Faith vs blind faith

[Shaker]

1; I speak as someone who can recognise what it is people are evading and I recognise the arguments as a former dodger myself.
2; If one is unable to recognise what it is people are evading they will still be seeing dodging, ducking and diving behaviour, evasion, the waving of hands, straw clutching, goal post moving for no apparent reason and conclude strange disturbed, irrational behaviour.
3;If they do not recognise this behaviour as that then that is either the norm for them or they themselves are similarly avoiding.

Have a nice day.

Well there's the stupidest thing I'll read all day until the next time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

if I had been brought up by atheist parents, then I would not have taken so long to erase the idea of God from my mind - well, it wouldn't have been there in the first place!!

That might be vaguely possible if your parents were apatheists say, but how could one avoid God say, in a household of ranting New Atheists?
Your curiosity might also be fired by being told you don't need to know anything about Leprechauns.

[Outrider]

equating the arguments, equating characteristics. Leprechaun characteristics have been a movable feast ranging from diminutive Irish chaps in green suits to beings indistinguishable from the divine.

They can be green-clad, Irish, well-dressed and divine, you understand, all at the same time, just like gods can apparently be themselves, the entirely human incarnation of themselves, and the spirit of themselves moving through the world, all at the same time. Sometimes, except when they're not. It's almost like the depiction of god has been a moveable feast...

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Gabriella,

I’m not. First, I merely said that finding something to be “worth accepting” tells you nothing about whether it’s true.

Second, faith clams aren't just about morality specifically and even then what I was actually doing was explaining that when you think “faith” is a reliable and inerrant guide truth then, unless you have a rationale for that position a priori, it’s pretty much the enemy of “thinking for yourself". It's what takes up the slack when the thinking stops.

Focus on that “that weren't covered in the basic scripture”. If it’s scriptural (and therefore presumably categorically true, not amenable to re-interpretation etc) then there’s no thinking for yourself. If it isn’t, it’s just an early attempt at moral philosophy – which is fine by me, but not as I understand it consistent with those who think “faith” in scripture is epistemically valid.

Yes, at least until they run up against the bits they’re told they have to accept as true as articles of faith.

Would have been helpful if you’d just said that in the first place, but OK.

I don’t, and “no” respectively. What I do say is that “faith” is the pixie dust that gives some people certainty with no logic to support it – there's no thinking required.   

That’s not the issue. What logic tells you is that there is no certainty. “Faith” on the other hand provides unwarranted certainty for those who think it to be reliable. And that in my rarely humble opinion is why it’s so pernicious.   

Presumably you are not suggesting that everyone reads the basic scripture and understands and applies it to their individual circumstance without using interpretation?

I tend to view things as problematic based on the effects they have on others so can you please be more specific. When you say that some theists think "faith is a reliable and inerrant guide to truth", and give me an example of the resurrection as a "truth", I could not figure out why it was problematic for other people if someone believed in the resurrection, whereas I can see why an action,e.g. believing in widows burning themselves on their husband's funeral pyre as a sign of devotion rather than starve to death or be at the mercy of family (since the husband's wealth did not pass to his widow), could cause a problem.

There is no reliable method to ascertain the truth of their belief in the resurrection or the truth of the belief that it is a religious duty to burn yourself, or the truth of a belief in the concept of honour (which is not a religious concept) but we can judge the individual actions that arise from any of these beliefs and see if the actions are problematic, and if they are problematic, we can judge whether society can stop the action or whether not carrying out the action would cause worse problems. 

We have no method to ascertain the truth of many other beliefs that lead to policies or laws or a Brexit, as very often many of the experiences that are described as "causing harm" are not quantifiable data but are only in someone's head - based on their subjective perspective and emotion - or the experiences will occur many years in the future and people have different estimates of the resulting harm from different courses of action. It may be possible to make some evaluations that include some logic, reason, facts or quantifiable data, but beliefs are an integral part of the process.

Faith and certainty that your moral actions that impact on others are right is problematic. Faith that God exists - not seeing the problem.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Looks more like bowing to social pressures than belief to me Gabriella, and of course you're entitled, believe away.

ippy

Depends how you are defining "bowing to social pressure" since no one pressured me to be a theist, and the only social pressure I am aware of is the pressure to not be a theist. It appears "uncool" to be a theist.

[ippy]

Depends how you are defining "bowing to social pressure" since no one pressured me to be a theist, and the only social pressure I am aware of is the pressure to not be a theist. It appears "uncool" to be a theist.

I've read your post Gabriella, you can put whatever label on it you like, it still looks like bowing to social pressure to me, it's not for me to tell you what to do it's your choice.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They can be green-clad, Irish, well-dressed and divine, you understand, all at the same time, just like gods can apparently be themselves, the entirely human incarnation of themselves, and the spirit of themselves moving through the world, all at the same time. Sometimes, except when they're not. It's almost like the depiction of god has been a moveable feast...

O.

Yes one can see the process of equation between Leprechauns and God. One wonders why Hillside and yourself fail to apply the same principles over these identical statements :

An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of that universe and An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of the universe.

If you accept that Leprechauns and God are the same yet deny that the above can be the same then you contradict yourself....Oh, you have done.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've read your post Gabriella, you can put whatever label on it you like, it still looks like bowing to social pressure to me, it's not for me to tell you what to do it's your choice.

ippy

I agree it's my choice.

I've read your post and have no idea what you mean by bowing to social pressure if you don't want to explain your opinion, but it's not for me to tell you what to do, it's your choice.

[Outrider]

An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of that universe and An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of the universe.

I can't speak for Hillside, I've not been following his line of argument closely, but for myself I've accepted that: what I've pointed out is that this is not a sufficient definition to be the usual understanding of god (or, therefore, the occasional definition of leprechauns)

If you accept that Leprechauns and God are the same yet deny that the above cannot be the same then you contradict yourself....Oh, you have done.

If only  had done such a thing... Of course, what you're still misunderstanding is that people aren't saying that God and leprechauns are the same thing, they're saying that the arguments for the purported qualities of such things are meaningless in the absence of any means to test them.

O.

[ippy]

That might be vaguely possible if your parents were apatheists say, but how could one avoid God say, in a household of ranting New Atheists?
Your curiosity might also be fired by being told you don't need to know anything about Leprechauns.

About all you ever get in an atheist house about religion Vlad, is when one or another answers a knock or ring at the front door you come back in, someone asks who was that? The reply is usually something like, oh just another religious nut or another, religious time waster that sort of thing and that's all they worth in a comment. 

Apart from these pages on the forum where we read the preposterous religious claims that real people really do actually believe, religion has zero to do with my daily live and I can't see any reason why it should, atheists do write in like I do from time to time just in a caring benevolent way to help religious believing posters to try to come to terms with their aberrations.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't speak for Hillside, I've not been following his line of argument closely, but for myself I've accepted that:

My apologies then.
Now that is out of the way.....let's talk Leprechauns. I did tell Hillsides that so far all I am seeing are Bad arguments, starring God and Leprechauns....but those bad arguments could feature anything: bikes, unicorns, new one pound notes.

Perhaps you could outline what Hillside has been getting at beyond what I describe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

About all you ever get in an atheist house about religion Vlad, is when one or another answers a knock or ring at the front door you come back in, someone asks who was that? The reply is usually something like, oh just another religious nut or another, religious time waster that sort of thing and that's all they worth in a comment. 

Apart from these pages on the forum where we read the preposterous religious claims that real people really do actually believe, religion has zero to do with my daily live and I can't see any reason why it should, atheists do write in like I do from time to time just in a caring benevolent way to help religious believing posters to try to come to terms with their aberrations.

ippy

Are you saying then that atheists bring their children up to believe that religious people are Nuts or nutters?

[floo]

1; I speak as someone who can recognise what it is people are evading and I recognise the arguments as a former dodger myself.
2; If one is unable to recognise what it is people are evading they will still be seeing dodging, ducking and diving behaviour, evasion, the waving of hands, straw clutching, goal post moving for no apparent reason and conclude strange disturbed, irrational behaviour.
3;If they do not recognise this behaviour as that then that is either the norm for them or they themselves are similarly avoiding.

Have a nice day.

A former dodger? Now that is funny.

[ippy]

I agree it's my choice.

I've read your post and have no idea what you mean by bowing to social pressure if you don't want to explain your opinion, but it's not for me to tell you what to do, it's your choice.

I don't mind you asking me but I must say why would anyone need to me describe the meaning of social pressure? Social pressure!

Plus the fact I did very carefully state, 'it looks like', not exactly an attempt to nail my view down on all four corners.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Presumably you are not suggesting that everyone reads the basic scripture and understands and applies it to their individual circumstance without using interpretation?

I’m not suggesting that “everyone” does anything. I am though suggesting that most religions at least seem to have core beliefs that are inerrant, unequivocal and unquestionable because they are the revealed words of gods – and that these things are held to be true as matters of “faith”. 

I tend to view things as problematic based on the effects they have on others so can you please be more specific. When you say that some theists think "faith is a reliable and inerrant guide to truth", and give me an example of the resurrection as a "truth", I could not figure out why it was problematic for other people if someone believed in the resurrection, whereas I can see why an action,e.g. believing in widows burning themselves on their husband's funeral pyre as a sign of devotion rather than starve to death or be at the mercy of family (since the husband's wealth did not pass to his widow), could cause a problem.

It’s problematic for several reasons – because things are taught as facts to children when the people doing it cannot know them to be facts at all, because privileging faith over guessing disarms reasoning regardless of what the content of the faith claims happens to be etc.   

There is no reliable method to ascertain the truth of their belief in the resurrection or the truth of the belief that it is a religious duty to burn yourself, or the truth of a belief in the concept of honour (which is not a religious concept) but we can judge the individual actions that arise from any of these beliefs and see if the actions are problematic, and if they are problematic, we can judge whether society can stop the action or whether not carrying out the action would cause worse problems.

How would you propose to disregard the inerrant words of a god because you found the consequences to be “problematic”?   

We have no method to ascertain the truth of many other beliefs that lead to policies or laws or a Brexit, as very often many of the experiences that are described as "causing harm" are not quantifiable data but are only in someone's head - based on their subjective perspective and emotion - or the experiences will occur many years in the future and people have different estimates of the resulting harm from different courses of action. It may be possible to make some evaluations that include some logic, reason, facts or quantifiable data, but beliefs are an integral part of the process.

That’s a false comparison because these matters are at least in some regard investigable – whether a priori or post facto. How would you propose to investigate the revealed word of a god that you know to be the revealed word of a god because that’s your “faith”? Even if the faith belief was catastrophically harmful (as so often in theocracies), surely a god would know better, have a higher purpose, work in mysterious ways wouldn’t he?       

Faith and certainty that your moral actions that impact on others are right is problematic. Faith that God exists - not seeing the problem.

That’s because you’re choosing not to see it. As an argument for deism, that’s fine. But if you have faith that a theistic god exists – and you think “faith” is epistemically useful for that purpose – why would you not follow where that leads by also having faith that this god knows best, that this god’s rules are inerrantly written in a “holy” book, that anything you observe about the consequences of that are as nothing compared with this god’s higher purpose etc? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes one can see the process of equation between Leprechauns and God. One wonders why Hillside and yourself fail to apply the same principles over these identical statements :

An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of that universe and An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of the universe.

If you accept that Leprechauns and God are the same yet deny that the above can be the same then you contradict yourself....Oh, you have done.

The lying is strong in this one.

[ippy]

Are you saying then that atheists bring their children up to believe that religious people are Nuts or nutters?

Not exactly but that is the sort of comment you get within most normal atheist, or as I prefer, non religious, households.

We don't go around knocking on doors saying 'have you heard the bad news'.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

I can't speak for Hillside, I've not been following his line of argument closely, but for myself I've accepted that: what I've pointed out is that this is not a sufficient definition to be the usual understanding of god (or, therefore, the occasional definition of leprechauns)

I’ve explained it to Vlad several times even though he pretends otherwise. His claim is that the simulated universe conjecture and theism are “identical”.

I’ve pointed out that SU is a conjecture that has as its necessary conditions only a “something” that at some point had access to the technology to create a universe and the intent to have used it.

Theism on the other hand asserts as fact the divine god of the universe that’s still around, that has all sorts of opinions on, for example, who we should go to bed with and what we should do when we get there, that intervenes in human affairs, that etc.

Ie, they’re not identical either in status or in content at all.   

Why he keeps pretending otherwise is anyone’s guess, but that’s trolling for you.       

If only  had done such a thing... Of course, what you're still misunderstanding is that people aren't saying that God and leprechauns are the same thing, they're saying that the arguments for the purported qualities of such things are meaningless in the absence of any means to test them.

Quite, or even for the existence of either at all. I assume that he keeps trying to distract from the problem of a bad argument not becoming a good one when you happen to find the outcome not ridiculous because he can’t deal with it but it’s tedious in the extreme. It’s also dishonest given how often it’s been explained, but there you go.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes one can see the process of equation between Leprechauns and God.

Then perhaps you’d like to show us that process. It’s not something I’ve ever said, but maybe you can think of someone who has?

One wonders why Hillside and yourself fail to apply the same principles over these identical statements :

An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of that universe and An intelligent designer of a universe which is independent and not part of the universe.

Because, as you know, you have to lie heavily about theism in order to make them identical.

If you accept that Leprechauns and God are the same…

No-one has suggested any such thing.

…yet deny that the above can be the same then you contradict yourself....Oh, you have done.

It’s easy to “deny” the above without contradiction because it rests on one of your various lies.

[Outrider]

Perhaps you could outline what Hillside has been getting at beyond what I describe.

You make a claim about the nature of god. That claim is untestable, and therefore could be made about anything supernatural - leprechauns, jabberwockies, yurei, abchanchu, Anzu... If an argument cannot be tested or validated (and does not spring purely from logic) then what use is it? It can be made with any other unevidenced claim in the same place with exactly the same (in)validity.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I’m not suggesting that “everyone” does anything. I am though suggesting that most religions at least seem to have core beliefs that are inerrant, unequivocal and unquestionable because they are the revealed words of gods – and that these things are held to be true as matters of “faith”.

You still haven't explained how a religion's core beliefs exist on their own - without individual people to interpret and act on them and be certain that they are right. In the same way non-religious morals by themselves don't cause problems without people to act on them and be certain their morals are right. I agree people who are certain they are right are a problem.

It’s problematic for several reasons – because things are taught as facts to children when the people doing it cannot know them to be facts at all, because privileging faith over guessing disarms reasoning regardless of what the content of the faith claims happens to be etc.   

How would you propose to disregard the inerrant words of a god because you found the consequences to be “problematic”?

You keep asserting it is problematic - I am not seeing the problem unless the consequence of an action causes problems.

And when the consequences cause a problem there are clearly theists who think their original interpretation needs to be re-interpreted in light of new information to arrive at what they think is better outcome. Only the theists who don't do this cause problems, not all theists. 

That’s a false comparison because these matters are at least in some regard investigable – whether a priori or post facto. How would you propose to investigate the revealed word of a god that you know to be the revealed word of a god . the word of god is because that’s your “faith”? Even if the faith belief was catastrophically harmful (as so often in theocracies), surely a god would know better, have a higher purpose, work in mysterious ways wouldn’t he?

I don't investigate the word of god as without a person to interpret it, the word of god has no relevance. So I investigate the person interpreting it. How do you investigate someone's perceptions in order to arrive at an objective truth of whether something is right or wrong? You can't yet we make moral decisions because we have to make some decision.

That’s because you’re choosing not to see it. As an argument for deism, that’s fine. But if you have faith that a theistic god exists – and you think “faith” is epistemically useful for that purpose – why would you not follow where that leads by also having faith that this god knows best, that this god’s rules are inerrantly written in a “holy” book, that anything you observe about the consequences of that are as nothing compared with this god’s higher purpose etc?

You're choosing not to see it. Without people to interpret it no one has any concept of what god supposedly knows or says.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't mind you asking me but I must say why would anyone need to me describe the meaning of social pressure? Social pressure!

Plus the fact I did very carefully state, 'it looks like', not exactly an attempt to nail my view down on all four corners.

ippy

Sorry if I wasn't being clear - what you're being asked for is the reasoning behind your assertion. It's your choice if you want to reveal your reasoning, I'm not telling you what to do.

[Udayana]

Floo and Ippy are very lucky, they can miraculously arrive at conclusions  without needing to mess around with reasoning - reasoning mainly being spending a lot of time beating about the bush and confusing oneself with logic. 

[floo]

Floo and Ippy are very lucky, they can miraculously arrive at conclusions  without needing to mess around with reasoning - reasoning mainly being spending a lot of time beating about the bush and confusing oneself with logic.

Would you call your posts reasoned?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You still haven't explained how a religion's core beliefs exist on their own - without individual people to interpret and act on them and be certain that they are right. In the same way non-religious morals by themselves don't cause problems without people to act on them and be certain their morals are right. I agree people who are certain they are right are a problem.

At some point you’re going to have to grasp the nettle. Either you think that certain core beliefs do exist “on their own” because your faith tells you so, or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s fine by me – you can treat the “holy” texts as you would any other attempts by people to understand the world, albeit relatively primitive ones appropriate to their times. If you do though, then if everything potentially at least is up for re-interpretation what need is there for a god sitting behind it?     

You keep asserting it is problematic - I am not seeing the problem unless the consequence of an action causes problems.

It does. Are your seriously suggesting that the behaviours of theocracies for example aren’t (and haven’t always been) “problematic” for those unfortunate enough to have been subjected to them?   

And when the consequences cause a problem there are clearly theists who think their original interpretation needs to be re-interpreted in light of new information to arrive at what they think is better outcome. Only the theists who don't do this cause problems, not all theists.

Tell it to the clerics who provide the intellectual cover for ISIS.   

I don't investigate the word of god as without a person to interpret it, the word of god has no relevance. So I investigate the person interpreting it. How do you investigate someone's perceptions in order to arrive at an objective truth of whether something is right or wrong? You can't yet we make moral decisions because we have to make some decision.

We do, but sometimes someone will say, “X is true because god says so, and I know that because that’s my faith”. Then what?

You could I suppose shop around until you found a cleric who said instead, “Y is true because god says so, and I know that because that’s my faith” (assuming you happen to prefer Y over X) but that would just be confirmation bias – you wouldn’t have investigated anything.     

You're choosing not to see it. Without people to interpret it no one has any concept of what god supposedly knows or says.

Nope. What “interpretation” could there be of the accurately worded revealed instructions of gods? Either you think everything is up for grabs (in which case the god bit is redundant) or you don’t (in which case the faith bit is the problem).

Incidentally, why too if there was a god who wanted us to know what his rules are would he make them so unclear that we’d need an eternity to re-interpret them, and even then not know whether we’d got it right? What test could we apply to know whether the current interpretation is now the correct one?