Faith vs blind faith

[Shaker]

Welcome back Owly - you OK?

[Owlswing]

Welcome back Owly - you OK?

Yes thanks friend Shaker!

The boredom of being confined to bed 24/7 for the first four days was almost unbearable, but the cure without amputation (due to an infected diabetic lesion on my leg) was worth it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Sorry it's taken a while - I just spotted your last reply. Rather than engage in ever-lengthening correspondence, can I just abbreviate my response please with a quote from Vlad's hero?

"The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' So did Bertrand Russell: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.”

(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

Sorry it's taken a while - I just spotted your last reply. Rather than engage in ever-lengthening correspondence, can I just abbreviate my response please with a quote from Vlad's hero?

"The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' So did Bertrand Russell: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.”

(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)

Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?

[ippy]

Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?

Sorry Vlad, I don't see where R D or Blue have got it wrong here and I don't see Leprochournology or godology making any more sense than each other, perhaps you could fill in the evidence needed that would separate the two of them?

How about an intelligible answer Vlad instead of your usual non-answer or your other ploy of some words that don't relate to each other, that no one can understand?

Kindest of possible regards ippy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Sorry it's taken a while - I just spotted your last reply. Rather than engage in ever-lengthening correspondence, can I just abbreviate my response please with a quote from Vlad's hero?

"The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism - as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion. Voltaire got it right long ago: 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' So did Bertrand Russell: 'Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.”

(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)

BHS
Don't worry - your assertions about religion aren't particularly well-thought out or supported by evidence. I could have waited longer. Evasions noted.

Voltaire's and Russell's above assertions are meaningless noise in relation to our discussion about the majority of law-abiding religious people i.e the ones who don't commit atrocities and who have not been made to believe anything - whether it is beliefs about the identity they want to claim or moral, political or religious beliefs.

Also, you will find that many people think and then decide that dying for a purpose or cause is a rational decision. Or it may just be that dying is preferable to living in numerous cases, since many people favour quality of life over just living.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Don't worry - your assertions about religion aren't particularly well-thought out or supported by evidence. I could have waited longer. Evasions noted.

The irony of that will be lost on you, but the basic principle is simple and sound enough I'd have thought – if you can be persuaded that nonsense is inerrantly true (indeed expected of you by a God who will reward you accordingly) then the brakes of ordinary decency will be removed in your pursuit of it. That’s not to say that there aren’t religious people who don’t reach accommodations with the more egregious parts of their faith beliefs, but it is to say that certainty and acting accordingly are inextricably bound up.   

Voltaire's and Russell's above assertions are meaningless noise in relation to our discussion about the majority of law-abiding religious people i.e the ones who don't commit atrocities and who have not been made to believe anything - whether it is beliefs about the identity they want to claim or moral, political or religious beliefs.

You’ve missed it again. As RD notes, it’s not that extreme versions of religious faith are the problem but rather religious faith itself is the problem. Once you let down the drawbridge by privileging faith beliefs over guessing, how would you propose to police what comes over the moat?     

Also…

You can’t have an “also” without a prior.

…you will find that many people think and then decide that dying for a purpose or cause is a rational decision.

Yes I do know that many people think that. The 9/11 bombers – pious men all – thought they were acting perfectly rationally.

How does that help you?

Or it may just be that dying is preferable to living in numerous cases, since many people favour quality of life over just living.

Yes it may be, but that’s only their life they’re taking and not the lives of others, and what’s that got to do with religious belief in any case? 

Happy to engage with you by the way, but for practical purposes I’d appreciate it if we could stick to the points under discussion. Thanks.

[Nearly Sane]

You’ve missed it again. As RD notes, it’s not that extreme versions of religious faith are the problem but rather religious faith itself is the problem. Once you let down the drawbridge by privileging faith beliefs over guessing, how would you propose to police what comes over the moat?     

Given that there are those with religious faith who aren't certain and are unwilling to murder, and those without religious faith who are certain and willing to murder, how can 'religious faith itself' be the problem?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Given that there are those with religious faith who aren't certain and are unwilling to murder, and those without religious faith who are certain and willing to murder, how can 'religious faith itself' be the problem?

Because religious faith deals in certainty. That some embrace that and some don’t is a secondary issue – there’s plenty there to provide a rationale for those who would murder in its name. By contrast, there’s nothing in the writings of, say, Voltaire or Spinoza or Einstein that would do the same thing. Wy? Because, regardless of the arguments they make or the positions they advocate, none of them claim to be certain about it. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Because religious faith deals in certainty. That some embrace that and some don’t is a secondary issue – there’s plenty there to provide a rationale for those who would murder in its name. By contrast, there’s nothing in the writings of, say, Voltaire or Spinoza or Einstein that would do the same thing. Wy? Because, regardless of the arguments they make or the positions they advocate, none of them claim to be certain about it.

So you are going to deny the facts that there are people with religious faith who aren't certain and don't murder, and there are those without religious faith who are certain and do murder because those people who are certain in that case are just wrong and can be ignored?


Surely if the problem is religious faith itself you need to show that it is the cause, but the facts seem to show here that you aren't even just using post hoc, ergo proper hoc, just your assertions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So you are going to deny the facts that there are people with religious faith who aren't certain and don't murder, and there are those without religious faith who are certain and do murder because those people who are certain in that case are just wrong and can be ignored?

No, of course not. Why would I?

Surely if the problem is religious faith itself you need to show that it is the cause, but the facts seem to show here that you aren't even just using post hoc, ergo proper hoc, just your assertions.

Both a cause and a method – if you don't need or even want an escape route (because 72 virgins await post mortem) how much easier it must be to blow up the 'plane.

What would you like me to do - list atrocities committed precisely because the perpetrators were certain that their religious faith mandated them? It's easy enough to do I'd have thought. Moreover, it's easy too to find apologists even now for those actions - the odious William Lane Craig for example telling us that tribal slaughter was fine for disobeying "God", and that that way the babies got to heaven even sooner than they otherwise would. What kind of absolute certainty must it take even to think that way?       

[floo]

NS,

No, of course not. Why would I?

Both a cause and a method – if you don't need or even want an escape route (because 72 virgins await post mortem) how much easier it must be to blow up the 'plane.

What would you like me to do - list atrocities committed precisely because the perpetrators were certain that their religious faith mandated them? It's easy enough to do I'd have thought. Moreover, it's easy too to find apologists even now for those actions - the odious William Lane Craig for example telling us that tribal slaughter was fine for disobeying "God", and that that way the babies got to heaven even sooner than they otherwise would. What kind of absolute certainty must it take even to think that way?     

What a sicko that man is!

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, of course not. Why would I?

Both a cause and a method – if you don't need or even want an escape route (because 72 virgins await post mortem) how much easier it must be to blow up the 'plane.

What would you like me to do - list atrocities committed precisely because the perpetrators were certain that their religious faith mandated them? It's easy enough to do I'd have thought. Moreover, it's easy too to find apologists even now for those actions - the odious William Lane Craig for example telling us that tribal slaughter was fine for disobeying "God", and that that way the babies got to heaven even sooner than they otherwise would. What kind of absolute certainty must it take even to think that way?     

Why do you think that would work? You stated that it was religious faith that lead to certainty and this sort of action and yet there's me old  sainted mother, still going, beating Brady and Manson, but never killed or conspired to kill anyone, and talking to me on Saturday about doubts  So how is it that 'religious faith' leads to certainty and all that killing malarkey?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Why do you think that would work? You stated that it was religious faith that lead to certainty and this sort of action and yet there's me old  sainted mother, still going, beating Brady and Manson, but never killed or conspired to kill anyone, and talking to me on Saturday about doubts  So how is it that 'religious faith' leads to certainty and all that killing malarkey?

Again, it’s not that religious faith “leads to” certainty so much that it is certainty. Jesus we're told really wants you for a sunbeam. Voltaire again: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Once you buy into certainty underpinning those absurdities, what checks and balances do you have left not to follow wherever they lead? That your (no doubt entirely delightful) dear Mum hasn’t bought into it just means that, well, she hasn’t bought into it. Other people though do.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Again, it’s not that religious faith “leads to” certainty so much that it is certainty. Jesus we're told really wants you for a sunbeam. Voltaire again: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Once you buy into certainty underpinning those absurdities, what checks and balances do you have left not to follow wherever they lead? That your (no doubt entirely delightful) dear Mum hasn’t bought into it just means that, well, she hasn’t bought into it. Other people though do.       

But surely that just says whenever you buy into certainty, you buy into certainty? Not that religion is certainty. I mean, it's clear it isn't all certainty, see Manson. And it's clear that it has doubt for some, see me sainted mother. So in what sense is it 'certainty'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The bible itself talks about strong and weak faith and of faith as small as a mustard seed and people of little faith. Also mountain top experiences and arid periods.

[Nearly Sane]

The bible itself talks about strong and weak faith and of faith as small as a mustard seed and people of little faith. Also mountain top experiences and arid periods.

wax on, wax off

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But surely that just says whenever you buy into certainty, you buy into certainty? Not that religion is certainty.

No, it says that religion - or more precisely, religious faith - is certainty because the assertion is the beginning and the end of it. There are few (or possibly no?) religions that say there may or may not be a god, or that if ever X could be demonstrated then its claim "God" would fall away. They're certain - really, really certain. And when there's no reasoning that got you into buying that certainty, how could there be reasoning that can get you out (look at AB on the other thread for fairly depressing evidence of that)?

The only issue then becomes how persuasive the clerics have been at selling the snake oil, which is why they focus so much on children     

I mean, it's clear it isn't all certainty, see Manson. And it's clear that it has doubt for some, see me sainted mother. So in what sense is it 'certainty'?

See above. It's still certainty - that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or that she has but hasn't been told to blow up a school is another matter. The point rather is that, when someone who would blow up a school rationalises it with, "but that's my faith" how should someone who also thinks faith is a reliable guide to absolute truths (only different ones) argue against him?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, it says that religion - or more precisely, religious faith - is certainty because the assertion is the beginning and the end of it. There are few (or possibly no?) religions that say there may or may not be a god, or that if ever X could be demonstrated then its claim "God" would fall away. They're certain - really, really certain. And when there's no reasoning that got you into buying that certainty, how could there be reasoning that can get you out (look at AB on the other thread for fairly depressing evidence of that)?

The only issue then becomes how persuasive the clerics have been at selling the snake oil, which is why they focus so much on children     

See above. It's still certainty - that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or that she has but hasn't been told to blow up a school is another matter. The point rather is that, when someone who would blow up a school rationalises it with, "but that's my faith" how should someone who also thinks faith is a reliable guide to absolute truths (only different ones) argue against him?

Nice to know that you think my mother is still certain despite me saying she isn't and you having never never met her. Seems odd. H


And then there is you ignoring that this certainty isn't connected to religion as an absolute. All a bit Dunning Kruger assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See above. It's still certainty - that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or that she has but hasn't been told to blow up a school is another matter. The point rather is that, when someone who would blow up a school rationalises it with, "but that's my faith" how should someone who also thinks faith is a reliable guide to absolute truths (only different ones) argue against him?

You seem to think that a person who justifies this type of violence is going to be met with an OK.
I cannot imagine a devout Jain giving that response talking of which Ghandi tended to give Jesus the thumbs up the only problem being that Jesus followers didn't.

You still seem to be holding a torch for Sam Harris's ideas. SamHarris who has ensured that Ghandism or turn the other cheek ism will never be mistaken as part of the genome of New Atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So I said:

It's still certainty - that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or that she has but hasn't been told to blow up a school is another matter.

To which you replied:

Nice to know that you think my mother is still certain despite me saying she isn't and you having never never met her. Seems odd. H

That’s a misrepresentation of Vladian proportions. How on earth do you get from, “that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or…” to, “Nice to know that you think my mother is still certain…”?

And then there is you ignoring that this certainty isn't connected to religion as an absolute. All a bit Dunning Kruger assertion.

What do you think that I’m “ignoring” exactly? What does, “…isn’t connected to religion as an absolute” mean?

This looks close to another misrepresentation, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth so perhaps you could clarify.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

So I said:

To which you replied:

That’s a misrepresentation of Vladian proportions. How on earth do you get from, “that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or…” to, “Nice to know that you think my mother is still certain…”?

What do you think that I’m “ignoring” exactly? What does, “…isn’t connected to religion as an absolute” mean?

This looks close to another misrepresentation, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth so perhaps you could clarify.

Read your own post, apparently you think my old sainted mother might blow up a school if she was told to. And in addition you continue to ignore that non religious people happily kill out of certainty. So when are going to illustrate your clsim that it is 'religious belief itself' that leads to certainty?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Read your own post,...

I did. Why didn't you?

....apparently you think my old daintrd motger might blow up a school if she was told to.

First, you're shifting ground. What you actually said was, "you think my mother is still certain despite me saying she isn't" despite my saying very specifically, "that your Mum hasn't gone that far, or...". Why don't we start with you withdrawing the accusation before we move to the next point?

Second, what I said was that if she had bought in to the absolute certainty line then presumably it was in a faith tradition that didn't tell her to blow up a school. Axiomatically, if she was completely certain then on what basis could she have said "no"?

And in addition...

You don't get an "in addition" - see above.

...you continue to ignore that non religious people happily kill out of certainty

I'm not ignoring it at all - it's just not relevant here. You may as well ask why I argue that cholera is a bad thing when typhoid kills people too. I know it does, just as I know that other dogmatic beliefs have had (and still have) catastrophic effects. For the purpose of a discussion about religious faith though, so what? "OK it's bad, but so is something else" is a poor argument.

So when are going to illustrate your clsim that it is 'religious belief itself' that leads to certainty?

Any time you like - I can quote either its texts that say so, or the devastating actions of those who bought into its certainty and so committed them in its name. Which would you like? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Social scientist Phil Ryan in his critique of the New Atheists and their detractors Chopra the al. "After the New Atheist Debate ", university of Toronto press 2014, noted a tendency among the four horsemen to cover everything they didn't like under the term religion. Hence the cult of Stalin and Mr P.Pot become religious or religions.

I have seen Stalins and Hitler's acts blamed on 'residual religion'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

The irony of that will be lost on you,

BHS,

No the irony of you trying to criticise beliefs with nothing more than your own beliefs is not lost on me.

but the basic principle is simple and sound enough I'd have thought – if you can be persuaded that nonsense is inerrantly true (indeed expected of you by a God who will reward you accordingly) then the brakes of ordinary decency will be removed in your pursuit of it. That’s not to say that there aren’t religious people who don’t reach accommodations with the more egregious parts of their faith beliefs, but it is to say that certainty and acting accordingly are inextricably bound up.

You’ve missed it again. As RD notes, it’s not that extreme versions of religious faith are the problem but rather religious faith itself is the problem. Once you let down the drawbridge by privileging faith beliefs over guessing, how would you propose to police what comes over the moat?

You can't have an  'again', without a prior.

I have already addressed these beliefs of yours in my previous posts on the effect of interpretation and the fact that religious people have stated their multiple political and revenge-based justification for their actions as opposed to your simplistic unevidenced assertions about why they do what they do, most of which you have ignored. I have even restated the post numbers where I addressed your beliefs but you evaded that too and you simply resort to restating your beliefs. Strange how you seem to have a problem when Alan does this on the Searching for God thread. You are most welcome to keep restating your beliefs but until you have some evidence to support your beliefs, like Alan's, they will have to remain true for you beliefs.       

You can’t have an “also” without a prior.

Yes I do know that many people think that. The 9/11 bombers – pious men all – thought they were acting perfectly rationally.

How does that help you?

Yes it may be, but that’s only their life they’re taking and not the lives of others, and what’s that got to do with religious belief in any case? 

Happy to engage with you by the way, but for practical purposes I’d appreciate it if we could stick to the points under discussion. Thanks.

I was not referring to people who take only their own lives. That is your mis-interpretation of what I wrote. I was talking about people who are willing to die and kill for a principle or a way of life such as freedom or democracy or to not live under tyranny or oppression - the various revolutions, civil wars, freedom fighters over the years. We had Remembrance Sunday recently to remind ourselves of those who fight and kill and die in this country to try and preserve certain values and freedoms that they, and those whom they love and try to protect, hold dear. You don't need religious belief in order to feel this way about principles - it's a human trait that can be applied to anything - religion, politics, ethics.