Faith vs blind faith

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

What does "religious faith deals in certainty" even mean? You are either being disingenuous or generalising. Some people can be certain but then your issue is with those people. As has been explained to you previously many times, other people believe that a God exists but don't do certainty, especially when it comes to deciding on a course of action. Deciding to carry out an action is not the same as believing in the existence of something - and you asserting over and over again that the former inevitably follows on from the latter isn't any more convincing now than it was in all your previous posts.

Certainty is just one interpretation or model of a person's religious faith. There are others. So again you have not demonstrated that the problem is religious faith rather than the particular faith model of some religious people. And as I pointed out to you before, if the writings of Voltaire or Spinoza or Einstein can be applied to geo-political conflicts about control of power and resources and protection of loved ones, which is usually what motivates people to kill or die for principles or values, then these writings will be used to justify violence. Unless you are a pacifist, I assume you are grateful that there are words in existence that can motivate people to be certain enough to kill and die to protect your freedom.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I did. Why didn't you?

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"?

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

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.

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?

So when given a case of someone who is religious but not certain, you just dismiss that as  not counting against religious faith leading to certainty because they have not gone that far. And when given the case of those who are certain but not religious that can be ignored because it's not about that. You seem to have made an unfalsifiable claim in that any contrary examples to religious faith leading to certainty are going to be ignored. 

If humans lean to certainty then religious faith is a symptom surely rather than a cause?

[Nearly Sane]

What does "religious faith deals in certainty" even mean? You are either being disingenuous or generalising. Some people can be certain but then your issue is with those people. As has been explained to you previously many times, other people believe that a God exists but don't do certainty, especially when it comes to deciding on a course of action. Deciding to carry out an action is not the same as believing in the existence of something - and you asserting over and over again that the former inevitably follows on from the latter isn't any more convincing now than it was in all your previous posts.

Certainty is just one interpretation or model of a person's religious faith. There are others. So again you have not demonstrated that the problem is religious faith rather than the particular faith model of some religious people. And as I pointed out to you before, if the writings of Voltaire or Spinoza or Einstein can be applied to geo-political conflicts about control of power and resources and protection of loved ones, which is usually what motivates people to kill or die for principles or values, then these writings will be used to justify violence. Unless you are a pacifist, I assume you are grateful that there are words in existence that can motivate people to be certain enough to kill and die to protect your freedom.

I've written a few paeans to doubt on here but I don't think that violence or atrocities are limited to those who are certain. Despite, to paraphrase  Yeats,  the worst being full of passionate intensity, I'm not convinced all who carry out such acts are certain but that sometimes they carry out such acts to mask their uncertainty. It's always seemed to me that people make their religion, as an atheist I can't see any other way of it happening.

[ekim]

I've written a few paeans to doubt on here but I don't think that violence or atrocities are limited to those who are certain. Despite, to paraphrase  Yeats,  the worst being full of passionate intensity, I'm not convinced all who carry out such acts are certain but that sometimes they carry out such acts to mask their uncertainty. It's always seemed to me that people make their religion, as an atheist I can't see any other way of it happening.

Especially if a religion commands 'Thou shalt not murder' and the followers carry out murder.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've written a few paeans to doubt on here but I don't think that violence or atrocities are limited to those who are certain. Despite, to paraphrase  Yeats,  the worst being full of passionate intensity, I'm not convinced all who carry out such acts are certain but that sometimes they carry out such acts to mask their uncertainty. It's always seemed to me that people make their religion, as an atheist I can't see any other way of it happening.

I would agree with that. I think people's motivations for violence are a complex interaction of impulses, emotions and reasoning, and religious interpretations are one out of many ways of manifesting this on-going interaction.

[Nearly Sane]

I would agree with that. I think people's motivations for violence are a complex interaction of impulses, emotions and reasoning, and religious interpretations are one out of many ways of manifesting this on-going interaction.

Yes, it's undoubtedly true that religion and politics are what are the prime 'reasons' that people state that they act for since those deal with the big ticket 'ought' beliefs, but they are not the only things that motivate people, and if you have ever wandered into the depths of a Dr Who message board, the things that motivate thoughts of violence can be quite extraordinary. Religions as with any other set of beliefs seem to be able to be held in many different ways and intensities.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

BHS

Both would be great. Quoting texts is pointless though unless you can demonstrate that every religious adherent who holds that text sacred commits atrocities once they have read the text. If on the other hand, there are religious adherents who hold the text sacred, who state that their interpretation of the text does not require them to blow up schools or fly planes into buildings and that the text is to be interpreted in context taking into account other parts of the text and other religious traditions, then your assertions remain simply 'true for you' beliefs.

I did ask you for evidence that atrocities were justified by someone simply saying "it's my faith" without the accompanying long litany of political or other grievances. So if you have evidence of that I think it would be worth examining.

[floo]

BHS

Both would be great. Quoting texts is pointless though unless you can demonstrate that every religious adherent who holds that text sacred commits atrocities once they have read the text. If on the other hand, there are religious adherents who hold the text sacred, who state that their interpretation of the text does not require them to blow up schools or fly planes into buildings and that the text is to be interpreted in context taking into account other parts of the text and other religious traditions, then your assertions remain simply 'true for you' beliefs.

I did ask you for evidence that atrocities were justified by someone simply saying "it's my faith" without the accompanying long litany of political or other grievances. So if you have evidence of that I think it would be worth examining.

What about those theists who have killed people carrying out legal abortions, or tried to 'cure' gays in the name of their god?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, it's undoubtedly true that religion and politics are what are the prime 'reasons' that people state that they act for since those deal with the big ticket 'ought' beliefs, but they are not the only things that motivate people, and if you have ever wandered into the depths of a Dr Who message board, the things that motivate thoughts of violence can be quite extraordinary. Religions as with any other set of beliefs seem to be able to be held in many different ways and intensities.

True. I would say 'freedom' is a prime reason for violence. You get anti-colonialists like Frantz Fanon influencing many liberation movements to throw off colonial rule or neo-colonialist influence  - Algerians, black  South Africans, Palestinians, Tamil Tigers, the IRA. Fanon expressed the idea that "at the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force" and that people are not powerless to engineer change and do have the capacity to fight . Fanon also warned of the corrupt regimes that would follow independence in Africa and the Middle East and how corrupt regimes would be propped up by former colonial powers. Jean Paul Satre, who wrote a preface for one of Fanon's books on the role of violence in overthrowing oppressors, expressed the idea that "violence, like Achilles' lance, can heal the wounds that it has inflicted".

I think anyone who has read anything about the history of terrorism would not limit themselves to the simplistic beliefs held by BHS on the justification for violence in complex geo-political issues.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What about those theists who have killed people carrying out legal abortions, or tried to 'cure' gays in the name of their god?

If you can give me a specific example by quoting or linking to a named individual's justification for their actions, I have something to respond to. I can't guess the motivation of nameless individuals. Especially as "In the name of their god" is a very vague assertion about their motivations.

[Nearly Sane]

If you can give me a specific example by quoting or linking to a named individual's justification for their actions, I have something to respond to. I can't guess the motivation of nameless individuals. Especially as "In the name of their god" is a very vague assertion about their motivations.

And I would be interested what it is that makes their actions different from others who believe the same. Those who don't kill people carrying out abortions, or try to 'cure' gays. I'm struggling with the idea that it's only the extremes, and the extremes that are seen as bad, that are the outcome of this certainty that seems to be held by only some of those who follow religion.


The extreme good that someone might carry out in the name of religion is portrayed as just something that humans do without religion, but the evils are somehow to do with some added 'ingredient' from the outside of humanity. I've always found this approach from some atheists odd as it almost feels that they give religion a status of something external, like a sort of god.

[Dicky Underpants]

The extreme good that someone might carry out in the name of religion is portrayed as just something that humans do without religion, but the evils are somehow to do with some added 'ingredient' from the outside of humanity. I've always found this approach from some atheists odd as it almost feels that they give religion a status of something external, like a sort of god.

I think that's basically Richard Dawkins' expressed view.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that's basically Richard Dawkins' expressed view.

Certainly it seems to be. It's also at the base of the idiotic Weinberg quote about needing religion to make good people do evil.

[ippy]

Certainly it seems to be. It's also at the base of the idiotic Weinberg quote about needing religion to make good people do evil.

I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours, ( using the word cuts, a little unfortunate also unintended).

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours, ( using the word cuts, a little unfortunate also unintended).

Regards ippy

For me the spectre at the feast of Dawkins, Hillside and Weinberg is the Milgram experiment which actually specifically teaches that too much respect for scientists can be a dangerous thing too.

[ippy]

For me the spectre at the feast of Dawkins, Hillside and Weinberg is the Milgram experiment which actually specifically teaches that too much respect for scientists can be a dangerous thing too.

So tell me Vlad, F G M isn't a religiously inspired act?

If you feel you want to reply, try using some easily understood form of English, to be fair Vlad, I suppose English can be hard if it's not your first language.

Kind regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So tell me Vlad, F G M isn't a religiously inspired act?

If you feel you want to reply, try using some easily understood form of English, to be fair Vlad, I suppose English can be hard if it's not your first language.

Kind regards ippy

We know that FGM is a feature of other particular cultures which are of a particular religious environment. Our own culture has made a stand on this.
As a religionist my own religion was very quick on dispensing with circumcision.
I assume that as. a society we disagree with FGM

The results of the Milgram experiment tend to lie buried and the results interpreted as a warning of how we can be led by authority. Recently researchers revisiting the Milgram experiment now see it as how we can be led by scientists and that revelation upsets many preconceptions in secular society.

[Sebastian Toe]

The results of the Milgram experiment tend to lie buried and the results interpreted as a warning of how we can be led by authority. Recently researchers revisiting the Milgram experiment now see it as how we can be led by scientists and that revelation upsets many preconceptions in secular society.

People can be led by all kinds of authority figures. Including priests, vicars, imams, preachers and popes.
Not just science/scientists as you seem very keen to portray.
Hmmmm....

[Nearly Sane]

I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours, ( using the word cuts, a little unfortunate also unintended).

Regards ippy

Not sure why you think it does. The post refers to two things, that some who argue religion causes bad actions seem to ignore any good actions people say they did because of religion - and I don't see where FGM deals with that.

The second is that Weinberg's quote that it takes religion to make good people commit evil is nonsense. And it is because people who appear good commit evil band cite reasons other than religion. Leaving aside the whole question pfwhether FGM has a cultural basis as well as a religious one, it wouldn't substantiate Weinberg's claim that it is religion which is capable of this as opposed to any overall belief in something such as cultural, political or tribal motivations.

Indeed as Vlad validly points out the Milgram experiment shows all you need is a lab coat and a clipboard. Though Vlad makes the same mistake as Weinberg in trying to tie the behaviour to something specific instead of noting that it appears to be a fairly generic trait.


Indeed if you look at the Stanford experiment or much of history, the idea that it takes much more than having authority for other wise 'good people' to act evilly seems a stretch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

[ippy]

Not sure why you think it does. The post refers to two things, that some who argue religion causes bad actions seem to ignore any good actions people say they did because of religion - and I don't see where FGM deals with that.

The second is that Weinberg's quote that it takes religion to make good people commit evil is nonsense. And it is because people who appear good commit evil band cite reasons other than religion. Leaving aside the whole question pfwhether FGM has a cultural basis as well as a religious one, it wouldn't substantiate Weinberg's claim that it is religion which is capable of this as opposed to any overall belief in something such as cultural, political or tribal motivations.

Indeed as Vlad validly points out the Milgram experiment shows all you need is a lab coat and a clipboard. Though Vlad makes the same mistake as Weinberg in trying to tie the behaviour to something specific instead of noting that it appears to be a fairly generic trait.


Indeed if you look at the Stanford experiment or much of history, the idea that it takes much more than having authority for other wise 'good people' to act evilly seems a stretch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

I see where you're going with this post and I go along with you, but if you read the post you're responding to here again:

I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours,

I acknowledged that I hadn't been following this thread and I would have thought this would indicate that I could be missing some previously made point and I made it clear that my comment was specifically about that one particular post, just in case I my comment was misunderstood 

I often assume that most intelligent people don't need to be lead by the hand and assume my, admittedly, shorthand but not that shorthand will be taken as I have stated, but then you'll always get the odd one that needs every tee crossed and i dotted before they will pretend to understand the meaning I'm trying to convey.

My working partner and I would have the occasional day where we didn't understand each other unless the English, our version, was exactly correct, that was fun I enjoyed that but sometimes that sort of thing can be needlessly tiresome.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I see where you're going with this post and I go along with you, but if you read the post you're responding to here again:

I've not been following this thread but I couldn't help thinking that somehow F G M cuts right across this particular post of yours,

I acknowledged that I hadn't been following this thread and I would have thought this would indicate that I could be missing some previously made point and I made it clear that my comment was specifically about that one particular post, just in case I my comment was misunderstood 

I often assume that most intelligent people don't need to be lead by the hand and assume my, admittedly, shorthand but not that shorthand will be taken as I have stated, but then you'll always get the odd one that needs every tee crossed and i dotted before they will pretend to understand the meaning I'm trying to convey.

My working partner and I would have the occasional day where we didn't understand each other unless the English, our version, was exactly correct, that was fun I enjoyed that but sometimes that sort of thing can be needlessly tiresome.

Regards ippy

So if I read this correctly you are saying that because you hadn't read the thread and what I had been saying, you know agree your point was invalid
. Thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People can be led by all kinds of authority figures. Including priests, vicars, imams, preachers and popes.

Hmmmm....

I am not disputing that but is that likely to be the case in a secular society?
If not, can a secular society claim to be immune from being led the wrong way?
No, of course not.
The Milgram experiment is useful because it exposed the new leadership class in secular society.
The danger is therefore not from moderates who recognise a cadre of there co societists who can mislead but from those moderates who see this as someone else's problem.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am not disputing that but is that likely to be the case in a secular society?

I don't see why not.
Especially if one understands what secular actually means.
Oh, wait a minute, I see where you might be struggling! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see why not.
Especially if one understands what secular actually means.
Oh, wait a minute, I see where you might be struggling! 

Of course leadership of secular society passed from scientists to antitheistic comedians and Merry Andrews such as Shappi Korsandi and Iain Lee. They must be hoping that the bush tucker trials will make them feel a little funny

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course leadership of secular society passed from scientists to antitheistic comedians and Merry Andrews such as Shappi Korsandi and Iain Lee. They must be hoping that the bush tucker trials will make them feel a little funny

I see somewhere else that you might be struggling. Maybe even more so.