our lives sometimes because in doing so we increase the odds of survival for the genes we all share. Most animal behavior is geared toward the preservation of genetic material - the individual host doesn't much matter, evolutionarily speaking.

Dawkins answers that pretty sufficiently with The Selfish Gene, I think. Pinker talks about it as well.

Can you supply quotes?

Most animal behavior is geared toward the preservation of genetic material - the individual host doesn't much matter, evolutionarily speaking

Ah, but often altruism leads one to protect the weaker members of the species - the disabled, for instance. Wouldn't human evolution be better served by allowing the less dominant genetic material to be weeded out? In a pack of canines, an animal will give its life without hesitation to protect the pack but weak or incompetent members are banished or killed. There is something else happening with human compassion.

Bad reason can just anything. Good reason can only justify things which can be justified by reason.

All reason rests on assumed values and assumed "truths". So, if you have your choice of base premises, you can rationalize anything. A serial killer's actions are absolutely reasonable given any number of value systems — fortunately for us such value systems are rare. No, I take that back. Terrorism. War on terrorism. But I digress.

Why would a purely biological or Darwinian basis for love make it any more rational? What makes the perpetuation of the species rational? The fact that species with traits that result in self-perpetuation are common while species with self-destructive traits don't exist (for long at least) is logical, but that doesn't say that the former species is more reasonable or rational than the latter. Not unless you start with the premise that to exist is rational. Why?

Faith is belief or action that does not rest on any absolute logical proof or material evidence.

I think this is why the man in my avatar said, There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.

There would be no losers in a War on Suicide...

Walt, I'll try to do a piece on kin selection and the broader theories on this point, it's been a whiel since I've read those books but I'll see what I can find. I think another significant factor is the idea of spandrels - some things are just side effects of useful mechanisms. Perhaps compassion is a side-effect of kin-selection to some degree. I'll get back to you if I get around to it, I do remember reading about this specifically (if anyone better versed in their Dawkins can throw in a quick answer that works too).

Also, a quick google search turns up this article which gets technical but which has this to say:

Altruism in Humans
It is only logical that one might now be inclined to take these theories of altruism and apply them to our own species, especially considering that man is the most altruistic animal of all. Altruism pervades every aspect of our society, whether in the form of food sharing, helping the sick, gift giving, or even the sharing of knowledge through education. The use of money may even be seen as the prime example of reciprocal altruism in modern man, as money itself has no intrinsic value other than the assurance that another person will trade valuable goods for it at some point in the future.

It is easy to see how altruism in man could have evolved through kin selection. Bands of early hunter- gatherers during prehistory were almost certainly composed mainly of close kin. Also, through language and an increased mental capacity, early man had a much greater ability than other primates at not only recognizing kin, but also at distinguishing between subtle differences in degrees of relatedness. As evidence of the operation of altruism by kin selection, J. Rushton has showed that humans are more likely to favor not only those they definitely recognize as kin, but also those with whom they share genetic traits. Through a series of extensive studies, he demonstrated that on average there was greater genetic similarity between friends then between strangers, and he also made the remarkable discovery that sexually interacting couples were more likely to share similar blood markers than would be expected by chance alone. The idea that human behavior between two individuals may be governed by genetic similarity is profound, and its implications stretch far beyond a discussion of altruism.

Although there is no doubt that kin selection plays an important role in the formation of altruism in human societies, reciprocal altruism is generally more prominent. Our species easily fits the conditions for the rise of reciprocal altruism: long lasting relationships, an increased memory to distinguish reciprocators from non-reciprocators, and a method of punishing non-reciprocators. It has been hypothesized that some of man's more complex emotions may have evolved to improve upon the system of reciprocal altruism. Gratitude and sympathy may increase one's chances of receiving altruism by implying an increased chance of reciprocation, while guilt serves to discourage the non-reciprocator and causes him to demonstrate that he does not plan to refuse reciprocation in the future. On top of the development of emotions, Trivers even suggests that in a complicated form of coevolution, the combined selective pressures of finding subtler ways of cheating one's neighbors and increasing one's ability to detect such subtle cheaters may have contributed to the expansion of man's mental capacities and led to his current state of high intellectual ability.

Walt, I'll try to do a piece on kin selection and the broader theories on this point, it's been a whiel since I've read those books but I'll see what I can find.

Cool. I'll watch for it.

I think another significant factor is the idea of spandrels - some things are just side effects of useful mechanisms. Perhaps compassion is a side-effect of kin-selection to some degree.

While this rather bleak and depressing thought is plausible, it doesn't explain why the seemingly genetically self-destructive form I altruism I mentioned is specific to humans. As the only species with developed rational thought, we should be less susceptible to this sort of "spandrel."

I've heard it argued that "developed rational thought" is itself a spandrel. There's no reason why it should make us immune. What if our arms are spandrels, ya know? It's unlikely but possible. What if culture is a spandrel?

A simple summary of Altruism as a result of 'The Selfish Gene':

1. The Selfish Gene is a term that means genes want to ensure their own survival. This is the main idea of neo-Darwinism (I believe that's the term). I.e. Evolution occurs at the genetic level. The gene is the varying replicator that evolves. Organisms are the vehicles by which gene's propagate. Organisms and indeed their creations and effects on other organisms, are the phenotypic effects of genes. These phenotypic effects evolved because they help genes survive into the next generation.

By ascribing a survival instinct to the gene, we are simply using an explanatory device. The gene itself is not conscious and has no actual desire to survive. The Selfish Gene is simply a personification of the statistical results. Genes that make bodies better at reproducing, by definition, spread and survive.

Genes exist in an environment consisting not only of the physical environment of the body or the world around us, but of many other genes. These genes have to cooperate with each other in order to survive. Again this is a device, they don't physical intend to cooperate. Simply, genes that do work well together will find themselves in bodies that survive and reproduce.

2. Altruism is a result (at least partially, you could also argue for nurture based aspects of altruism I guess) of selfish genes. This may seem like a contradiction at face value. But it's not.

When you consider that we are talking about the statistical survival of genes, you should realise that we're not talking about individual genes, but copies of those genes. They spread by having phenotypic effects that increase the chance of copies of themselves surviving. Any gene with phenotypic effects that increase the statistical chance of it making copies, the more likely it is that that gene will spread through the gene pool.

Altruism is another of these phenotypic effects. Kin-altruism is helping those with close kin relationships to you. Your kin will share a large proportion of the genes you carry. You share 50% of your mother genes, 50% of your fathers genes, 50% of you daughters genes, 50% of your brothers genes, 100% of your identical twins genes etc., in decreasing proportions as you move further along the branches of your family tree. A gene that promotes kin-altruism is in fact still obeying the selfish gene idea. By helping your kin you are increasing the likelihood that copies of your genes will survive. Perhaps not direct copies made from the copies you carry in each cell, but copies of the same genes non the less. The selfish gene idea explains kin-altruism as any gene that promotes it will increase the chance that copies of itself will spread. Kin-altruism could evolve in this way.

We could reinforce this with the idea even further when considering that during our evolutionary past most of the members of our group would likely have been kin. Reinforcing the kin-altruism idea and increasing its ability to spread kin-altruism promoting selfish genes.

Reciprocal-altruism could evolve for much the same reason. Reciprocal-altruism is the idea of helping someone with the expectation that you will receive help in return at a later date. By helping someone you may not be directly helping your genes, depending on how closely you are related. However, if by doing so you earn favours in return, you can expect that at some point in the future you will receive help. This help will increase the chances of you surviving and reproducing and spreading your genes to the next generation. So indirectly, a selfish gene the promotes reciprocal-altruism is increasing its own chance of survival.

The favour returned by the person you helped, can be considereda phenotypic effect of the altruism promoting selfish gene. All phenotypic effects are in a sense indirect in this fashion, as far as the gene is concerned. We are just used to considering the immediate body within which our genes reside as the main component of genetic influence.

So hopefully by now you can see that there is in fact, a very simple explanation and very clear survival benefit in altruism, particularly when you view the unit of evolutionary change as the selfish gene.

The end result is that we are full of genes that have evolved within us a general rule to help other people we come across. This turned out rather long. I hope it made sense, I'm sure praetor605 or someone could jump in with any corrections or further points.

...what he said! Thanks, Ryan.

Thanks. Hopefully that's pretty close to accurate. I just blurted it out. Maybe I should turn it into the article you mention. I'd have to reread The Selfish Gene before hand though.

yeah, it's a @!$%# to get your facts from actual books cuz you can't just bookmark them in firefox. Bah. ;)

This thread has become hard for me to jump back into now, but I'll try to address the points directed towards me.

mogmich:

Do you really mean that seriously?

So, if a woman loves the man who beats her every second day, her love for him is not irrational?

There are two ways that you can view the word "irrational". The first is "does it make sense for that woman to love that man?". No, it doesn't. The other is "can we explain rationally why she loves that man?". The answer is yes! Biology provides a rational explanation for why she loves him. When I say that love is rational I mean that the reason one person loves another can be explained through reason so long as you include the physical reality of biology into that explanation. If you ignore biology then it doesn't make sense, but that's because you're ignoring a huge chunk of reality.

Paddy: The difference between "good reason" and "bad reason" is that "bad reason" isn't reason at all. If you're using false facts and flawed logic then you're not using "reason". You may call it reason, but it's not reason. If you're at least willing to try to debate rationally, though, then someone is free to point out the flawed logic and the incorrect facts and everyone can see why that claim was wrong.

Now try that with faith. Faith makes an assertion and says "I believe this because I have faith". How do you correct this? How do you debate it? You can't. If I have faith in a contradictory idea then we are at an impasse. No amount of fact-finding or debate can resolve that difference. This is pretty inconsequential if the claim is "there a God", but it's pretty damn important when the claim is "God hates Jews and wants me to kill them".

You ask about "good faith", but what are you calling "good"? The faith isn't good. It's neutral. The results can be good or bad, but the faith itself is just a flawed world view either way. It doesn't matter to me if you use faith to justify good things or bad things. It's still a bad way to reach conclusions. You can get all the good results with reason, so why not do that? Why keep faith around?

vas:

All reason rests on assumed values and assumed "truths". So, if you have your choice of base premises, you can rationalize anything.

There is only one reality and one "truth", and that is the reality that we all can see and feel and interact with. Anyone who pretends to be "reasoning" using premises which are either not supported by or contradicted by reality is not using reason. He's using faith.

There are some people who have no faith, but yet will not be convinced by any amount of facts or logic (human stubbornness).

If someone believes something despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary then that is faith. Whether he calls it faith or not is irrelevant.

I find reason alone to be insufficient (so faith has to stay).

Then explain why.

Does what we see and feel and interact with explain everything we want to know?

Maybe, or maybe not. Does making up an answer and "having faith" explain anything? Absolutely not. Faith doesn't explain. It may make you feel good, but it explains nothing.

Adam Kemp:

"can we explain rationally why she loves that man?". The answer is yes! Biology provides a rational explanation for why she loves him.

I absolutely do not agree on that!

I will use this analogy to explain why:

Imagine a car moving from city A to city B.

Question: Why do this car move from city A to city B?

Possible answer: Because some gasoline explodes in some cylinders in a motor, producing a mechanical force, which is transmitted to the wheels of the car, and thereby rolling the car from A to B.

This answer is normally correct (if it is not an electric car or something!)

Another possible answer: Because the driver, who lives in A, has decided to visit his girlfriend, who lives in B.

If this is also true, both explanations are true. But I would say, that in most circumstances, only the second explanation is relevant, because the first explanation is trivial.

And the same way with love: Your explanation of why one person loves another is correct, but it is not the only correct explanation, and in most circumstances it is not even relevant, because it is trivial. It is not typically the kind of explanation a person wants, when asking: "Why does she love that moron?"

Rational arguments might one day be able to explain everything, but that day hasn't arrived yet.

As much as I love math, science and all reason-based thought in general, that day will never occur, Paddy.

mogmich:

Are you arguing that hormones only affect someone after they have made a decision? That flies in the face of pretty much all we know about the brain. The hormones are the cause. They are literally a drug. Someone in love is literally addicted to a drug. A woman who stays with a man who beats her does so for the same reason that a drug user keeps getting high even though his life sucks. He feels compelled, and so does she.

Paddy:

Because reason still can't provide all the answers.

Which answers can reason not possibly provide? Just because we don't know something now doesn't mean we can't ever know. And once again, what answers can faith possibly provide? None! Faith is nothing more than an assertion. You don't have any more answers than I do. You just pretend you do.

Walt:

it doesn't explain why the seemingly genetically self-destructive form I altruism I mentioned is specific to humans.

Taking care of the old, injured, and infirm? Dolphins do it. Elephants do it. We're not alone in doing it.

mogmich:

And the same way with love: Your explanation of why one person loves another is correct, but it is not the only correct explanation, and in most circumstances it is not even relevant, because it is trivial.

Why is it trivial? You starting off assuming that love is nebulously detached from biological imperatives, then call this "love" relevant and the biological imperative "trivial."

It is not typically the kind of explanation a person wants

So an explanation is relevant because it feels better? Come on, now.

The guy is driving to visit his girlfriend because he likes his girlfriend, which is fundamentally due to biological pressures to successfully propagate his genes as much as possible. To me, that's far from trivial.

Adam Kemp:

No, I am not saying you are wrong, only that there are different explanations depending on the context and situation. You might call it complementary explanations. In my analogy with the car, the second explanation is the one we use in our daily life, and you cannot say that this explanation is false. But that doesn't contradict, that the first explanation is also true.

Someone in love is literally addicted to a drug. A woman who stays with a man who beats her does so for the same reason that a drug user keeps getting high even though his life sucks. He feels compelled, and so does she.

Not only do I agree on that. I also find it important to recognize this connection, when talking about how drug addicts should be treated by society. Sending them to jail is not the right solution, I think. The drug addict typically keeps getting high because his or her life already sucks. And when life sucks, it is very often because you need love - in the deeper, human sense of the word.

Jack Huang:

I am not saying, that the two explanations exclude each other, only that there are two possible explanations - which are used in different connections.

And that the second explanation is the one which is used most often, because it is used in daily life.

In a daily life situation, a person might say something like: "Why the hell does she love that moron?" to another person. If the other person then gives a scientific explanation of how the brain functions, in an attempt to answer the question, the first person would probably think it's a joke. Because the scientific explanation of how the brain functions is a general explanation, that does not explain why this woman loves exactly this moron. How the brain functions is trivial in this situation.

The guy is driving to visit his girlfriend because he likes his girlfriend, which is fundamentally due to biological pressures to successfully propagate his genes as much as possible. To me, that's far from trivial.

What about the human subject?

mogmich:

Perhaps they are complementary, but my whole point was that there is a rational explanation for why a woman who gets beat up by her husband would still love him. It's not rational if you ignore biology, but it makes perfect sense if you take biology into account. The reason I point this out is because the claim was made that love is irrational and that therefore reason can't explain everything. That's not true, though, because we can explain love rationally.

Paddy, faith has not given you "answers". It has given you assertions. It makes you feel good to think that you "know" something, but you don't. Any conclusion based on faith is not an answer. It's a guess. What you're really saying is "faith makes me feel good". In that sense, faith isn't an alternative to reason. It's a placebo.

Or can you change love's decision by rational and logical arguments?

Love follows logical rules, but those rules are based on biology and chemistry. They have nothing to do with our high-level concept of what's good for someone or what is a good idea. Love is an emotion. It's a state of being. It's not a decision you make based on reason. It's a hormonal and instinctual state of mind that you have very little control over.

You can't use love as an example of something that can't be explained rationally if you can explain love rationally. Again, love makes perfect sense rationally if you don't ignore biology. It only seems irrational if you ignore the physical reality of what love really is. Not a decision, but a biological function.

You may as well ask how "rational" it is that we have to sleep at night or that we have to go to the bathroom every few hours or that we only like certain kinds of food.

Jack,

I've been trying to stay out of this thread because it seems to be careening way off topic. I'd rather save the genetic discussion for an article on genetics - but I like your point so I'll respond.

Taking care of the old, injured, and infirm? Dolphins do it. Elephants do it. We're not alone in doing it.

I knew that elephants sometimes display almost human sentimentality. I've seen footage of elephants visiting the "grave" of a loved one. I wasn't aware that dolphins care for the old and injured as well. Caring for old and injured group members can be seen as genetically beneficial. Older members likely contain genes for longevity which are more likely to be passed on if the animal is allowed to live a longer life. Likewise, injured animals may be the more aggressive and active group members, so preserving their genetic material can also be beneficial to the species. Can you find any evidence of animal species caring for the genetically weak, incompetent, disabled, deformed etc.? I would find that interesting.

Older members likely contain genes for longevity which are more likely to be passed on if the animal is allowed to live a longer life.

Elephants take care of their elderly past mating age.

Can you find any evidence of animal species caring for the genetically weak, incompetent, disabled, deformed etc.?

Define "genetically weak [or] incompetent." I frankly don't know where you draw the line. As for deformities, have you ever seen or heard of a genetically deformed wild animal in any documentary or news article? I daresay that care for such animals would be very hard to judge, since deformities are both rare and short-lived.

Elephants take care of their elderly past mating age.

Fascinating critters. I guess one could argue that, since it's been shown that elephants are socialized well into adolescence by their elders (as demonstrated by the rash of "killer elephant" attacks in areas where too-young elephants are released), the older elephants are kept around for guidance. Damn! I may have to do an elephant article!

Define "genetically weak [or] incompetent."

I'm going to say "possessing any genetic deficiency or attribute that is detrimental to the survival of the species." Case in point: I had a cat who had a litter that included an obviously mentaly retarded kitten. She refused to feed it and even tried to prevent it from eating. Strangely, my neighbor's cat adopted and cared for it. Crap, that last bit kinda disproves my premise - disregard, please.

There are a lot of little semantic corridors we could run this argument down if we wanted to, but I think at its core it boils down to this:

You seem to think faith is ok if it comes with love and quite simply not ok if it comes with hate - do I understand you?

If faith were dead, and reason was the only accepted means of arriving at a conclusion, do you think all wrong-doers could be argued with till they saw the light and put down their bombs? As Brian White argued in the comments to your article (in another context -- he's not supporting me here :-): "most humans are completely and unapologetically irrational."

This is probably the strongest reason why I don't buy the "Faith is not OK" argument. It's a presupposition that, lacking faith, human beings will behave reasonably, or at the very least consistently listen to reason. This is a fantasy.

I smoke. That has nothing to do with religion. I know the arguments. I know it is horrible for my long AND short term health, I know it's a drain on my bank account and I know large segments of the population find it disgusting. And yet I smoke.

I drive drunk. I drive to a bar, knowing I will drink there, and drive home. I know my reflexes and senses will be inhibited. I know I have the change to kill someone and/or myself and, at the very least if caught have my license suspended. I do it anyway.

I'm a middle school teacher. Despite the fact that I have a husband at home I initiate a relationship with a 13-year old student. I am caught and go to jail. While out on bail I disobey the court order and am caught with him again. When this started not only did I stand to lose my job and any social standing in the community, I stood to (and did) go to prison. I knew this. I went throught with it.

I'm an astronaut. I have a husband and children. I drove 900 miles in a diaper to confront a woman who I suspected was having an affair with a fellow astronaut with who I am enamored. There are piles of rational arguments against this. None of them would likely have stopped me.

I am a murderer. And after I kill people I eat them. Work that one out.

Yes these examples have gotten more and more extreme but every day each of us comes across a person who behaves irrationally irrespective of faith. While in these times in which fundamentalist Islam seems to be gripping global consciousness and in the United States fundamentalist Christianity is trying to solidify a grip in government and in our society it's easy to thin that without faith the world would behave rationally and would be a better and safer place but looking at the world that belief in itself is illogical. Over the course of the history of the world, yes, faith has repeatedly been used as a tool to control and motivate the masses toward unreasonable and dangerous ends. But lacking faith the ambitions of the leaders at these times of conflict would not have been any different and I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have found some other means.

*note, of the examples above the only one that actually fits me is the smoking.

I think something I'm gathering from these arguments - yet may not be stated explicitly - is that faith can lead an individual (and thus large numbers of individuals) to believe they are doing good, doing the right thing, when they are not.

Take the failed suicide bomber, for example. Although we can prosecute him and punish him according to human law, he may still believe that what he did was good and "godly". That in itself is not a problem. What is is that the same faith and belief that he holds is held by many others and his prosecution is no deterrent to the others - because faith tells them they are right and may even lead them to aspire to be a suicide bomber.

So this is to say that faith trumps reason - you can't tell a would-be bomber that he's wrong.

Granted that without faith people would still do bad things and irrational things, but arguing that those things are bad or irrational would be easier without the faith that they are good.

eric, I think I gave you your first cigarette. I feel so bad. I gave up smoking ages ago. Please don't die from lung cancer.

That said your points are well taken. I know that eliminating religion won't makethe world perfect - but instead of an imperfect world with suicicde bombers, institutionalized homophobia and stem-cell bans it'll be an imperfect world without them. That seems like a really worthwhile step in the right direction, to me.

Paddy,

That, to me, is just asserting your position without evidence. I understand, though. There's not much more to be said on the subject. If faith is ok with love, then why do you need the faith? Why not just stick with the love?

Sorry, I don't mean to sound patronizing. Let me try a syllogism.

1) Any mechanism by which a person's motivation (for any action, but especially actions that have an adverse effect on other people) becomes divorced from reason such that it's impossible to sway that person's opinion through argument, regardless of how flawlessly logical that argument is, is dangerous and should be perceived as undesirable.

2) Religious faith is a mechanism by which a motivating force is obscured and removed from the public discourse, thereby exempting any belief or action it motivates from logical argument.

3) Therefore, religious faith is dangerous and should be perceived as undesirable.

Does that make sense?

Cool, I see your point. Let me zoom in:

1) It is important that we are able to communicate our motivations in a sort of universally understandable language to those around us. (This is important because we might be flawed in our reasoning, and communication is a mechanism by which an error in one individual's thinking can be addressed by multiple other people thereby decreasing the odds that one's motivation is predicated on flawed logic. This is obviously desirable, assuming we don't want to act based on a false premise.) Any motivational process which we are unable to communicate meaningfully, therefore, is dangerous and undesireable.

2) Without reason (defined here as logical argument, syllogism, etc, making use of universally accepted rules of logic), communication cannot be meaningful because reason provides the underlying structure that allows us to compare the same thought between two minds.

3) Therefore, a motivational process that's divorced from reason is dangerous and undesirable.

Does that work?

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

2) Without reason (defined here as logical argument, syllogism, etc, making use of universally accepted rules of logic), communication cannot be meaningful because reason provides the underlying structure that allows us to compare the same thought between two minds.

You do not need a common structure in reason in order to compare thought between two minds. I do believe you need a common set of goals/motivations, however. For example, you can take a religious person who's opposed to the death penalty and an atheist who's also opposed to the death penalty, put them in a locked room together, and they're going to have a very meaningful discussion. They're not going to "talking around" one another.

mm, they're not really talking about the same thing though.

The one person says "I don't believe in the death penalty because A, B, C and D. What do you think of A, B, C and D? Am I right, or do you see a flaw in my argument?"

The other person says "I don't believe in the death penalty because god says it's wrong."

Sure they agree in the outcome, but so what? It's kinda pointless, and becomes much more pointless when they disagree on the outcome.

"I believe that the death penalty is wrong because god says so."
"Oh yeah? I think it's right because A, B, C, and D. What do you say to that?"
"Well...A, B, C, and D are incapable of changing my opinion, no matter how reasonable, because they don't speak to my faith."
"Oh."

But Myk, what are A, B, C and D, and what makes them absolutely rational, as opposed to the implied irrationality of "I believe that the death penalty is wrong because god says so."?

that's what's up for discussion - that's why it's useful. A B C and D are such that we can talk about them and see if they logically follow from values we both accept. (Values are where things get tricky for my position, I confess that, but I am coming to believe that most values really are universal and biological in nature). The atheist is asking in that case whether his arguments make sense, he is presenting them publicly, entering them into the discourse, putting them forward for refutation. If someon can refute them, they are discarded. That's the scientific spirit in day to day life.

I find it more useful to solve problems. In the case of my death penalty issue, let's assume that in addition to that issue, we've got educational reform, healthcare, crime, and corporate corruption on the docket - and if they're largely in agreement on those issues - they're going to move through them without requiring agreement on each basic supporting belief.

That's part of what's wrong with the global warming debate. We're stuck in neutral right now because the oil lobby and the environmentalist lobby are stuck in a pissing match about the foundation of the science (or lack thereof). However, I think if we set the following as objectives for research funding:

• To better understand the stimulus for climate change
• To develop alternative (clean) fuel sources
• To develop technology to enable cleaner industrial production @ reasonable costs
• To develop solutions to clean up poor environments

...we'd have much more agreement on whether or not those should be funded. Many of us would agree that those are noble goals, but the pissing match gets none of us closer to our objectives. That's what's "not OK". I've heard the word "dangerous" thrown around a lot, and to be frank, I find your view just as dangerous as the others.

What sorts of dangers is my view causing? I'm honestly curious.

Because of the reality of the place of faith in today's society, I feel it's likely that a view that would require fundamental agreement on not only on the direction of society, but also the supporting arguments in favor of that direction, would all but halt progress.

It's killing me. I have to tell the world. The evils that Christianity has done before its reform, well it is happening now in the present, in Afghanistan.

Sadly enough, this is true.

A reform of Islam is clearly needed. Of course, you can't just say, that the possibilities of reform is the same as for Christianity - the two religions are not simply parallel. But I certainly hope, that some kind of progressive reform is possible. Today there are some signs of this coming, but they are all too weak.

It is my impression, that if/when reforms in Islam and the Islamic World is coming, it will be concentrated around women's liberation. Unlike western civilization, women will be the motor in the reforms.

Personally, I don't have any faith(!) in the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, when he says that the military attack on Iraq was motivated by bringing democracy to Iraq. But even if you believe this was the intention, the attempt has certainly failed badly. The reason is, that he cannot imagine a positive development in the Islamic World, which is different from the historic development in the Western World (Denmark was with USA and England in the military attack on Iraq).

faith requires the masses to belief in something no manner how crazy it is, and tell followers "you just gotta have faith". I hate to throw the 9/11 card on you, but these Wackos were brainwashed to do what they did, and were told about 72 virgins as their reward. They had "faith" in what they were told. That faith made them believe so hard that they had no problems killing innocents in the process.

I would also refrain from demanding reason and logic, because you shall lose that argument every time, with all due respect. You believe in an powerful being because of the way you were brought up, in your geographical location, you believe this based on scriptures written by men from a very long time ago. If you were born in Greece thousands of years ago, you'd believe in Zeus instead. You know that, you understand that.

Too many people like to cherry-pick the Bible. "Oh, if we just omit this, the rest is fine". This is a "God" who loves you if you believe in him, if you don't, he hates you. You can be a serious rapist/killer, then say you are "born again" and magically everything is fine because you "believe" again? This is madness. This is the behavior of a psychotic ex-girlfriend.

Religion helped refrain society from self-destruction. It imposes fear on the masses (don't do this or else you'll land in Hell). It was a very good idea, it places a set of rules, which nobody questioned.

"Faith" caused millions to die in the Crusades. If you think that era is over, it's done. If you have the money, I'd be more than happy to take you around Kabul, to show you how "faith" is killing these people.

If I had to pick between praying 5 times a day and rebuilding my country, I'm going to pick the latter.

People also believe in God because they are afraid of death, they are afraid of the idea of nothingness, that their existence will disappear forever after their brain activity stops, so they lie themselves into believing that a magical place awaits them (Heaven).

The "soul" is nothing but your sub conscience. If magic does not work in this dimension, why should it after you die? Your brain stays in the same coffin. The matter stays here. If brains magically left people's heads after they died, you'd have a point, but that does not happen. There is no wormhole leading to Heaven or Hell.

ps. If "God" talked to you in your sleep and asked you to kill for him in his name, would you do it? Because millions have done that. And no, it is not "God" talking to them, it is themselves talking back to them. In severe cases, we call that schizophrenia.
pps. child-molesting priests.

Zaki, you're using a lot of impressive rhetoric. You even warn me not to appeal to reason and logic. Yet you have skirted the issue. I repeat: "Please explain (by reason and logic) how something being used to justify evil makes that something evil in itself."

Paddy, I can understand your frustration with Zaki's emotional response, but your question is unfair and it's a prototypical theological trap. Nobody here is suggesting religion is "evil." I think you'd find few atheists who actually believe the in the positively boring religious expressions of "good and evil."

They are not helpful descriptors. The world is more complex than they allow.

Mykola likes to use "dangerous," and given that context, Zaki's response is dead-on. He's just spent a chunk of his life in a part of the world where religion is ensuring that good, innocent people continue to suffer, and he's afraid that he sees some of the same insanity here. His perspective is one we cannot afford not to learn from.

It does not matter whether the essence of religion is inherently evil. The evidence is in, Paddy. We live in a world of collapsing physical and virtual borders, our cultures and marketplaces blending at a rate more rapid than we've ever seen. We have serious issues we have to work out with each other if we are to get along and live peacefully on this Earth. That we are still discussing whether or not it is OK to have fairy tales inform the way in which live our lives is a sign that we have not come far enough quick enough.

Everyone has different fairy tales that are divinely inspired. They all cannot be right, and I have a hunch that none of them are. Agreeing to disagree is insufficient given what's at stake.

Unless there is respect for other people's convictions, born from an honest realization that there is more to life and to me than I know at the minute, and that maybe my world-view is inadequate, then all we'll reap in the coming years is more and more violence, more and more blood-shed, and more and more separation between different ideologies, cultures, etc.

I dissent! (British accent)

Respect and tolerance are two very different things. Surely you don't respect the beliefs of people just because they are religious ones? That would be insane.

My name is Mahmoud. I believe that if I martyr myself for the cause of Islam, I will be rewarded with 72 virgins in the afterlife.

My name is Karen. I believe that one day Jesus is going to descend from Heaven, cast all the unbelievers (5 billion people) into the fiery depths of Hell, and bring those who had faith in him back to his Kingdom.

What is even remotely respectable about those core religious beliefs? To me, they are disgusting, yet I am surrounded by people (many of whom I love very dearly), who believe that type of stuff.

I tolerate it. But I don't respect it.

Paddy,

First of all, thanks for being so kind and responding to my comments — I know you have a lot of work cut out for you here.

With regards to your comment:

By "respect" I meant you should think: "Well, that strange Brazilian with an Irish name has some queer and disgusting ideas! But, so what! That's his problem. As long as he doesn't interfere in my life, I'll leave him in peace".

I just cannot accept this, and I suppose this is where we diverge. Maybe it's a societal difference, but in the U.S. people of faith do not practice a "live and let live" philosophy. To the contrary, they actively try to inject their god-given morals into the law. They have every right to do that here — it's America after all — but I can't just sit back while it happens. The morals provided by the Bible are just not good enough (in fact, a great many of the moral lessons in the Bible are utterly reprehensible — you know, those Old Testament ones Christians don't like to acknowledge).

In the US, the two are not as divorced as you think.

On the 'Vine, the false dichotomy between "religious faith" and "how people use religious faith" has been dredged up ad infinitum.

Religious faith is nothing without its effects on our feelings and actions. If I wasn't emotionally affected by an orange, that doesn't mean the orange is not there. With religious faith, if it had no effects, then it wouldn't exist anymore.

The danger of faith is that it allows any arbitrary set of motives, actions, and beliefs to entirely divorce themselves from external scrutiny. It's the perfect stonewall tactic.

"Why did you kill this man?"
"God told me to. I was acting righteously."
"Ummm.. WTF?"
"What? God told me to. I was acting righteously."

That conversation gets absolutely nowhere. Religious faith is the perfect excuse for absolutely anything.

This is why faith is dangerous. Reason can be, well, reasoned with. That is reason's greatest curse and greatest gift.

Further, no matter your beliefs, people who claim the same religion as you will always feel more solidarity towards you.
If someone said: "Hera tells me that homosexuality is evil," people would think "That freakin' weirdo."

Thus, the enemy is religious faith, precisely because people go leagues out of their way to say that religious faith isn't the enemy.

Religion eases the way for propagating all manners of beliefs through its ability to absolutely suspend rational criticism. It's time we actually recognized that instead of saying "Oh stop looking at the suicide bombers! Come look at the nice church that's donating money."

Faith and religion aren't the same word. Someone can have religious faith, but you can also have faith without religion. If someone "ditches reason and logic" then he's using faith instead.

You still don't seem to understand what we're really talking about. Faith is a process of reaching a conclusion in which reason and logic are not used. You're arguing on our side at this point because you're basically agreeing that throwing away logic and reason is a bad idea. You just don't seem to understand that someone with "religious faith" is using the same process as anyone else who throws way logic and reason.

If someone says they use faith and reason together then either they're using the word to mean "religious belief" or they're lying. The article you responded to (Mykola's article) clearly used faith to mean "a method of reaching a conclusion without reason". That's what we've been talking about the whole time. Faith as a process of reaching a conclusion. Not as a specific belief, but as a method. If you have a religious belief that you reached through reason then that's not "faith" as we've defined it. That's not what we're talking about. If you insist on using another definition, then your entire article as a response to Mykola's is moot. It's useless. It's not a rebuttal to the actual argument being made. It's an equivocation.

So are you saying that there could be religious beliefs that can be obtained through reason?

Some people believe in God because of logical arguments. Those arguments, in my opinion, are flawed, but they are at least attempting to use reason to justify their beliefs.

Some people also believe that the events in the Bible are accurate based on apologetics, which are attempts to justify beliefs based on evidence. I also think those arguments are flawed, but again at least they're trying.

If at any point in an argument with someone you have to resort to "I just have faith" or "you just need to have faith", then you are not using reason. That is the type of "faith" (believing something without an actual logical justification) that we're talking about.

There are beliefs that religious faiths share with rational systems of thought, such as "don't slice up random people on the street." (since the latter created to the former)

But, arriving at "God/Yahweh/Allah/etc [insert anything here]" is purely an irrational endeavour.

Basic religious morality is often based on social morality. Thus, your wording is actually very, very accurate, in that there are religious beliefs that have been invented due to rational chains of thought.

The parts based on reason are useful. The parts based on faith are arbitrary and useless.

The value of faith is for the faithful to decide. While "arbitrary" may be a fairly objective term, "useless" is not. I doubt Paddy would say that faith is useless for him. For you and I perhaps, but not Paddy.

So - let's say I agreed with the general ideal that Faith is NOT OK (I do not agree). What do we do about it? What practical measure can we take to force society to fall in step without irreparably harminf it in the process?

If faith gives no answers, then it's useless. Paddy can pretend to have answers all he wants, but when it comes down to it all he really has is guesses that he believes "on faith". That's not an answer. It's a guess. He knows just as little as I do.

So - let's say I agreed with the general ideal that Faith is NOT OK (I do not agree). What do we do about it? What practical measure can we take to force society to fall in step without irreparably harminf it in the process?

First, let me make this clear: I absolutely do not condone any coercion. I do not tolerate it, either. No one should ever be forced to believe or not believe anything. Freedom of thought and speech is the most important freedom ever, and I won't budge on it one bit.

The key is education. We need to convince people that the only meaningful answers come from reason and that anything else is just a meaningless guess. We need to convince people that the way to getting along with each other is to acknowledge that we're all here together, we're all the same, and that the only way to make things better is to do something to make it better (instead of all of us wasting time praying to our own individual false Gods and trying to convince each other that one false God is better than some other false God).

I don't think religion or faith will ever go away, but I can at least hope that it will decline some if rationalists will just come out of the closet and speak their minds. That's what's just now starting to happen, and you can see how bad the reaction is from the religious. You can bet that I'm going to keep speaking my mind about it.

The key is education.

Agree, education is important, but in this context I think common education is the key. Here in Denmark we have a rather high standard, when it comes to this, e.g. high-quality TV-programmes about scientific topics in our Public Service Channels. This is probably one of the reasons, that very few Danes believe in crap like Intelligent Design.

But there are important questions in life, that science can't answer!

(What is important is in itself subjective, because it is a question of values).

I think, that the real problem is with religious people who prefer faith instead of reason where there is a conflict between the two.

It is nothing less than bizarre irrationality to believe, that the Genesis in the Bible is true, taken literally, and the theory of evolution false!

I cannot see a problem with people having faith in something, they experience as an answer to questions, they regard as being important for them, but to which reason and science has no answers. On the contrary: I think there would be serious problems, if this need is in any way suppressed (that might not be your attitude, I know).

Adam, I understand where you're coming from. In my experience, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Then again, I also do not hang out with too many ultra-conservatives, either. I would certainly like to see a decline in poor decision making as well. I just don't think faith is the right target. As you and mogmich mention, education is key.

And in as much as critical thinking skills need to be encouraged, however, we do also need to be educated about the beliefs and culture of others in our communities who are not like ourselves. This thread (to an extent) and others much more so have shown some pretty basic gaps in understanding of our differences. Some are surprised that a Christian could support gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research or be pro-choice, for example. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding how diverse a religious community can be.

This common understanding - and respect (which is also sorely lacking in some threads) - is what's needed to guarantee productive discourse between us. A basis in reason will certainly help, but it's not going to solve the world's problems by itself.

But there are important questions in life, that science can't answer!

I repeat: Even if there are questions which science can't answer, that doesn't mean faith can answer any. Faith gives no answers. It never has, and it never will. It is logically impossible for "faith" to ever give a single answer. Faith is, by definition (at least the one used in Mykola's article and the one I've been using), something which people believe for no reason. They believe it because they "have faith" and that's that. End of discussion. There are no answers in that. Only ignorance in disguise.

Adam Kemp:

Faith is, by definition (at least the one used in Mykola's article and the one I've been using), something which people believe for no reason

Isn't that definition a little self-contradicting?

I might be wrong, because English is not my native language, but:

If a person has faith in something (religion) because he or she needs this, for personal or psychological reasons - then there are reasons, aren't there?

As I understand the English word "reason" it refers to human consciousness, at least more than e.g. words like "cause"??

And you can continue to tell yourself that, Paddy, but it will continue to be a lie.

If a person has faith in something (religion) because he or she needs this, for personal or psychological reasons - then there are reasons, aren't there?

That's another equivocation. I'm talking about someone believing something "without reason" as in "without evidence or logic to support it". Saying "I just need to believe this to make myself feel good" is an explanation for why you believe it, but it's not a logical reason or based on evidence. They believe in something "without reason" not "without a reason". Those are two different definitions of the word and they are not interchangeable.

I have an open mind, but not so open that I accept things without evidence to back them up. That's what faith is, and no matter how strongly you want to believe that something is true it will never become so just because you "have faith". I see absolutely no value in accepting something as true just because it sounds nice.

I don't think faith is stupid, in fact, I think it shares, in the religious sense, a lot of characteristics with perfectly "normal", rational ways of viewing the world around you.

I do think that accepting a given standard of "evidence" lower than what I'd prefer does open the door to legitimizing the beliefs that kill people, but then, I have a feeling a lot of those people would kill for different reasons without religion.

Faith isn't stupid, but I do think many faiths are wrong, or working with inaccurate information, but the only solution to that is seeking to grant everyone as much knowledge of as many things as possible.

Lucid, you're really distorting things here.

I really agree with that. This is a very basic truth which a lot of atheists don't care to acknowledge.

At least three people have addressed this point above, and I've yet to hear a satisfactory response.

I think that the problem here lies in tribalism, both among those with faith and those who despise those who have it. For instance, most Christians quickly come to this point that they want to convert everyone around them, because they desire every one else to have their world view. This leads to problems and intolerance.

Funny, I thought that christians tried to convert people because that's the express, explicit mission which is expressly and explicitly required of them. You know, compassion, so you have to convert people so that the loving god doesn't burn them in hell forever? Doesn't Paul basically make it an order to convert people?

For those of you who might be reading this column, with your fingers poised over the post comment, ready to shoot down absolutely anything I say whatsoever, I'd really appreciate it if you'd think about what your doing and why your doing it. If a group of religious people were to surround you, insult you and call you a fool, and then try to get you to convert, what would your reaction be?

I'm correcting the misrepresentations and holes in your argument because I find them aesthetically and intellectually unsatisfactory. Nobody is calling you a fool for having faith, but we are explaining to the best of our ability why we feel faith is unjustified and unjustifiable. Nobody is blaming you for 9/11, we are simply asking you what makes your faith different from their faith - it's a very legitimate question, and you can't seem to answer it. Taking it personally doesn't help anyone or anything.

If a group of religious people were to surround you, insult you and call you a fool, and then try to get you to convert, what would your reaction be?

There are many things that I "believed" fervently that I no longer believe today only because people I knew and respected called me foolish and appealed to my sense of reason. Sometimes my reaction to such chiding would be defensive, but it would always make me reconsider my old perceptions.

There is absolutely nothing virtuous about believing something for the sake of believing something. Would you hesitate to call someone who believes the Earth is flat foolish? Would you hesitate to call someone who believes unicorns are real foolish? But what if they just knew it in their hearts?

I'm correcting the misrepresentations and holes in your argument because I find them aesthetically and intellectually unsatisfactory. Nobody is calling you a fool for having faith, but we are explaining to the best of our ability why we feel faith is unjustified and unjustifiable. Nobody is blaming you for 9/11, we are simply asking you what makes your faith different from their faith - it's a very legitimate question, and you can't seem to answer it. Taking it personally doesn't help anyone or anything.

What makes my faith different from their faith? Which faith are you even talking about, you haven't specified one? When a religious person anywhere, of any faith, kills a man, it's my fault? If an atheist kills someone, is that your fault?

Well, to answer the most interesting statement you made, yes actually many people here have called me a fool. Scooterdman appears to have deleted the article, but I believe many people here read the article in which he referred to "today's faithful, tomorrows fools."

Awhile back, Pharoah wrote a column about Maslowe's heirarchy of needs, in which he compared someone teaching his children to be religious, to child molestation. Would you like some more examples? I can give you many. You are right, I have taken it very personally, as I should.

I have responded with far greater tolerance to people saying these things, then has been granted to me.

Funny, I thought that christians tried to convert people because that's the express, explicit mission which is expressly and explicitly required of them. You know, compassion, so you have to convert people so that the loving god doesn't burn them in hell forever? Doesn't Paul basically make it an order to convert people?

Mikola, it is most specifically not the belief of people of my faith to do that. We are Christians, but while we'd like to convince people to worship god, we don't necessarily feel that it's good to constantly cram it down their threats. Many of us, myself included, do not believe that not believing as we do is a ticket to hell, or will anger god. People show up to our meetings because they feel like it, and we don't try to make them feel guilty if they don't come back.

I have responded to the attacks made against me by many people on newsvine with far greater tolerance then I have received.

Nobody is calling you a fool for having faith, but we are explaining to the best of our ability why we feel faith is unjustified and unjustifiable. Nobody is blaming you for 9/11, we are simply asking you what makes your faith different from their faith - it's a very legitimate question, and you can't seem to answer it. Taking it personally doesn't help anyone or anything.

When someone on the other side of the world, frequently worshipping a different god, with totally different beliefs then mine, does something wrong, you demand that it is my fault. You don't know what my beliefs are yet, and in fact, you never asked.

I believe that taking a life is wrong, that violence is wrong. I am very consistent in that belief, and I have never supported anyone who has gone against it. If I were to tell you about the good that people at my meeting have done, I doubt you'd care, you'd probably think me vain for talking about it. But the bad things that people I disagree with do, you will happily tell me all about that. We have actively opposed a lot of the carnage that you hold up as evidence of how evil faith is.

We have probably done far more to oppose it then you have, I suspect. I hesitate to say it, but I think it's something that deserves to be mentioned.

During World War II, the Quakers flew food to the starving in Germany. During the Vietnam War, many of us were imprisoned and jailed when we tried to feed, cloth, and heal those who were dying. We opposed that war from the beginning, long before it became fashionable for others to do so. We opposed this war from the beginning as well. Today, the blame for horrible atrocities squarely at the feet of our government, accurately. And yet you don't spend much of your time attacking a power, using it's power for evil, you suggest that everyone who is religious everywhere is responsible for murder. I am not responsible for murder.

We have raised money for schools and clinics in the Middle East, because we feel that would help avert some of the suffering happened now. We have always done what we could to help people who needed it.

Tolerance or intolerance are traits which can be found anywhere, in all men.

Christ, listen, I'm not blaming you for murder and I'm not saying faith is evil. Stop getting worked up, you sound like Phaedrus.

I'm only going to say this one more time then I'm done with this discussion entirely if you can't understand a simple question:

What is the difference between the process whereby you determine what you believe is true (with respect to god, morality, god's will, etc) and the process used by a terrorist? Just tell me the difference in processes, that's all.

And if I remember Scooter's article correctly, he says today's faithful are tomorrow's fools only in the following context:

100 years ago some people believed Blacks and Women didn't deserve equal rights. Today, we see those people as fools.

Today, some people (almost entirely religiously motivated) believe that gays don't deserve equal rights. In the future, when we've outgrown such biases, people who today are opposed to gay rights will be considered to be as foolish as those who once opposed women's rights or black rights.

That sounds like a reasonable claim to me.

What is the difference between the process whereby you determine what you believe is true (with respect to god, morality, god's will, etc) and the process used by a terrorist? Just tell me the difference in processes, that's all.

You seem to be assuming that all terrorists use the same thought process, or think the same thing is true. Why are you assuming that?

What is the thought process of a terrorist? You seem to be suggesting that all terrorists are religious, and that isn't so either. Some are just desperate, or tired. Some are insane. Some have lost a loved one, and are taking out their pain on the world. Some of all of those people might be religious also, or they might not believe in god at all.

I can't answer the question, because the question is flawed. I don't know what the thought process of any given terrorist is, and if you think all terrorists are the same, then you are definitely a bigot.

Would you please think about that section of text I just quoted, and explain to me how that's a fair question? How could anyone answer it?

If your tired of the argument that's fine Mikola. I was about to apologize for the bigot reference I made in my previous statement, but after having seen you ask that, I don't think I will.

Stop getting worked up, you sound like Phaedrus.

Conjurphaetion: Evoking the dreaded spectre of Phaedrus to make a point in an argument.

Oops...wrong thread.

I am obviously not referring to insane or fed up people who blow @!$%# up for non-religious reasons. I'm sorry, within the context of this discussion I assumed it was clear that I'm talking about islamic fundamentalists conducting suicide attacks.

Since you seem to lack the imagination to answer the question as phrased, let me simplify it:

Ahmed believes that Allah wants him to kill the infidels to advance the greater glory of God. He knows this to be true because he interprets certain passages in the koran a certain way. He is aware of the fact that not everyone interprets those passages the same way, but he's certain that his interpretation is correct and that the act of violence he is about to carry out is the single greatest act he could aspire to in this world. He knows this to be true because he has faith.

Now, pick any action of your own that was motivated by religion. I'm not calling you a terrorist - I'm asking you a very simple question. How is your motivation different from his?

And for @!$%#'s sake my name is Mykola with a Y.

Of course they are being manipulated - and if they didn't accept "faith" as a reasonable motivating factor then they wouldn't be susceptible to the manipulations of their "spiritual mentors."

Are we disputing the idea that religious faith motivates suicide bombers? 9/11 attackers? Etc?

Actually, Mykola's question is not flawed - it's right on. And so is the answer. What's the difference in thought process? The frame of reference in which values are measured: religion, life experience, mood, age, gender, ethnicity, political persuasion, sexuality, goals/motivation, nationality, etc etc. The list of factors goes on and on. It's not just reason or lack of reason. All of these things - both religious and non-religous - are part of the thought process.

We're talking about an Islamic suicide bomber - if you take away his faith in god, he loses the consolation of heaven. Without that, his motivation for his action is gone. I know there are countless other factors at play - but he is explicitly acting on religious faith. That's the keystone, without which no action is possible. I'm trying to focus in on that, and compare his faith to that of a moderate church going christian. I don't see a fundamental difference in motivational process.

Well, your original question involved both the Islamic bomber and me - what's the difference? Lots. That's the point.

Eliminating Faith to solve the Islamic bomber issue ... isn't that sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

That's kinda the point - the baby is imaginary but it costs a fortune to feed it. We're better off just calling a spade a spade and doing away with it.

Sorry if my earlier question was too vague w/r/t the points I'm trying to compare; I'm trying really hard to focus on the process of religious faith, I thought I was being clear.

Well, to answer the most interesting statement you made, yes actually many people here have called me a fool. Scooterdman appears to have deleted the article, but I believe many people here read the article in which he referred to "today's faithful, tomorrows fools."

Nope. Didn't delete it, and still stand by the claim 100%.

Well, to answer the most interesting statement you made, yes actually many people here have called me a fool. Scooterdman appears to have deleted the article, but I believe many people here read the article in which he referred to "today's faithful, tomorrows fools."

Nope. Didn't delete it, and still stand by the claim 100%.

Thanks for re-linking it. For some reason when I did a search for it, I didn't immediately come up with it.

For the record, as a matter of fact, I don't really particularly disagree with the basic idea of the article, which is that years from now we will look back on this and people will think a lot of all of us were idiots.

My distaste is for the attitude you reveal with the headline, and the way you choose to open the argument.

My distaste is for the attitude you reveal with the headline, and the way you choose to open the argument.

I hear ya. Didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings. Just wanted to ruffle some feathers. They grow back.

I replied somewhere in this page that I might not be able to describe the difference, but that the different results indicate that there is a difference.

The different results indicate there is some difference about the moral perspective of the two people. Those results say nothing about whether that difference is related to their faith.

It is not logical to argue that, since some faith is dangerous, therefore all faith is dangerous.

Sure, but that's not the argument. The argument is that faith allows people to commit evil acts without remorse. The vast majority of people of faith do not commit evil acts and justify them using their faith, but every last one of them is psychologically prepared to do so.

Entelechy, I respect your right to this opinion (even though I disagree completely :-)

I don't see how you can disagree without contradicting yourself. Your moral standard is not informed by faith, and you clearly believe that the overall mores of society are not derived from faith either. How do I know this? Because you propose judging the acts of faithful people based on the yardstick of "society" and "law." If you wish to argue that the moral judgment of society is ultimately informed by God's law (i.e. faith), then you are engaging in bizarre logic where faith is kept in check by itself. If you argue that moral judgments are rational, then the good acts of faithful people are purely coincidental to their faith. Either way, your argument falls apart.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous (especially with the emphasis you added in your original comment).

Not ridiculous at all. If you accept beliefs on faith, you might believe in the statement "I should give a large percentage of my income to charity" or you might believe in the statement "Infidels who disrespect me deserve death." Neither is more unreasonable than the other. They are both non-rational beliefs.

Sorry, Entelechy, but your attempted character study is completely off.

Character study? Do you think I'm psychoanalyzing you? All I did was point out the logical implications of your prior statements. You can't make the argument that "extreme" faith will be kept in check by society unless you believe that society is (on balance) tapped into some source of true morality.

If we had time to talk about it, I would show you that my notion of "right and wrong" is different, in many aspects, to Brazilian law. But for the common good of society, I'm happy to submit to that law.

The "common good" is, itself, a moral standard. Is the common good informed by faith or reason? If the former, then you are making the ridiculous argument that faith checks itself (and you are thus forced again to differentiate between "good" and "bad" faith). If the latter, then you are conceding that faith bears no relationship to moral action -- and thus all faithful people are potential fanatics.

You are trapped by your own logic. If you wish to maintain the position that faith is not inherently corrosive to moral thinking (i.e. that "faith is OK") -- you must make a coherent argument that distinguishes good faith from bad and explains the basis of good faith. Otherwise, your whole argument is just sophistry.

The argument is that faith allows people to commit evil acts without remorse. The vast majority of people of faith do not commit evil acts and justify them using their faith, but every last one of them is psychologically prepared to do so

Not true. Please provide an example - as far as I'm concerned, many faiths take a firm stand against evil acts (Thou shalt not kill, etc). I don't believe faith prepares you psychologically for evil as much as it prepares you psychologically for living according to that faith. Making the connection you are implies there is no difference between an islamic extremist and the little grey haired presbyterian lady who lives next to me, psychologically. That's not an easy argument to make.

Not ridiculous at all. If you accept beliefs on faith, you might believe in the statement "I should give a large percentage of my income to charity" or you might believe in the statement "Infidels who disrespect me deserve death." Neither is more unreasonable than the other. They are both non-rational beliefs.

What if you reason that by giving to charity, you are creating a stronger community to live in while also feeling better about oneself - thereby creating personal gain from charitable giving. That's rational and speaks to my point that the faithful and faithless can work together to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome without agreeing on all the supporting arguments behind that outcome.

The "common good" is, itself, a moral standard.

The "common good", while perhaps a perspective shared by the majority, is not an objective standard. "Good" is not rational. Unfortunately, you are trapped by your logic as it is quite easy to show that the concept of "good" is not based in reason. It is not logical to say that faith is not good becuase it lacks reason or rationality - "good" itself also lacks reason.

clearcache, you are once again equivocating between "faith" as a set of religious principles and "faith" as a process of reaching a conclusion. We're talking about the latter. Someone who believes things "on faith" (i.e., without any evidence-based reason for believing) is using the exact same method of reaching conclusions as someone who believes "on faith" that murdering some people is good.

We're not talking about religious principles. We're talking about a method of reasoning. Should you ever accept a conclusion based on "faith" alone? If you do, then what makes one conclusion better than any other? If they're all based on faith then they're all equal in terms of logical foundation.

What if you reason that by giving to charity, you are creating a stronger community to live in while also feeling better about oneself - thereby creating personal gain from charitable giving.

Then you're not using "faith". You're arguing based on using "reason". We're asking if "faith" is a good enough reason to do something.

I don't believe faith prepares you psychologically for evil as much as it prepares you psychologically for living according to that faith.

And if that faith, or its spokesmen, advocate evil? In that case, the faithful have lowered their guard. They are predisposed towards obeying "God's command" to do evil.

That's rational and speaks to my point that the faithful and faithless can work together to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome without agreeing on all the supporting arguments behind that outcome.

What makes the atheist uncomfortable in this scenario is that the theist doesn't have a supporting argument -- he has mere assertion.

The "common good", while perhaps a perspective shared by the majority, is not an objective standard. "Good" is not rational. Unfortunately, you are trapped by your logic as it is quite easy to show that the concept of "good" is not based in reason. It is not logical to say that faith is not good because it lacks reason or rationality - "good" itself also lacks reason.

OK, unlike Paddy Ryan, you are unwilling to use the "common good" to paper over the amoral nature of faith. That's fine, but that means you fall to the other side of my argument -- that faith bears no relationship to moral action. You try to counter this by arguing that reason suffers from the same flaw. However, you clearly don't believe that or you wouldn't have appealed to reason in the paragraph immediately preceding this one. Why didn't you appeal to faith when arguing for charity? Moreover, how could you?

The "good" is only irrational in the mind of a committed theist -- because, for the theist, morality is an act of faith.

faith bears no relationship to moral action

I agree that faith is not required for morality. I don't see how that counteracts my argument that the common good is not objective - if anything, it supports it. A theist and an atheist can both oppose murder for very different reasons, yet agree that murder is morally wrong. Neither rationality nor faith is required - nor do they need to agree on their basis for opposing murder in order for both to have a positive impact on society.

The "good" is only irrational in the mind of a committed theist -- because, for the theist, morality is an act of faith.

Well, that's not true because I am not a committed theist. Scores of philosophers have debated this very point for thousands of years, and they are on all sides of the faith argument. I addressed this in an article not too long ago. Please check it out - it's short and fleshes out my opinion more thoroughly than I care to rehash now.

Please understand that I'm not arguing against rational thinking, logic, and atheism. I am arguing against the concept that faith is bad - flat out bad - that society does not benefit from faith and it would be better off without the faithful because they're irrational, dangerous creatures. There are many examples where that argument falls down - where faith is a positive element responsible for great good.

If you agree that faith can be responsible for great good - is it possible for something to be both good and bad? I would say yes - I would say that's irrational - and I would say that further reinforces my point. And no, none of that thinking is based on committed theism.

How does society "benefit from faith"?

clearcache, you are once again equivocating between "faith" as a set of religious principles and "faith" as a process of reaching a conclusion. We're talking about the latter.

Adam - I am addressing points in the article that Paddy wrote. Specifically the idea that faith can be both bad and good. Furthermore, the title "Faith is OK" (and "Why Faith is not OK") are global statements that I feel speaks to the larger issue I'm addressing.

I have also addressed decision making and the fact that "reason" based on religious doctrine in a vacuum is extremely negative. However, decision making based on religious doctrine, reason, experience, yadda yadda is not a negative thing. That's how much of society functions - and that decision making process is not wholly bad.

Can it be bad? Sure. It can also be great.

So once again, I ask: If we have reason, what use is faith? What does faith (as a process!) give us? Why are we better off with faith than without?

How does society benefit from faith? While that's certainly a big question worthy of an entire article, I will say that charity is a big winner. Now, I do not mean to suggest that having faith is a requirement of acting in a charitable fashion - but I will say that faith is often a key driver that provides the motivation for charitable giving. Faith-based institutions also provide the organizational framework that supports the existence of some charities as well. In this case, faith is driving decision making in a positive manner.

On the flip side - does society suffer as a result of some expression of faith? Surely.

If we want to reduce that position down to simplistic statements, then I would submit that "Faith is both OK and not OK - it depends what you do with it." Yeah - that sounds awfully irrational. It's meant to be.

I realize that not everyone here is arguing that Faith is 100% bad, but some certainly are.

You just gave an explanation above of why giving to charity is rational, so we don't need faith for that. I actually don't agree that faith is the motivator. I believe that people give because they want to give. It makes them feel good. That's rational. I've never heard of anyone giving to charity out of compulsion due to their faith. They give because they want to.

I believe that every benefit attributed to faith is actually not caused by faith, and as evidence I point out (as you did) that even people without faith do those same good things. If every benefit attributed to faith does not actually require faith, then we don't need faith. Even if every negative effect attributed to faith doesn't require faith (which is probably true as well) then that's still not a reason that we need faith, or that faith is beneficial. It's not beneficial. It's just there.

Tithing is a great example of people giving because of their faith. There are people who believe they must give 10% of their income to their church. Now, I disagree with that concept - it's a personal decision and just as tithing helps keep the church healthy, keeping its constituents out of debt also keeps the church healthy.

I feel tithing was created to keep churches afloat financially, however that does not impact the fact that it's faith that drives some people to give.

Talk to a Catholic about tithing and holy days of obligation. Their tradition takes those things very seriously - more seriously than other denominations.

Tithing drives people to give...to churches. It's a huge waste of money. Sure, some of it goes to charities eventually, but judging by the size of the churches in Texas it looks like most of it is being wasted. Try again?

Adam, you're showing your lack of understanding of churches. Trust me, tithing not only keeps churches going but it also keeps big programs like UMCOR running. UMCOR often beats the Red Cross to the scene of disaster, it provides "faith-neutral" support - no literature, no pressure, just help to people of all faiths and non-faiths - and 100% of the funds given to UMCOR get to those who need relief. Its support staff etc are not paid from the donations. It is a very "good" organization.

Adam Kemp:

If every benefit attributed to faith does not actually require faith, then we don't need faith.

Who is "we"?

If someone actually needs faith in order to reach those benefits, what is then wrong with that?

Even if every negative effect attributed to faith doesn't require faith (which is probably true as well) then that's still not a reason that we need faith

I guess what you mean is, that people without faith can also do bad things, but that people with faith is more likely to do bad things?

I don't agree on that. But even if we suppose you are right, I think it should be weighed against the fact, that some people actually need their faith, in order to be "good" (or endure life).

All in all, I think Faith is OK

clearcache, at best tithing is an inefficient method of giving to charities, and again it's something that faith is not necessary for.

mogmich, "we" is everyone. Humans. No one needs faith for any of those benefits. That's my point. Faith is not necessary.

I guess what you mean is, that people without faith can also do bad things, but that people with faith is more likely to do bad things?

No, that's not what I meant. I mean that if you want to give reasons why faith is necessary then you can't do that by pointing out that bad things are done without faith. You need to show good things which we can't possibly get without faith. Otherwise, faith isn't necessary.

some people actually need their faith, in order to be "good" (or endure life).

I disagree strongly. I don't think any good people are good because of their faith. I think they might think they are, but I don't believe that. If you are good then you would still be good even if I could prove that their faith was wrong. Faith is never necessary. It's a crutch that people use so that they don't have to think as hard about why they do things.

clearcache wrote:

I agree that faith is not required for morality. I don't see how that counteracts my argument that the common good is not objective - if anything, it supports it. A theist and an atheist can both oppose murder for very different reasons, yet agree that murder is morally wrong. Neither rationality nor faith is required - nor do they need to agree on their basis for opposing murder in order for both to have a positive impact on society.

People don't need to have a rational basis for their mores, but it definitely helps. Moral acts on the part of faithful people are wholly accidental -- a product of whatever wisdom was packaged up with their faith at the time of its inception. While the good ideas in a faith are protected from attack, so are the flawed ones. Over time, all faiths will fall behind the curve and become less moral than society overall.

People who rely on reason will slowly refine their moral judgment and enhance the average moral capacity of society. People who rely on faith can only maintain an earlier level of moral capacity.

You might be able to argue that faith is a mechanism for locking in moral gains that are determined by the rational members of society. However, that would require an argument that the danger of flawed reasoning in the short term outweighs the long term advantage of having everyone in society operate in a rational mode.

mogmich wrote:

But even if we suppose you are right, I think it should be weighed against the fact, that some people actually need their faith, in order to be "good" (or endure life).

Are these people born this way, or is their stunted moral capacity a product of being told at a young age that they are not capable of moral decision making? (I.e. is religious upbringing a subtle form of child abuse?)

clearcache, at best tithing is an inefficient method of giving to charities, and again it's something that faith is not necessary for.

Adam, did you not read the example I cited? 100% of the money given to UMCOR goes to relief. There is no aid organization in the world that is more efficient than that. Do you not believe it? Or is it more convenient to ignore it? I cited it specifically because it is so efficient, and without a faith-based group, that specific organization would not exist. Efficiency varies from group to group, but it is not fair to call tithing inefficient overall. Nor is that evidence that it's not faith-based.

People who rely on reason will slowly refine their moral judgment and enhance the average moral capacity of society. People who rely on faith can only maintain an earlier level of moral capacity.

Entelechy, I agree with the first sentence but not the second. People of faith can certainly evolve their moral capacity. Do we burn witches at the stake? Do we still have thousands of Christians killing Christians because of the Reformation? No! Based on your argument, the faithful never would have advanced their "moral capacity". Having faith and displaying reason are not mutually exclusive.

Even if 100% of UMCOR's donations go to relief, that's not 100% of the money given to the church. You give money to the church, which gives some of that money to charities. That's inefficient. I can tell because millions of dollars goes to building gigantic churches.

And once again, please answer this question: Where in any of this is faith a necessity?

We're not arguing if it's a necessity or not - we're discussing whether or not it's a benefit to society.

People of faith can certainly evolve their moral capacity. Do we burn witches at the stake? Do we still have thousands of Christians killing Christians because of the Reformation? No! Based on your argument, the faithful never would have advanced their "moral capacity". Having faith and displaying reason are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but did any of this moral evolution come about due to faith? It is far more likely that this moral development came about because, on net, people exercised rational decision making processes. Their faith was what had to be overcome.

Now you're changing your argument. First it was that Faith was immutable and would constrain moral capacity, now Faith is mutable in the face of reason? I agree with the latter, but that was not your original stance on the issue.

Such inconsistency! It's not rational.

The basic point is that the morality that religious people love to pull out is not a result of faith, but rather forced on faith.

Faith wants to be immutable -- otherwise it could not hold its esteemed imaginary office of Absolute Truth -- but sometimes, reality forces it to change.

If faith isn't a necessity for any benefits, then it doesn't matter how much good supposedly comes "from faith". That's because any benefits from faith could be reached without faith. Therefore, whether faith is necessary is pretty important to this discussion. Anything that's not necessary and has any negative effects should be avoided. If there's a better way (which there is) then let's use the better way.

Now you're changing your argument. First it was that Faith was immutable and would constrain moral capacity, now Faith is mutable in the face of reason? I agree with the latter, but that was not your original stance on the issue.

Such inconsistency! It's not rational.

I am not arguing that faith is mutable in the face of reason -- rather, it is defeated by reason. The belief that there are "witches" that should be burned at the stake has not been mutated into some beneficial form, it has been discarded entirely.

Faith prevents people from losing moral capacity, but it also prevents them from gaining any. The capacity for reason to expand our moral horizon is clearly greater than its capacity to confuse us -- otherwise we would not be where we are today. Thus, one must conclude that faith should be discouraged.

(As an aside: To argue otherwise you would have to say that many people have inadequate capacity to reason -- and should be presented with a "faith" that is created by those members of society who do possess strong reasoning. This is a frighteningly authoritarian view of the world, although it is not without adherents.)

Neither faith nor reason are necessary for benefits. I think this is our disconnect: I measure the existence of benefit as being entirely separate from the motives behind it. Is X a benefit to society? That is a yes/no question. It does not ask why it is a benefit, how it is a benefit, or if that benefit is based on reason or whim.

In very concrete terms, UMCOR is a faith-based organization that benefits society in its work. UMCOR is highly efficient in its use of funds. UMCOR provides aid for all people regardless of age, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. UMCOR does not attempt to convert - it specifically requires that donations to UMCOR be faith-neutral. It serves society yet it would not exist if it were not for faith. There are other organizations like UMCOR. To me, that benefit exists in very concrete terms.

Would charitable giving exist in the absence of faith? Surely. However that in no way addresses whether or not faith is capable of driving charitable giving.

I am not arguing that faith is mutable in the face of reason -- rather, it is defeated by reason. The belief that there are "witches" that should be burned at the stake has not been mutated into some beneficial form, it has been discarded entirely.

But that was not your original assertion. Your original assertion was that faith was a rate-limiting factor that would prevent the needle on the moral compass from advancing out of the dark ages. You said:

People who rely on faith can only maintain an earlier level of moral capacity.

The faithful would always have that same view of suspected witches according to your stance. That is not the case.

Faith prevents people from losing moral capacity, but it also prevents them from gaining any.

I would argue that neither of those statements are true. Faith no more guarantees moral capacity than it does prevent the developmnet of additional capacity.

The capacity for reason to expand our moral horizon is clearly greater than its capacity to confuse us -- otherwise we would not be where we are today. Thus, one must conclude that faith should be discouraged.

No, you make too many leaps in your logic. The only thing that one must conclude from that statement is that reason, logic, science etc are all worthy creations of man that demand our utmost respect and vigilance in promoting among future generations. I would agree with that wholeheartedly.

(As an aside: To argue otherwise you would have to say that many people have inadequate capacity to reason -- and should be presented with a "faith" that is created by those members of society who do possess strong reasoning. This is a frighteningly authoritarian view of the world, although it is not without adherents.)

Again - too many leaps in your logic. It's not that I believe many people have inadequate capacity to reason. I believe that some individuals' capacity to reason is not nurtured. Extreme faith can be one of many factors that prevents reason. Abusive spousal relationships, child abuse, extreme political views, etc can all stand in the way of fostering solid reasoning skills. Anything that encourages a lack of critical thinking has the potential to limit rational thought. In the case of Christianity, this is commonly seen in a strict literal interpretation of the Bible. Most Christians I know take a far less rigid/literal approach to the content in the Bible.

Entelechy, I think we've got several meters of ground to cover before we're speaking about exactly the same things. Your understanding and experience with faith is clearly not the same as my own - nor could it ever be.

I still do not see a clear logical reason to assert that faith is bad. Faith can be bad. It can be wonderful.

Adam Kemp:

Anything that's not necessary and has any negative effects should be avoided.

Life is not necessary.

Adam Kemp:

Anything that's not necessary and has any negative effects should be avoided.

And life has negative effects. :) Illness, grief, etc.

If faith is useless, reason and this physical world is all there is, and even life itself should (logically?) be avoided, then let's just kill everyone and be done with it?

I don't believe that, of course, but isn't that where this train of thought is going?

Paddy, just because someone was transformed by faith doesn't mean he couldn't have been transformed otherwise. What he needed was a serious lifestyle change, and religion gave it to him. There are a million other ways he could've done that. The reason it was Christianity probably had a lot more to do with the fact that Christians actively use that as a tactic to convert people. It seems almost every evangelist I come across used to be a drug addict or a criminal in some way (at least they claim that) who was "saved". That doesn't mean they couldn't have been "saved" without religion. It was just easier.

Honestly, I'm convinced that most of them really convert because they're not very intelligent and someone convinces them that they're going to go to Hell, and that if they believe X, Y, and Z then they'll go to Heaven instead. Someone promises them "if you do this, then magically your life will be better". It's a placebo, and yes it works. The question, again, is whether something else could do it too. I think the answer is yes.

Mogmich and Reiko: Life is a given. It's not a choice. Don't be a smart ass :)

(or if you were serious, then don't be an idiot)

But that was not your original assertion. Your original assertion was that faith was a rate-limiting factor that would prevent the needle on the moral compass from advancing out of the dark ages.

I don't see why you see this as a change of position on my part. I am contrasting two modes of thought. In one mode, faith, people accept ideas without evidence and act upon them. The quality of the ideas that they take on faith depends wholly on the social context around them. In another mode, reason, people actively assess ideas before accepting them. On occasion, people using reason will make errors, but the use of reason also creates the possibility of refinement and improvement.

The faithful would always have that same view of suspected witches according to your stance. That is not the case.

Any particular person might use both modes of thought during their lifetime. A person who thought about witches using the faith mode would never change their stance.

Most of your criticisms of my argument seem to assume that I'm drawing a distinction between two types of people, when I am actually contrasting two modes of thought. Faithful people use reason, and atheists sometimes act without evidence.

I still do not see a clear logical reason to assert that faith is bad. Faith can be bad. It can be wonderful.

Yet, not one person on this thread (or any other thread on this topic) has ever demonstrated a single example of faith being wonderful. There have been many examples of faithful people doing wonderful things. However, faith needs more support than that. There are also examples of atheists and agnostics doing wonderful things.

Thinking in the faith mode will never lead to moral advance, nor will it lead to moral regression. It is a static mode of thought -- you accept what is around you without criticism. The fact that we have made any moral advance at all indicates that reason's capacity for moral advance is greater than its capacity to delude us into moral regression. Thus, reason has the long term advantage and people should disapprove of decisions made on the basis of faith.

Entelechy - again, we're miles apart. Your definition of what it means to think "in faith mode" is different from what I've seen in practice. And that could be another issue here - I am focusing on reality, not some black & white "sandbox" where faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Reality tells me that they are not. Reality tells me that there are denominations that pride themselves specifically on the fact that reason & experience informs their faith in addition to scripture & tradition. If that's the case, then why is faith not OK? If it's possible to have faith and use reason in practice, why is it not OK? That is what we're arguing about - if it's OK or not.

I also do not see how faithful people doing wonderful things in the name of faith isn't an example of a benefit associated with having faith. Could they do wonderful things in the absence of faith? Sure! But they're not - and it's their faith (often leaders at their place of worship) that encourages them to act as they do. Is it also reasonable for them to practice generosity? Absolutely. But that's not an indictment of faith - if anything, it's an endorsement that faith, at times, isn't all that unreasonable to begin with.

Note: my own faith isn't exactly strong - I've just had the pleasure of seeing how some faith-based organizations work from "behind the scenes", and I'll never be comfortable making a blanket statement that (their) faith is not OK. There's room for the faithful and the faithless - my hope is that we're all as reasonable as possible when it comes to voting/making decisions that impact others in the community & society as a whole.

Adam Kemp:

Life is a given. It's not a choice

Life is a given and a choice.

You choose it every day of your life. Unless you commit suicide.

But it is not necessary - unless you choose it to be.

You only choose life, if you think there is a reason to do it.

To some people - but not all - their faith is what gives them a reason to live.

---

Of course I am an idiot and a smart-ass: I'm religious.

clearcache:

Reality tells me that there are denominations that pride themselves specifically on the fact that reason & experience informs their faith in addition to scripture & tradition. If that's the case, then why is faith not OK?

So, if you're using "some faiths use reason" as a defense for faith, why just leave it at reason and skip out on the mindless bigotry that pervades other denominations?

But that's not an indictment of faith - if anything, it's an endorsement that faith, at times, isn't all that unreasonable to begin with.

Isn't it, though? It demonstrates, rather directly, that faith is, at very best, highly embellished reason, and at worst, mindless sheepery. Why defend the possibly bigoted and mindless embellishments?

Life is a given and a choice.

So is the need to breathe. I can decide to just stop breathing. Once the conversation is abstracted to this point, it becomes entirely meaningless.

To some people - but not all - their faith is what gives them a reason to live.

I'm sorry, but if you need fairy tales to make yourself think you're worthy of life, you are one sad puppy. Why are we arguing from this "pity the people so weak that they need it to live" perspective?

You choose it every day of your life. Unless you commit suicide.

Life is the whole point of life. The propagation of your species is an axiom upon which reason is based. It's a genetically programmed biological imperative -- much less of a choice than choosing one storybook over another as some arbitrary Truth of the Universe and Meaning of Life.

You only choose life, if you think there is a reason to do it.

Not true. I choose life, like every normally-functioning human being, because I am biologically compelled to desire life. It takes a lot to override that built-in desire to live.

I second Jack's comment. If we're going to abstract away life itself as a "choice" then this conversation has lost all meaning.

If I ever said any of those things, you would certainly be justified in being angry about it. I don't recall saying any such thing however.

(When I refuse to serve beer on Sundays? You certainly have a long complaint list. Well, I don't care whether you have a beer or not.)

(When I refuse to serve beer on Sundays? You certainly have a long complaint list. Well, I don't care whether you have a beer or not.)

Whew! You dodged a bullet there, Lucid. I'll have one too, please.

"Violence and intolerance" are generally considered bad already. No need to point that out. But, as can be seen here in loving detail, criticizing religious faith is a definite no-no for many.

My own experience is that it is a person's character that shapes their interpretations of their faith.

Then, once they reconcile their faith and their "bad" beliefs, their bad beliefs become all that more powerful, because suddenly it's justified by this framework of Absolute Truth a lot of people already buy into... on faith.

Religious faith absolves the need for any rational framework upon which to construct any set of beliefs, upon which you can base any set of actions.

That's why it's so dangerous.

Alright, we're done. If the idea that islamic suicide bombers in the middle east are motivated by their religious belief is "propaganda of the sort shopped around by FOX news" then I can't continue this conversation.

Thanks for your time.

Ok.

Incidentally, I said your being motivated by it. It's certainly true that many of them are motived by religious zealotry. It is most certainly not true, that they are ONLY motivated by that. They are motivated by money, and they are motivated by a desire for a revenge.

Bye.

I was gonna hold my tongue on this one but the unmitigated bias in your tone in that last paragraph compels me to remind you that your Christian god isn't exactly mr flowers and sunshine all the time - you have to account for the old testament, and I don't think even Allah demands that you rape and kill every member of the opposing tribe, then strikes down his own faithful for not complying. And don't even get me started on the collection of foreskin as trophies. And you're tied on the cruel joke played on Abraham and Isaac (except I think it's not Isaac but his brother Ishmael in the Islamic tradition - wow, that's a historical claim about an actual fact, they can't both be true, how do we decide who is right? Oh, wait, we can't because religious faith is involved and thus any meaningful rational tools are off limits.)

Get off your high horse, it's unjustified and frankly I'm coming to see Islamophobia as little more than racism.

I don't deny I'm biased. I was only trying to make a point. As I said, gross oversimplification. If by Islamophobia, you mean thinking Islam is a false religion, I suppose, but I think you're overreacting to what I said, and you're not even a Muslim.

If Allah specifically demanded that his people kill a particular tribe, then he would be logically inconsistent and morally inept if he failed to punish them for not doing as he said. The God of the Bible would be even more so because his character demands that he be perfect, good, and just. Logically, if God made humans, he then has the right to take that life away, including asking his people to act as his agent in taking that life. (By the way, I've never seen rape being mandated, ever. That's just offensive. Rape occurred in the Old Testament, but never on command from God.)

I still think I asked a valid question. How do atheists know that not killing someone is better than killing him? How do you make that moral judgment? I'm honestly curious.

1) Not even a muslim? What the hell does that have to do with pointing out offensive arguments? Simian ingroup/outgroup behavior is something we should have left behind in the stone age.

2) Rape: Lot offering his daughters to the evil men of Sodom held up as a virtuous alternative to giving up his guests, because his daughters are just women?

Or, more to the point, Deuteronomy 21:10-13

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."

There's more and worse I don't really feel like crawling around and looking for all the references. Don't try to defend the old testament, man, it's a losing battle. A more patient account is here.

3) As for how atheists are capable of moral judgment, I'm not even going to bother as I've had my fill of having this debate. Google it.

Obviously, loving your neighbor, even if he doesn't believe as you do, is better than killing him (although, for atheists, how do you know that?).

Please expand on that. What do you mean?

I'm just wondering how you make a moral judgment in the absence of an absolute standard set by faith. I've gotten a few different answers from some atheists I've talked to, and I'm not sure I'm quite happy with any of them. One answer is that the best action is the one that does the least harm or causes the least pain to the most people. That's all well and good, but one flaw I see is that sometimes, in order to help someone, you have to give them pain (doing an operation on someone who is ill, or punishing a child who has done something wrong). Another flaw is that someone who's dead doesn't feel pain at all, or at least, is in such a state where we can't tell, so under this paradigm, killing everyone (in a painless manner) would seem to cause the least pain to the most people in the end (after all, if everyone's dead, nobody will grieve, either).

A possibly better answer is that the best action is the one that maximizes the potential for intelligence or knowledge. Leaving aside the point that intelligence is somewhat of a relative concept, the biggest flaw I see is that doing medical experiments on people, for instance, certainly increases knowledge about medicine, but is horribly unethical and usually painful. This is assuming that they don't die, of course, but death under this paradigm is a very bad thing because people can't learn anything after they're dead. You could also get eugenics as a possibility from this paradigm: to maximize intelligence, kill the less intelligent so that they can't produce children.

Another answer is what basically comes out to the Golden Rule, do to others as you want them to do to you. Well, guess what? It's in the Bible. Plus, outside of a context of an absolute standard, it's terribly relativistic. Maybe someone wants to die. Using this rule alone, he would therefore kill others.

From my perspective, morals and law have no meaning outside of an absolute standard of conduct set by God, who, because he created us, has the right to give us that standard based on his own character. It's easy to say that killing and stealing are wrong, but on what basis do you make that judgment without an absolute standard? Sorry, this got rather long, but I hope that explains things.

A moral judgment based on faith is not a moral judgment. The same faith which tells you murder is bad can just as easily tell you murder is good. The question is "how do you know?". I can tell you why murder is bad. Can you explain to me why you think murder is wrong? If not, then you have a problem.

Well, guess what? It's in the Bible.

Guess what? It predates the Bible. It's a rational rule.

From my perspective, morals and law have no meaning outside of an absolute standard of conduct set by God, who, because he created us, has the right to give us that standard based on his own character.

From any perspective morals and law have no meaning unless you can show where they come from. "God told us" doesn't work unless there's solid evidence that God told us. There's no. Everyone disagrees about what, if anything, God told us, and in many cases they contradict each other. So what good is a moral absolute if it's only absolute to you?

Reiko,

While this is far afield of the debate, I merely wished to point out that this statement may merit reconsideration.

The Bible says "love your neighbor" because God is a loving God. On the other hand, the Koran says "kill the unbeliever" because Allah is a hateful God.

The God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same, which is to say, the latter two religions and all their various doctrines are, in essence, offshoots of Judaism. If Allah were a "hateful" God, then that of Judaism and Christianity necessarily would be as well and I think such confusions perpetuate the kind of misunderstandings we desperately need to avoid to engender peace and understanding among human beings.

A study of Islam will turn up the fact that the "kill the infidel" idea showed up rather late in Mohammed's writings, when he was himself subject to persecution - an all too human response to a human misfortune, no doubt. While there is, unfortunately, a fringe element of Islam that takes the statement quite literally (as too many verses of sacred texts so often are), I feel compelled to point out as well that Jesus is considered the highest of the prophets in the Islamic religion. The primary difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christian doctrine teaches Jesus was divine. Islam doesn't.

Yes, I can explain why murder is wrong from a faith-based perspective, and not just because the sixth commandment tells us not to murder. If God created humanity and gave us life, then only he has the right to take that life away. Life is a precious gift, and it is wrong to take that gift away.

Saying a moral absolute is absolute only to a certain group of people is as bad as saying morals are relative. An absolute moral standard is absolute only if it applies to all people equally, and while non-Christians might not like the commandments (actually, most of them would only disagree with three or four of them, most likely), I think you wouldn't find Christians saying that they should only apply to them, but to all people.

lrobinson,

Sorry, the God of the Bible and the god of Islam aren't the same. Many Muslims might think they're the same, but they're not. From what I've read, historically Allah originated as the deity of a moon goddess cult. Linguistically, Allah actually means "curse" in Hebrew, for what that's worth, and Arabic and Hebrew are very similar languages.

Christianity did originate as an offshoot of Judaism, and both share the Old Testament. But Islam is something quite different. I can find more details on this if you want.

If God created humanity and gave us life, then only he has the right to take that life away.

Actually, according to the Bible God has given us permission to execute people for certain offenses, as well as enemy tribes. Also, maybe I believe that God gave me special permission to kill people. I have faith!

Saying a moral absolute is absolute only to a certain group of people is as bad as saying morals are relative.

Exactly my point. There is no such thing as a moral absolute. There are only moral assertions.

From what I've read, historically Allah originated as the deity of a moon goddess cult. Linguistically, Allah actually means "curse" in Hebrew, for what that's worth, and Arabic and Hebrew are very similar languages.

Please cite a source for this. I call bull@!$%#. I have a copy of the Quran and it explicitly says that Allah and Jehova are the same.

Heavily influenced, perhaps.

WHEN Mohammad established Islâm in Arabia he insisted that he was not proclaiming a new religion, for he believed that all the prophets who preceded him had brought the same message. From time to time God had sent prophets and had revealed His will in sacred books; but men were rebellious, and so it was necessary for Him periodically to send a new prophet to lead them back to the truth. Mohammad had no sense of any gradual development in the knowledge of God, for he held that a knowledge of the true religion had been given to man from the beginning. The reason why God needed to send prophets with fresh revelations was because men had fallen away from the truth and required to be called back to it. Thus men like Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and himself had all the same task set before them, and none of them was essentially different from any other. God might authorise one to abrogate certain practices which had been commanded by a predecessor, but in essential matters they were all engaged in the same task, which was to proclaim the unity of God and summon men to worship Him alone.

Christ in Islam: www. sacred-texts. com/isl/cii/cii.htm Qur'an, Hadith, Sufi, et al: www. sacred-texts. com/isl

Well, I'd like to see the quote from the Koran then too, but if you're allowed to be suspicious of the Bible, I think I'm allowed to be suspicious of the Koran. In other words, a quote from the Koran isn't going to be as convincing as archaeological evidence.

Anyway, I have a couple of articles that detail the history of Allah, but I'm not allowed to post links yet. Shall I seed one of them for you or something?

[29:46] Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters." (Quran)

I'm suspicious of both in terms of their supernatural claims. I.e., both are bull@!$%#. But if the Quran says "this is what Islam is" (i.e., it's saying what they believe) then that's the definition of Islam. End of story. If you attack Allah as if Allah is a completely separate God from Jehova then you're not attacking Islam. You're attacking something else that exists in your mind.

All right, fair enough. So Muslims believe Allah is the same as the God of the Bible, and Christians believe they're totally different. All I'm saying is that from what I've read, the archaeological evidence says that they're different, and therefore Muslims are wrong about that. Saying from a religiously neutral point of view that they're the same is ignoring the evidence.

Reiko,

The link in my comment above*, Christ in Islam, contains specific passages relating to Jesus and his life in the Qur'an. The second, Qur'an, Hadith, Sufi, et al are the various Islamic texts. Just a reference for the former comment.

To clarify: I'm not suspicious of the Bible nor am I hostile toward religion. I merely wanted to point out the connections between the three. Comparative religion, spiritual traditions and ancient civilizations are lifelong studies for me.

There is no archaeological evidence that God A (who doesn't exist) is the same or different from God B (who also doesn't exist). These are beliefs we're talking about, not facts. The fact is that Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. Whether you accept their beliefs is not the issue. They do believe in your God.

As long as we're talking about beliefs, I think I would clarify that to say, the fact is that Muslims believe that they believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. But if they really did, then they'd read the Bible and be Jewish or Christian, wouldn't they?

If Christians believed in the same God as Jews, why aren't they Jews? Why don't they just use the Torah and the Talmud? If Mormons believe in the same God as Christians, then why do they need the Book of Mormon?

Reiko,

That the Islamic religion is based on the writings of Mohammad doesn't change their origins. Mohammad believed in the God of the prophets who came before him. "...for he believed that all the prophets who preceded him had brought the same message", but that each prophet had the authority to abrogate what had come before when necessary to "bring [men] back to the truth".

Some Muslims believe God and Allah are different names for the same God, following the doctrines of Mohammad as the prophet (or teacher) of their set of beliefs. Some Muslims don't believe the same. Some Christians obviously don't either, but while they are entitled to the belief, it doesn't mesh with the facts.

Strife among the three major religions (imho) are the result of social and political conflict and disagreement (not faith), just as Christian Protestantism and all its various resulting denominations are the result of dissent and disagreements about religious doctrine, which brings us back to the beginning: Doctrine, politics and faith are not the same things.

All religions are living and evolving and have many differences, but many similarities. All religions have commited crimes in the name of god. I don't think its relevant what the lineage is.

I don't think its fair to dismiss the entire judeo christian tradition because of the old testament. I can't even read anything before around proverbs, it's just too boring. I think what is important to recognize is that there is a positive intent in all these writings.

The Torah was meant to provide a group of people with a common identity and a set of laws. Yes they sad it was the word of God, but come on, thats what ancient people do. It's just their thing. They never, never intended for a world religion to branch off from their tribal religious and legal code. If you ask me, Man creates God in Man's image. The God of Moses and the God of Christ have the same core but they are not the same at all. Religion is rational perhaps but its not logical in the "if a and b then c" sense. There is no old dude with a big white beard sitting on a cloud either.

Obviously... but I think theres a fundamental miss conception when people think of a religion as a solid state, inanimate entity. Religion is not my coffee table. Religion isn't even the same as literature. Literature is formed between the author, the critic, and the audience. A few hundred thousands people, perhaps. Religion is formed by a founder, disciples, preachers, scholars, worshipers and so on, billions of participants.

I believe there is some higher spiritual truth but in 5,000 years of trying all we've managed to do is hint at it. Its something that needs to be experienced. You can go around in circles all you want but God is just God, and it's also not that at all.

Finally, I think think secularism and religion have a lot in common. They're both just belief systems. Crusades or Hiroshima? Mother Theresa or Pasteur? whats the difference? Either way your saying to yourself "ahah, THIS is why." but just like you can say to any one religion "what makes you so special?" can't you say the same to impiricism? Some justifications may seem more appealing to some, according to taste, but they all are based on assumptions. X then Z, but why X? Ok W then X, but why W? All the way back to A, but when you reach A you have the exact same dillema.

Maybe I just have a weak mind for logic, but I don't see how breaking down your thought process into discreet testable parts really in any way over comes human passions or short sightedness. Whether you reach it by socrates or spirituality, I think sooner or later you just have to say "screw it, I don't know!"

Reiko Yukawa,

I find most of your comments absurd. Interesting but absurd.

First off, when you say that an atheist is incapable of moral judgment you insult me and many others by your ignorance. Let me tell you, there's little that pisses me off more than some irrational religious nut telling me that I'm immoral because I don't believe in their god.

My question to you would be "are you incapable of moral judgment without faith in some omnipotent super-being?" but you've already answered that and I find your answer very troubling. You have no capacity on your own to determine right and wrong, good and evil. If left to your own thought processes (without the dictation of a god) you would be "incapable of moral judgment".

As Mykola pointed out, this has been debated again and again. I suggest you look around Newsvine and read through the many articles/post on related subjects.

In any case, let me assure you that I am capable of moral judgement. I do know right from wrong (as subjective as that may be) and, in general, I think I'm a good person. I don't need a god to tell me so nor do I need a god to make me so.

The only "absolute standard" is society. Society creates mores that we learn and adapt to. We learn in the process of growing what is acceptable and not, what is legal and not, what is moral and not. We take what we learn and process it through our own values and create our own judgements.

So "absolute standard" is anything but absolute.

As for evolution and religion being equally irrational... I can only say this: evolution has years and piles of scientific evidence (and yes you can go back in time to see what happened). Religion has a book. Which is more rational?

Again, look around Newsvine for related articles.

As for the rest of your comments, I think they've been well answered by others. You can choose what to believe.

p.s. I think most Christians (most people in general) accept that the God of the Qur'an and the God of the Bible are the same God.

Kevin,

I can only say this: evolution has years and piles of scientific evidence (and yes you can go back in time to see what happened).

Do you have a time machine?

p.s. I think most Christians (most people in general) accept that the God of the Qur'an and the God of the Bible are the same God.

If they are the same God, why do the Bible and the Koran not agree? Why are Christianity and Islam separate religions? Islam says it is a new revelation to replace older religions, but Christianity says there is no such new revelation.

Scott_B,

I don't think its fair to dismiss the entire judeo christian tradition because of the old testament. I can't even read anything before around proverbs, it's just too boring. I think what is important to recognize is that there is a positive intent in all these writings.

The old testament is the best part! The best stories. There is definitely an intent to all these writings - I don't know that it's positive. it's also the foundation of the judeo christian tradition so it can't be dismissed when considering that tradition (or the faith in it).

Religion and mythology (in the vein of the old testament) are meant to reveal the human condition. Like other literature, it's not necessarily the "truth" as in fact but may be the truth as in we recognize, identify with, or relate to it.

Finally, I think think secularism and religion have a lot in common. They're both just belief systems.

sec·u·lar·ism n
1.the belief that religion and religious bodies should have no part in political or civic affairs or in running public institutions, especially schools
2.the rejection of religion or its exclusion from a philosophical or moral system

Secularism isn't a belief system at all (neither is atheism, if you're equating the two) and it can't be compared to religious belief.

If they are the same God, why do the Bible and the Koran not agree?

If Christians and Jews believe in the same God, then why do the Old Testament and New Testament not agree on so many things? It astounds me that people still use this terrible logic.

What don't they agree on?

A whole slew of things. In general, though, most Christians seem to think that all (or at least most) laws in the Old Testament are overridden by the New Testament. If the Old Testament God is the same as the New Testament God, then why weren't his laws good enough before? If you say "they were, but He extended them" or "He changed them" or "they had been corrupted", then apply the same logic to Mormons and Muslims. It works the same way. Any argument you make to force the New and Old Testament to fit together can also be used to make the Book of Mormon or the Quran fit with the Bible.

Reiko:

Do you have a time machine?

You say the Bible is absolute truth. Do you have a time machine?

Reiko

Do you have a time machine?

Archeology

If they are the same God, why do the Bible and the Koran not agree?

Because people created myths, doctrines and dogmas around older myths, doctrines and dogmas. Different people living in different circumstances created different myths.

If you read one of the posts above (lrobinson), you'll see how Mohammad changed the religion (brought it up to date, for the time, so to speak) - Just as Jesus did. Jesus and Mohammad (or the myths about them) are what made the two religions differ from each other and from Judaism.

I thought it was Billy Graham. Am I wrong?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/graham_billy/gfx/titlephoto.jpg

I know it is a little OT but how about a facetest!