Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside

Very well said, as always. I'd like to give that Welby a talking to!!

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Come on now, this is supposed to be the "nice" thread, play the game everyone 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

You're defining "faith" as "dogmatism" in the first place, so naturally it is then beyond argument and unfalsifiable. I'm sure that's a logical fallacy - petitio principii? No true Scotsman? One of them. Or something.

Yes I am calling faith dogmatic - "I know I'm right because my faith tells me so" is dogmatic. What else could it be? How would you propose to argue against it?

And no, those logical fallacies don't apply. 

[Nearly Sane]

SteveH,

Yes I am calling faith dogmatic - "I know I'm right because my faith tells me so" is dogmatic. What else could it be? How would you propose to argue against it?

And no, those logical fallacies don't apply.

But surely someone could say I believe I'm right because my faith tells me so as well? And plenty of people who say the know they are right would not use the term faith?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Nope. You’re missing the key difference still – faith. “Belief itself” is dogmatic when it’s a faith. What else could it be? “But that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it, so there’s no possibility even of falsifying it, whether its object happens to be a god or leprechauns. That is, some beliefs have certainty baked in (religious ones for example) whereas others don’t (yoga for example). For the latter, yes it does mean that yoga followers might not do so because they have no unfalsifiable faith rationale to support them – inasmuch as they make objective claims of fact about the world those claims can be investigated and validated or falsified as may be. Now try that with the claim of objective fact, “God”.     

Yes they may do, and those arguments can be considered on their merits or demerits too. That says nothing though to the argument under discussion, namely that Welby (in this example) either thinks equality is key or he doesn’t. He has to get to, “no it isn’t” to open the door to differential treatment (“hate the sin”), but if he does you can then populate the list of bigotries with anything you (or your “holy” texts) happen to light on.   

We could, but it wouldn’t be relevant. Comparing the rights of people (ie, gay vs non-gay) is comparing apples with apples - they’re all people; comparing the rights of people with the rights of animals isn’t. 

I didn’t – as I made clear. The category of “special case” is for dogmatic, certain, faith-based beliefs – religion is obviously a big example of it, but it’s by no means the only one. 

You’ll need to clarify that I think. External to what? I see religion as a particularly pernicious example of dogmatic belief (because of the harm it does in the real world, snippets of which I referred to in my post). It’s not that “belief systems can be held dogmatically” though – it’s that some belief systems are dogmatic in their essence, necessarily so when their rationale is “faith”. You seem to be suggesting that beliefs are of a piece, only sometimes people choose to hold them dogmatically – a top down approach. I think it’s the other way round (ie, bottom up) – some types of belief are necessarily dogmatic because they rest fundamentally on faith, and when that’s your starting point there’s nowhere else to go. You believe them or you don’t, but there’s no epistemology involved.         

External here means that they are not created in any sense outside of human behaviour, Religions and all belief systems are merely humans expressing how they think. There is such thing as a belief system being dogmatic, there is only a set of behaviours of humans that is dogmatic.

Since some of those humans who have faith do not express themselves dogmatically then you faith equals dogmatism idea seems to me flawed. and again if you say they aren't properly 'faithful' then we are back at the NTS. Further you seem to think that there are merits and demerits in 'ought' arguments such as how to get equality without the possibility that the axiom itself is both an article of what would in nrmal terms be called faith and isn't capable of being defined objectively.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But surely someone could say I believe I'm right because my faith tells me so as well?

Did you mean to say that? Yes, someone could say that – so what? Compare that though with, say, a mathematician who instead would say, “Here’s my working that shows me to be right. If you can find a fault in it though then I’ll be wrong”.

That’s a categorically different approach to, “I know I’m right because my faith tells me so”.

And plenty of people who say the know they are right would not use the term faith?

They might not use that term, but it’s binary – either they have reason, evidence, workings out etc that are investigable and testable or they have, well, faith. Whether they happen to use that term is incidental to the point.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Did you mean to say that? Yes, someone could say that – so what? Compare that though with, say, a mathematician who instead would say, “Here’s my working that shows me to be right. If you can find a fault in it though then I’ll be wrong”.

That’s a categorically different approach to, “I know I’m right because my faith tells me so”.

[quoteAnd plenty of people who say the know they are right would not use the term faith?

They might not use that term, but it’s binary – either they have reason, evidence, workings out etc that are investigable and testable or they have, well, faith. Whether they happen to use that term is incidental to the point.

Yes, I meant it.  The mathematics example is irrelevant since we aren't comparing like with like here. Oughts don't have right answers but people act and speak as if they do. Some people might say that they are certain they are right, but others might admit to a lack of certainty. Both of them may well use the term faith in speaking of it. Some religious people speak as if they are certain, others don't. Some non religious people speak as if they are certain, others don't. It doesn't seem to take a particular type of idea or concept for people to be able to be certain or uncertain  about it

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

External here means that they are not created in any sense outside of human behaviour, Religions and all belief systems are merely humans expressing how they think.

At a generic level, that’s right. Within that though there are categories – faith-based vs logic/evidence-based for example. That’s the point.   

There is such thing as a belief system being dogmatic, there is only a set of behaviours of humans that is dogmatic.

Presumably that should read, “no such thing”. And I disagree fundamentally – see above. Dogmatic and non-dogmatic belief types are fundamentally different in their approach and in their effect. It’d be rare for, say a physicist to say, “I know that I’m right no matter what”. For a cleric though, it’s a commonplace.

Why? Faith.

Since some of those humans who have faith do not express themselves dogmatically then you faith equals dogmatism idea seems to me flawed.

You’re missing the status that’s attached to the claim. If someone said, “I’m guessing A rather than B because that’s my faith” (raindrops running down a window for example) you’d have a point. What I’m talking about though is those who say, “A is certainly correct because that’s my faith”, and in particular those who say it when “A” is “God”.   

…and again if you say they aren't properly 'faithful' then we are back at the NTS.

I don’t say that, and nor have I implied it. See above . 

Further you seem to think that there are merits and demerits in 'ought' arguments such as how to get equality without the possibility that the axiom itself is both an article of what would in nrmal terms be called faith and isn't capable of being defined objectively.

No, I was merely saying that either the Archbish thinks equality is primary or he doesn’t. I happen to think that it is, but I attach no objective status to that – it’s just an ought of my own, but it’s one Welby would have to confront before he went down the inequality route. What I was saying though was that the idea that animals should be treated equally with people therefore rests on different axioms and premises, and so isn’t a like-for-like comparison. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

At a generic level, that’s right. Within that though there are categories – faith-based vs logic/evidence-based for example. That’s the point.   

Presumably that should read, “no such thing”. And I disagree fundamentally – see above. Dogmatic and non-dogmatic belief types are fundamentally different in their approach and in their effect. It’d be rare for, say a physicist to say, “I know that I’m right no matter what”. For a cleric though, it’s a commonplace.

Why? Faith.

You’re missing the status that’s attached to the claim. If someone said, “I’m guessing A rather than B because that’s my faith” (raindrops running down a window for example) you’d have a point. What I’m talking about though is those who say, “A is certainly correct because that’s my faith”, and in particular those who say it when “A” is “God”.   

I don’t say that, and nor have I implied it. See above . 

No, I was merely saying that either the Archbish thinks equality is primary or he doesn’t. I happen to think that it is, but I attach no objective status to that – it’s just an ought of my own, but it’s one Welby would have to confront before he went down the inequality route. What I was saying though was that the idea that animals should be treated equally with people therefore rests on different axioms and premises, and so isn’t a like-for-like comparison. 

Not sure why you switched from a comment on belief systems to belief types, Certainly if we define a belief type as a belief that is held as certainly true, and one that isn't then they are different. But the thing the belief is about is not the determinant factor here, it's what the persn holding the belief thinks. So the issue you have with certainty is with people who act as if they are certain about things, not what the belief is. Further the people who are not certain and allow for the possibility of being wrong can also talk about faith and if you accept that then your faith = dogmatism idea falls unless you go down the NTS route. And that's why I mentioned that, it wasn't saying that you have used it, but unless you were to use it, you would have to move from your position on faith.

As to equality the vegan has a different definition and the Archbish may do too - I would suggest we all do to an extent and that in day to day conversations the differences aren't important but in the rather more complex cases, what is meant by equality and a commitment to it has been one of the great philosophical puzzles, so saying you have either a commitment to it or not seems incredibly simplistic

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Yes, I meant it.  The mathematics example is irrelevant since we aren't comparing like with like here.

You’re derailing. It’s relevant because it illustrates the fundamental difference between the approaches: "I’m right because my faith tells me so" vs "I’m right because this set of calculations tells me so".

For the former, there’s nowhere to go after that – we’re in not even wrong territory; for the latter, there’s everywhere to go just by examining the calculations.
 

Oughts don't have right answers but people act and speak as if they do.

Oughts are a secondary matter. The primary one is that claim of objective fact: “There is a god, he’s my God, his rules are accurately written in a book, some of those rules concern man on  man action etc” are all claims of objective fact – they’re right or they’re not.

“So you ought to do as this God says” on the other hand is what ensues, and then you’d have point. What I’m addressing though is the claims of fact bit that comes first, specifically claims of fact that rest only on personal faith.   

Some people might say that they are certain they are right, but others might admit to a lack of certainty. Both of them may well use the term faith in speaking of it. Some religious people speak as if they are certain, others don't. Some non religious people speak as if they are certain, others don't. It doesn't seem to take a particular type of idea or concept for people to be able to be certain or uncertain  about it

All true (though it’d be a relatively rare theist I think who said, “there might be a god or there might not be but I’m going to guess that there is” as if he were talking about raindrops on a window) but I’m talking here specifically about those who attach the label “fact” to their faith beliefs. 

I have to go out for a couple of hours by the way, but will pick this up later if that’s ok. Interesting chat though (at least for me). 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’re derailing. It’s relevant because it illustrates the fundamental difference between the approaches: "I’m right because my faith tells me so" vs "I’m right because this set of calculations tells me so".

For the former, there’s nowhere to go after that – we’re in not even wrong territory; for the latter, there’s everywhere to go just by examining the calculations.
 
Oughts are a secondary matter. The primary one is that claim of objective fact: “There is a god, he’s my God, his rules are accurately written in a book, some of those rules concern man on  man action etc” are all claims of objective fact – they’re right or they’re not.

“So you ought to do as this God says” on the other hand is what ensues, and then you’d have point. What I’m addressing though is the claims of fact bit that comes first, specifically claims of fact that rest only on personal faith.   

All true (though it’d be a relatively rare theist I think who said, “there might be a god or there might not be but I’m going to guess that there is” as if he were talking about raindrops on a window) but I’m talking here specifically about those who attach the label “fact” to their faith beliefs. 

I have to go out for a couple of hours by the way, but will pick this up later if that’s ok. Interesting chat though (at least for me).

Disageeing with a comparison as being valid isn't derailing.  At base your position seems to be that if someone were to say I am certain that Marmite is great, that is skin crawling. Further since there are lots of people who state that they have faith but would express doubt as to whether something is true, then the whole point you are making is based on a caricature

[SteveH]

I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.

No they don't and I suspect you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. One of the key pillars of science is peer review - if I submit a paper for review and go a bit further than that which is justified on the basis of evidence then guess what will happen? My paper will be rejected until I reign back my conclusions to the point at which they are entirely justified by they evidence.

You might want to believe (a matter of faith) that everyone 'goes that bit further' but that isn't true. And of course there is a huge problem with your argument which assumes that there is a substantial body of evidence underpinning religious faith - there isn't. So you aren't using faith to go the extra mile, beyond that which is travelled on evidence alone. Nope every step, first to last is based on faith, not evidence.

[jeremyp]

The Salvation Army

Definitely makes my skin crawl.

[SteveH]

Definitely makes my skin crawl.

What have you got against the Sally Army? N.B. - blank statements with no justifying reasons are not very helpful.

[Robbie]

Possibly watched a 1980s documentary about an SA hostel which showed various abuses by SA staff.  I remember it well & discussing it with colleagues at work the next day. However I don't believe that a few bad apples are indicative of the state of the entire organisation (same with Oxfam), & like you admire the work of the Salvation Army.

[ProfessorDavey]

Possibly watched a 1980s documentary about an SA hostel which showed various abuses by SA staff.  I remember it well & discussing it with colleagues at work the next day. However I don't believe that a few bad apples are indicative of the state of the entire organisation (same with Oxfam), & like you admire the work of the Salvation Army.

I don't donate to the Salvation army - my problem is that they are a multi-faceted organisations and I cannot be sure that the money I donate is going to the elements I think to be valuable (e.g. direct support for homeless people), rather than those I'd rather choose not to support (funding religious worship) and those I actively oppose (proselytising within the context of charitable activities, campaigning against gay rights etc).

Further the organisation is institutionally homophobic - openly stating that is opposes same sex relationships and bans people in gay relationships from being members. I wont support an organisation that doesn't recognise equality on the basis of gender, sexuality or race.

Finally, the availability of alternatives (i.e. other secular charities involved in the same kind of charitable work) means there is no reason to support Salvation Army. And as these secular alternatives are not multi-faceted I can be much more confident that a £ donated to them will result in £ spent on the charitable activity or admin and fund-raising to support that charitable activity. I have no idea how much of a £ donated to Salvation Army will go on charitable activity and how much on the provision of religious worship, campaigning on other topics (using anti-equality) or proselytising.

[Walter]

I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.

then you and many others would be wrong . In fact so wrong the explanation as to why would be wasted on you . So I won't bother

[ProfessorDavey]

then you and many others would be wrong . In fact so wrong the explanation as to why would be wasted on you . So I won't bother

As a professional scientist I tried to explain - my post has been completely ignored by Steve - hmmm.

[Nearly Sane]

As a professional scientist I tried to explain - my post has been completely ignored by Steve - hmmm.

surely if someone hasn't answered a post all you can tell is they haven't snswered it, not anything about completely ignoring it?

[SteveH]

then you and many others would be wrong . In fact so wrong the explanation as to why would be wasted on you . So I won't bother

Try me - and please drop the gratuitous unpleasantness.

[Stranger]

I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.

What evidence and arguments lead even in the "direction" of any sort of god?

[Walter]

Try me - and please drop the gratuitous unpleasantness.

no , I don't think I will . And don't tell me what to do !

[floo]

What evidence and arguments lead even in the "direction" of any sort of god?

Good question.

[ProfessorDavey]

surely if someone hasn't answered a post all you can tell is they haven't snswered it, not anything about completely ignoring it?

Fair enough if he hadn't been posting replies to others in the meantime. But he has and has failed to response to my post (a direct comment on one of his). In my books that is being ignored.