Why faith is evil

[Midnight Pete]

bad people are bad people despite religion

Or the lack thereof.

 

[outhouse]

faith is evil

I think there's something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that's dangerous is that it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die -- anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed -- that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith. They don't have to say, "Well, here's a very good reason for this." All they need to say is, "That's what my faith says." And we're all expected to back off and respect that. Whether or not we're actually faithful ourselves, we've been brought up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be challenged. And that can have extremely evil consequences. The consequences it's had historically -- the Crusades, the Inquisition, right up to the present time where you have suicide bombers and people flying planes into skyscrapers in New York -- all in the name of faith.

 

[outhouse]

Or the lack thereof.

you make absolutley no sense, hitler and many others were devote christians

christians have caused more death in the name of religion then anything you have mentioned.

time to say step up to the plate boy and back it, what proof do you have that religion or LACK therof

or is phyco babble your gig to?

 

[Midnight Pete]

No, I think I've said everything I wanted to say on this subject.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People like Richard Dawkins have no problem finding examples to support their hate-speech. It's never a problem for him or Christopher Hitchens.

Could you give an example? An actual quote? I'm curious to see what you consider to be hate speech.

 

[LuisDantas]

You and me both, 9-10ths.

 

[bobhikes]

Faith is necessary or you couldn't do anything.

You take it on faith that people love you
You take it on faith that you will have tomorrows
You take it on faith that those scientists did all their studies accurately.
You use faith and belief everyday. Its a necessary shortcut that allows you to live.

If you have to prove everything you do you would never do anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Faith is necessary or you couldn't do anything.

You take it on faith that people love you
You take it on faith that you will have tomorrows
You take it on faith that those scientists did all their studies accurately.
You use faith and belief everyday. Its a necessary shortcut that allows you to live.

If you have to prove everything you do you would never do anything.

I think you may be equivocating.

People use the term "faith" to mean both "trust" (even "justified trust" in some cases) and "belief despite evidence". I think faith according to the first definition is necessary (to a point), but this doesn't mean that faith according to the second definition is a good thing.

 

[Storm]

I think you may be equivocating.

People use the term "faith" to mean both "trust" (even "justified trust" in some cases) and "belief despite evidence". I think faith according to the first definition is necessary (to a point), but this doesn't mean that faith according to the second definition is a good thing.

In all fairness, the only people I've seen use the "belief despite evidence" definition were atheists.

The line blurs between trust and belief without evidence, though.

 

[tomato1236]

Here's the key phrase for me: believing in something in the absence of evidence.
IMO the only responsible thing to base your beliefs on is evidence. Anything else begs the moral responsibility to be careful about the truth. In the words of Robert Ingersoll:

[FONT=&quot]it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. ...immoral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence.[/FONT]

Oh please. Scientists believe stuff that hasn't been proven all the time. And so do those who rely on those scientists for their worldview.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In all fairness, the only people I've seen use the "belief despite evidence" definition were atheists.

The line blurs between trust and belief without evidence, though.

My mistake. That's what I was actually going for when I typed it, but I guess I used the wrong word.

 

[Storm]

My mistake. That's what I was actually going for when I typed it, but I guess I used the wrong word.

Oh, ok.

Well, as I said, the line blurs there. If you believe without evidence, trust is all you have. I just don't see your objection to bobhikes' post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, ok.

Well, as I said, the line blurs there. If you believe without evidence, trust is all you have. I just don't see your objection to bobhikes' post.

The term "trust" by itself allows for justified trust:

- I "take it on faith" that my wife loves me because I know her.
- I "take it on faith" that I will "have tomorrows" because it would match the long-standing trend of "having tomorrows" that's lasted my entire life and shows no sign of stopping.
- I "take it on faith" that "those scientists did all their studies accurately" because I know something of how the scientific method works, and to the extent that I rely on the works of scientists, their findings have agreed with my observations.

All of these matters of "faith" are informed by evidence. They might be subject to some uncertainty, but all of them are logical, reasonable conclusions based on the facts at hand.

 

[Danmac]

This paragraph from Richard Dawkins explains better than I could why I think faith is immoral:

This is coming from a guy that backs partial birth abortions. Can you say double standards?

 

[Storm]

The term "trust" by itself allows for justified trust:

- I "take it on faith" that my wife loves me because I know her.
- I "take it on faith" that I will "have tomorrows" because it would match the long-standing trend of "having tomorrows" that's lasted my entire life and shows no sign of stopping.
- I "take it on faith" that "those scientists did all their studies accurately" because I know something of how the scientific method works, and to the extent that I rely on the works of scientists, their findings have agreed with my observations.

All of these matters of "faith" are informed by evidence. They might be subject to some uncertainty, but all of them are logical, reasonable conclusions based on the facts at hand.

OK, so not the best examples. I think his point was that faith is just part of being human. Arguments like the one put forth in the OP ignore that to demonize faith they don't share.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, so not the best examples. I think his point was that faith is just part of being human. Arguments like the one put forth in the OP ignore that to demonize faith they don't share.

FWIW, I don't think Dawkins argument in the OP has the right focus. IMO, the problem isn't that people have faith. It's not even that people believe things without evidence. The problem, IMO, is that our society bestows value on faith that it doesn't really warrant, and holds up faith as an acceptable substitute for knowledge.

 

[Storm]

FWIW, I don't think Dawkins argument in the OP has the right focus. IMO, the problem isn't that people have faith. It's not even that people believe things without evidence. The problem, IMO, is that our society bestows value on faith that it doesn't really warrant, and holds up faith as an acceptable substitute for knowledge.

Well said! ITA.

 

[waitasec]

i think dawkins is saying the religious do not need to validate their religious beliefs because, "... we're all expected to back off and respect that"
i oppose religion because it has become an entity with rights. imo....

 

[outhouse]

Scientists believe stuff that hasn't been proven all the time

science is self correcting though, faith is not.

First you owe your LIFE to science, without science you would be dead now. YOur faith would not have saved you. Thanks to science you enjoy the life your living at this moment with the modern luxory's when you sit down for dinner or watch tv or sit at your computer to type bile.

From immunization, to new medical equipemnt, to the books that train doctors, you should be thanking science. YOUR BLIND FAITH has you hypnotized my friend.

When you get old and have a heart attack your god gave you LOL science will be the one healing you or trying. your god wont try and save you, that you can have faith in.

YES we use faith as a human being, rationality and reality must be kept in check. TO MUCH faith is dangerous and evil.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

FWIW, I don't think Dawkins argument in the OP has the right focus. IMO, the problem isn't that people have faith. It's not even that people believe things without evidence. The problem, IMO, is that our society bestows value on faith that it doesn't really warrant, and holds up faith as an acceptable substitute for knowledge.

Yeah, that's pretty much the major problem Dawkins has with belief in general, and the supposed evil that it perpetuates. Really, a lot of his arguments focus more on atheist and secular complacency towards religion and public refusal to challenge religious doctrines as being the real evil of religion.