Faith vs blind faith

[wigginhall]

How does that help you since Atheism is not science. You think you have a more truthful position on religion thanks to science?

Any chance of a reply on Christian moral realism?  Does it permit lying and misrepresentation?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If I were responding to this post, I'd say, 'evasion noted'.

Good point Susan.

BHS - evasion noted. All the points you just made have been responded to in reply #790 - the post I wrote after you claimed I was ignoring your points. You asking me to repeat my points is you evading my responses.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How does that help you since Atheism is noscience.

I “helps” me only inasmuch as I’m trying to get Gabriella to focus on the basic question rather than endlessly disappear down rabbit holes of irrelevance (an early support act for the Hexagons of Lightning by the way). It’s a basic Gish Gallop in other words – she posts great sprawling texts (one of which introduced science by the way) that dance around the issue but never actually address it, then accuses me of evasion if I don’t track down every one (even though these diversions are themselves just evasion of the basic questions being asked). 

You think you have a more truthful position on religion thanks to science?

No – reason is sufficient for the job. Has anyone even suggested such a thing though?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

When I try to keep my reply short and don't answer every point you made you accuse me of avoiding the point or ignoring it. When I tried to answer every point you say the exchange is too unwieldy and ignore all the responses. You either don't know what you want or you seem to have turned into a troll.

But “every point I make” is a bit like me bashing those figures at fairgrounds that pop up and you have to hit them with a mallet. Every time I knock one down, six more appear – none of which have anything to do with the subject under discussion either. I also incidentally did offer to address you favourite three points in an attempt to limit your Gish galloping.   

Essentially all your points refer to the content of your beliefs – deeply interesting no doubt, at least for you – but the basic principle I’m trying to address isn’t to do with content at all; it’s actually to do with that happens when you think some truths are absolute, and moreover that “faith” is sure fire way to know what they are.

You seem to be reluctant to discuss this, but I don’t know why.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

PS Did the medical ethicist "humbugs" reply to you by the way?

What did they say about your remarkable insight into moral irrealism?

[wigginhall]

Well, Christian moral realism seems to be comfortable with lots of lying, so I suppose it is,  well, flexible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Well, Christian moral realism seems to be comfortable with lots of lying, so I suppose it is,  well, flexible.

Yes, but there's a sort of logic too I suppose to telling lies for Jesus. If you know - really, really know – the universal, objective truth about, say, moral questions because your personal faith guarantees that you do then by comparison telling a few porkies to get your point across is a trivial mater. After all, you have much higher purposes to attend to so why trouble yourself with such inconsequencies as a few dishonesties pecking at your ankles?

I wonder too if there isn't some of this in the behaviour of paedophilic priests. After all, if you're certain that "God" will look after you in the final reckoning no matter how disgusting your behaviour while here, what constraints are there on your actions if you were so orientated?         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

But “every point I make” is a bit like me bashing those figures at fairgrounds that pop up and you have to hit them with a mallet. Every time I knock one down, six more appear – none of which have anything to do with the subject under discussion either. I also incidentally did offer to address you favourite three points in an attempt to limit your Gish galloping.   

Essentially all your points refer to the content of your beliefs – deeply interesting no doubt, at least for you – but the basic principle I’m trying to address isn’t to do with content at all; it’s actually to do with that happens when you think some truths are absolute, and moreover that “faith” is sure fire way to know what they are.

You seem to be reluctant to discuss this, but I don’t know why.

BHS

You brought up most of those points yourself - people flying planes into buildings, Muslim enforcers, the lack of terrorism carried out in the name of specific philosophers, your insistence that religious text should not be open to interpretation but unable to explain how this would be achieved, your questions about my thoughts on accountability. When I sometimes declined to bash every one of your points with a mallet you accused me of ignoring your points.   

If all you want to talk about is certainty, we've already covered that. You claimed that certainty was a problem in religion and introduced 9/11 into the discussion and asked me to compare it to secular rules. I pointed out in #729 that non-religious certainties also lead to mass murder and that UN resolutions lead to differences of opinion but that the US and UK were certain that the 'truth' was that they had the right to invade Iraq despite UN disagreement with their 'truth'. 

You then claimed you didn't want a comparison...after asking me to compare religion to secular rules and instructions.

Then in #747 you said certainty was a problem in religious and non-religious beliefs.
In #754 I agreed with you that certainty about absolute truths, religious or non-religious was the problem. I agree that faith is not a guarantee of knowing any truths.

What I disagreed with was your assertion that there was a principle of certainty that was a problem in every scenario. I also disagreed with your belief that certainty of belief in God provided intellectual cover for certainty about other beliefs,acts or behaviours such as a belief that killing or terrorism will please God . I compared that to the example of certainty in feeling patriotic about your country not providing intellectual cover for Bush or Trump's pronouncements on patriotic behaviour. 

You claim content does not matter, I disagree for the reasons given.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You brought up most of those points yourself - people flying planes into buildings, Muslim enforcers, the lack of terrorism carried out in the name of specific philosophers, your insistence that religious text should not be open to interpretation but unable to explain how this would be achieved, your questions about my thoughts on accountability. When I sometimes declined to bash every one of your points with a mallet you accused me of ignoring your points.

No, I brought them up in response to comments you’d made – referencing the IS thug enforcers for example was in response to your (frankly bizarre) claim about no control etc. When I mentioned too the control that’s baked in when your education is chanting the Quran you just ignored the point.       

If all you want to talk about is certainty, we've already covered that. You claimed that certainty was a problem in religion and introduced 9/11 into the discussion and asked me to compare it to secular rules. I pointed out in #729 that non-religious certainties also lead to mass murder and that UN resolutions lead to differences of opinion but that the US and UK were certain that the 'truth' was that they had the right to invade Iraq despite UN disagreement with their 'truth'.

And I explained that dogmatism of any type is problematic, but that religious dogmatism specifically was the issue under discussion here. That’s not to say that reason-based rulemaking gets it right all the time, but it is to say that secular, democratic societies will go to war, abuse their citizens etc less often etc than will theocracies.       

You then claimed you didn't want a comparison...after asking me to compare religion to secular rules and instructions.

No, I told you that the comparisons you were attempting were false and I told you why.

Then in #747 you said certainty was a problem in religious and non-religious beliefs.
In #754 I agreed with you that certainty about absolute truths, religious or non-religious was the problem. I agree that faith is not a guarantee of knowing any truths.

And I explained in response that many people of your (and other) religions do however think precisely that (not all discussions are about you personally), and moreover that your privileging of faith over guessing for benign purposes provided intellectual cover for those who would use it for malign purposes. Why? Because your rationales are identical: "Faith". 

What I disagreed with was your assertion that there was a principle of certainty that was a problem in every scenario. I also disagreed with your belief that certainty of belief in God provided intellectual cover for certainty about other beliefs,acts or behaviours such as a belief that killing or terrorism will please God . I compared that to the example of certainty in feeling patriotic about your country not providing intellectual cover for Bush or Trump's pronouncements on patriotic behaviour.

Which is to miss the point. If you think there are certain objective facts (ie, not just that you feel certain about, say, your patriotism), that you’re certain about what they are because of “faith”, and those facts concern the morally correct way to behave, then what’s stopping you from acting accordingly?

Why is this difficult for you to engage with?   

You claim content does not matter, I disagree for the reasons given.

Why would you ever say such a thing? Of course content matters. It matters a lot in fact when it affects real people. Where it doesn’t matter though is when you keep returning to examples of it when the conversation is actually about a principle – ie, that certainty and faith combined provide the bullets and removes the safety catch respectively for behaviours whose content can be catastrophic.

Address that or don’t as you wish, but don’t accuse me of evasion for not following your Gish gallop wherever it happens to lead.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

I am accusing you of being evasive because you are being evasive. I have engaged with the points you raised about principle - I don't agree there is a principle of certainty to be concerned about. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not engaging. If it was, then I can say it right back to you - why is it so difficult for you to engage with my points.

Make up your mind - your above post - do you want me to respond to it point by point or not? If I don't respond to each point you claim I am ignoring a specific point. if I respond to it point by point and you disengage with the points made in response to your points, claiming a work project, with false promises of coming back to my points when you have time as you have done in the recent past, or if you claim my points are Gish Gallups then you are just being a troll.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh just get a room!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

 NS

BHS - I agree with the bit about theocracies. No one here is arguing that a theocracy is the way to go.   

[Owlswing]

If I were responding to this post, I'd say, 'evasion noted'.

      

      

[Owlswing]

Wiggs,

Yes, but there's a sort of logic too I suppose to telling lies for Jesus. If you know - really, really know – the universal, objective truth about, say, moral questions because your personal faith guarantees that you do then by comparison telling a few porkies to get your point across is a trivial mater. After all, you have much higher purposes to attend to so why trouble yourself with such inconsequencies as a few dishonesties pecking at your ankles?

I wonder too if there isn't some of this in the behaviour of paedophilic priests. After all, if you're certain that "God" will look after you in the final reckoning no matter how disgusting your behaviour while here, what constraints are there on your actions if you were so orientated?         

Especially if the hierarchy of your church is hell-bent upon ensuring that the only judge that you will ever face for your evil and unpleasant sexual activities is your god after your death and not an earthly judge in a Court of Law whilst you are still alive!

Thus, your victims get no closure and no-one can ever see if you are punished or patted on the back for having managed to get away with your crimes.

[Owlswing]

Bumpedf for the attention of Gabriella

I'm not questioning Islam - I have absolutely zilch in the way of knowledge of the contents of the Koran (or however you, personally, spell it) I was referring to your comment in the context of the Bible.

I still ask the question as stated in my post - If the Bible is the revealed word of God why does it need interpretation by mere mortals? If it is the revealed word of God and intended for the followers of that God why would he not put it in language that his people would understand?

A response and not an evasion please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I am accusing you of being evasive because you are being evasive. I have engaged with the points you raised about principle - I don't agree there is a principle of certainty to be concerned about. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not engaging. If it was, then I can say it right back to you - why is it so difficult for you to engage with my points.

Actually it pretty much is. “Engaging” would entail holding the argument up to the light to find the flaws in it, then talking about those flaws. You on the other hand say, “I don’t agree” then shoot sideways into any manner of extraneous stuff. I’ve addressed a lot of that stuff (and have offered to do so again) but you can’t accuse me of evasion for not continuing with it when you resolutely refuse to engage with the basic thesis.

I know that you don’t agree with it. Really, I know that because you keep saying, “I don’t agree” when I try to bring the discussion back to it. What I don’t know though is why you don’t agree – not by reference to your personal beliefs, but rather by reference to the merits or demerits of the argument itself.     

Make up your mind - your above post - do you want me to respond to it point by point or not? If I don't respond to each point you claim I am ignoring a specific point. if I respond to it point by point and you disengage with the points made in response to your points, claiming a work project, with false promises of coming back to my points when you have time as you have done in the recent past, or if you claim my points are Gish Gallups then you are just being a troll.

What would potentially at least be interesting would be for you to respond the actual point of the discussion – namely the certainty that there are absolute answers combined with the belief that faith is the guaranteed means to find those answers is logically indefensible and moreover tends to have very bad real world outcomes when people do think that way.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS - I agree with the bit about theocracies. No one here is arguing that a theocracy is the way to go.

Well good, but how then would you propose to argue against someone who does think think that and perhaps doesn't care much who gets hurt by his efforts to achieve it when his defence is precisely the same as yours for your benign outcomes - ie, "faith"?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Bumpedf for the attention of Gabriella

A response and not an evasion please.

I already responded to you - see #730.

But I am a Muslim, not a Christian so you'll have to ask someone who believes the Bible is the word of God. I thought Christians believed that it had been revised many times and had been written by people.

If that reply is not enough for you, you can always read any of my responses to BHS below when he made the same point. Take your pick:

From #790:

Fallible people are supposed to interpret the moral principles to develop a workable legal system to govern fallible people. It is inevitable that the a system run by fallible people will exhibit imperfections. It is impossible to word any principles about fighting and killing in a way that achieves justice but does not allow for variation of circumstance, which therefore makes interpretation necessary if the goal is to have a just outcome.

From #775
 I think it is impossible to write unambiguous moral statements that will fit any circumstance. I also think it is impossible to stop an individual if they want to try to interpret a moral statement to apply to their situation.

If you think it is possible to produce unambiguous moral rules, how come it hasn't be done, and instead we end up with so many court cases?

If you, on the other hand, want to make a claim that it is possible to make a moral rule that is not open to interpretation and will prevent terrorist acts feel free to prove your claim by demonstrating it. 

From #770
Why don't you suggest a method that you think will work without creating ambiguity and I will give you my opinion on it. The UN and various legislatures have tried creating laws without ambiguity and yet there are so many court cases because people think there is ambiguity in the text and there of course also so many law breakers. I have first-hand experience of volumes of dry tax legislation full of opportunities for loopholes and when they try and close one loophole they just create an opportunity to find another loophole.

From #754
Because as I explained before, moral rules tend to be complex and ambiguous and need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. I'm fine with the ambiguity, you're not.

From #729
Because morality and the individual circumstances of people's lives are far more complex than 2+2=4. Was that a serious question that you really needed me to explain the answer to?

I have what I believe is a divinely authored text to interpret so I'll get on with the business of interpreting it with my limited abilities, as will every other individual who believes it to be a divinely authored text, and given that there are a wide range of abilities based on nature and nurture and political and environmental factors etc, I would expect to see a wide range of interpretations, but we share the core belief iin a monotheistic concept of God that has communicated with us through messengers.

From #722
Until you come up with a method of understanding something and deciding how to apply it to your individual situation without interpretation, we don't have a choice but to use interpretation. Those of us who believe that there is a divine message find it useful to think that there is some form of communication to help us base our interpretations on.

From #720
I wasn't discussing the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. What's the point of discussing that because there is no method to know if something is authored divinely so the truth can't be established. There is only a belief that it was authored divinely. Regardless of the belief, interpretation is the only method I have of understanding or incorporating the text (and all the scholars' subsequent interpretations) into my thought process. 

From #638
Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted. It doesn't mean that the meaning can be anything - there is usually broadly agreed consensus on the meaning but you can have dissenting opinions. And it is always possible that individuals can apply a verse to a situation where they would need to make all kinds of assumptions and provisos to make it fit - you can't stop someone from having a punt.

From #620
As I said, I think I can form an opinion based on the text. I have no way of being certain if that opinion is correct, but I have to make a judgement call so I will proceed on the basis I got it vaguely right until I come across new information that leads me to change my understanding, intentions and actions.

From #594
I haven't figured out a way to establish what a god may have decided, so I think we can only hold opinions. Guess we will both have to wait until someone who thinks they know what any supposed God wants answers our question about how they established what said God wants.

I don't know what the Christian theory is but my understanding of Islam is that we have a message in the Quran, and the test on which we are judged is how we interpret the message, what our intentions are based on our interpretations, and how we actually behave

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Actually it pretty much is. “Engaging” would entail holding the argument up to the light to find the flaws in it, then talking about those flaws. You on the other hand say, “I don’t agree” then shoot sideways into any manner of extraneous stuff. I’ve addressed a lot of that stuff (and have offered to do so again) but you can’t accuse me of evasion for not continuing with it when you resolutely refuse to engage with the basic thesis.

I know that you don’t agree with it. Really, I know that because you keep saying, “I don’t agree” when I try to bring the discussion back to it. What I don’t know though is why you don’t agree – not by reference to your personal beliefs, but rather by reference to the merits or demerits of the argument itself.     

What would potentially at least be interesting would be for you to respond the actual point of the discussion – namely the certainty that there are absolute answers combined with the belief that faith is the guaranteed means to find those answers is logically indefensible and moreover tends to have very bad real world outcomes when people do think that way.

I have found the flaws in your assertions and I don't just say I don't agree. Presumably you being certain that you are right that you just keep repeating your assertions and evading responding to my points  is just an example of your dogmatic belief.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Well good, but how then would you propose to argue against someone who does think think that and perhaps doesn't care much who gets hurt by his efforts to achieve it when his defence is precisely the same as yours for your benign outcomes - ie, "faith"?

Incorrect comparison. I don't need to defend my benign outcomes - I don't mount a defence because there is nothing to defend if the outcome is benign.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I have found the flaws in your assertions and I don't just say I don't agree.

Is that right? Well, all I recall seeing so far is, "I don't agree" and then a bunch of tu quoque, irrelevancies, personal anecdotes etc. As I seem to have missed it, perhaps if you could just show me where you did find these flaws though I could consider your rebuttals.

Ta.   

Presumably you being certain that you are right that you just keep repeating your assertions and evading responding to my points  is just an example of your dogmatic belief.

Are you Vlad's kid sister or something - you seem to have a particular fondness for the straw man too. By all means though to to find an example of me ever saying that I'm certain of anything if you feel like it.

And if you don't want ever to engage with the argument itself (other that is that is with a, "I don't agree" and some irrelevancies), you can hardly complain when the argument is re-stated in the (apparently forlorn) hope that you'll change your mind about that.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Incorrect comparison. I don't need to defend my benign outcomes - I don't mount a defence because there is nothing to defend if the outcome is benign.

Now read what I actually said and see whether you can work out for yourself where you went wrong there.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

BHS

Gabriella,

Is that right? Well, all I recall seeing so far is, "I don't agree" and then a bunch of tu quoque, irrelevancies, personal anecdotes etc. As I seem to have missed it, perhaps if you could just show me where you did find these flaws though I could consider your rebuttals.

Ta.   

Are you Vlad's kid sister or something - you seem to have a particular fondness for the straw man too. By all means though to to find an example of me ever saying that I'm certain of anything if you feel like it.

And if you don't want ever to engage with the argument itself (other that is that is with a, "I don't agree" and some irrelevancies), you can hardly complain when the argument is re-stated in the (apparently forlorn) hope that you'll change your mind about that.   

You are still trolling I see. It's bad to feed your trolling but if you need to see my responses, go back over the posts I listed for Owlswing where I agreed that certainty was not good for religious or non-religious beliefs about what the morally right thing to do is and then explained why holding a belief in God is not covering for extremist belief, as the outcome is what matters.

See if you can work out for yourself where you have been going wrong.

[Owlswing]

I already responded to you - see #730.

But I am a Muslim, not a Christian so you'll have to ask someone who believes the Bible is the word of God. I thought Christians believed that it had been revised many times and had been written by people.

If that reply is not enough for you, you can always read any of my responses to BHS below when he made the same point. Take your pick:

From #790:

Fallible people are supposed to interpret the moral principles to develop a workable legal system to govern fallible people. It is inevitable that the a system run by fallible people will exhibit imperfections. It is impossible to word any principles about fighting and killing in a way that achieves justice but does not allow for variation of circumstance, which therefore makes interpretation necessary if the goal is to have a just outcome.

From #775
 I think it is impossible to write unambiguous moral statements that will fit any circumstance. I also think it is impossible to stop an individual if they want to try to interpret a moral statement to apply to their situation.

If you think it is possible to produce unambiguous moral rules, how come it hasn't be done, and instead we end up with so many court cases?

If you, on the other hand, want to make a claim that it is possible to make a moral rule that is not open to interpretation and will prevent terrorist acts feel free to prove your claim by demonstrating it. 

From #770
Why don't you suggest a method that you think will work without creating ambiguity and I will give you my opinion on it. The UN and various legislatures have tried creating laws without ambiguity and yet there are so many court cases because people think there is ambiguity in the text and there of course also so many law breakers. I have first-hand experience of volumes of dry tax legislation full of opportunities for loopholes and when they try and close one loophole they just create an opportunity to find another loophole.

From #754
Because as I explained before, moral rules tend to be complex and ambiguous and need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. I'm fine with the ambiguity, you're not.

From #729
Because morality and the individual circumstances of people's lives are far more complex than 2+2=4. Was that a serious question that you really needed me to explain the answer to?

I have what I believe is a divinely authored text to interpret so I'll get on with the business of interpreting it with my limited abilities, as will every other individual who believes it to be a divinely authored text, and given that there are a wide range of abilities based on nature and nurture and political and environmental factors etc, I would expect to see a wide range of interpretations, but we share the core belief iin a monotheistic concept of God that has communicated with us through messengers.

From #722
Until you come up with a method of understanding something and deciding how to apply it to your individual situation without interpretation, we don't have a choice but to use interpretation. Those of us who believe that there is a divine message find it useful to think that there is some form of communication to help us base our interpretations on.

From #720
I wasn't discussing the epistemology of thinking that some texts are authored divinely and are therefore inerrant. What's the point of discussing that because there is no method to know if something is authored divinely so the truth can't be established. There is only a belief that it was authored divinely. Regardless of the belief, interpretation is the only method I have of understanding or incorporating the text (and all the scholars' subsequent interpretations) into my thought process. 

From #638
Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted. It doesn't mean that the meaning can be anything - there is usually broadly agreed consensus on the meaning but you can have dissenting opinions. And it is always possible that individuals can apply a verse to a situation where they would need to make all kinds of assumptions and provisos to make it fit - you can't stop someone from having a punt.

From #620
As I said, I think I can form an opinion based on the text. I have no way of being certain if that opinion is correct, but I have to make a judgement call so I will proceed on the basis I got it vaguely right until I come across new information that leads me to change my understanding, intentions and actions.

From #594
I haven't figured out a way to establish what a god may have decided, so I think we can only hold opinions. Guess we will both have to wait until someone who thinks they know what any supposed God wants answers our question about how they established what said God wants.

I don't know what the Christian theory is but my understanding of Islam is that we have a message in the Quran, and the test on which we are judged is how we interpret the message, what our intentions are based on our interpretations, and how we actually behave

OK OK - I have the answer that I needed - don't worry, I will not trouble you again!

[SusanDoris]

Good point Susan.

BHS - evasion noted. All the points you just made have been responded to in reply #790 - the post I wrote after you claimed I was ignoring your points. You asking me to repeat my points is you evading my responses.

I have read subsequent posts, but I'll just mention that, in order to be quite clear, it was your evasion to which I referred!