Why faith is evil

[Autodidact]

For the purpose of this this thread, "faith" is meant to signify "faith in God."

That's odd, because the OP clearly says:

faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence

That's what I'm saying is immoral: believing in something without evidence. Do you equate belief in God with believing in something without evidence?

 

[Midnight Pete]

That's odd, because the OP clearly says:
That's what I'm saying is immoral: believing in something without evidence. Do you equate belief in God with believing in something without evidence?

Yes, absolutely! :yes:

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, absolutely! :yes:

O.K., great. So we've established you have no evidence for your God, but you believe in Him anyway, and you think that's a virtue, correct?

Let's continue to use the sometimes confusing word "faith" to mean "belief without evidence." In your opinion, is believing things without evidence generally a virtue, and a good thing, or only when it's about God?

Also, is it a virtue when applied to all Gods, or only yours?

 

[Storm]

Define "evidence," Auto. Specifically, do personal, internal experiences make the cut?

I genuinely disbelive that anyone has faith as defined by the op. What convinces one person may utterly fail to impress another, but nobody believes anything for no reason at all.

 

[Autodidact]

Define "evidence," Auto. Specifically, do personal, internal experiences make the cut?

They are evidence of something, but not of things that exist outside the person experiencing them.

For example, do you think the personal, internal experiences of a schizophrenic are evidence that the beings that trouble him exist outside his head?

I genuinely disbelive that anyone has faith as defined by the op. What convinces one person may utterly fail to impress another, but nobody believes anything for no reason at all.

Well, Pete says his faith is exactly what the OP describes: belief without evidence. Did you want to argue with him about that?

 

[Storm]

They are evidence of something, but not of things that exist outside the person experiencing them.

For example, do you think the personal, internal experiences of a schizophrenic are evidence that the beings that trouble him exist outside his head?

Not the same thing, as the existence and nature of his illness provide counter-evidence.

Well, Pete says his faith is exactly what the OP describes: belief without evidence. Did you want to argue with him about that?

I'm saying he's probably using a different definition of evidence.

What do you say, Pete? Do you believe what you do for a reason, or is it totally arbitrary?

 

[Midnight Pete]

O.K., great. So we've established you have no evidence for your God, but you believe in Him anyway, and you think that's a virtue, correct?

Correct.

Let's continue to use the sometimes confusing word "faith" to mean "belief without evidence." In your opinion, is believing things without evidence generally a virtue, and a good thing, or only when it's about God?

It depends on what is being believed without evidence, and when. But when it's about God, faith is always a virtue. When it's about deciding who the murderer is during a Supreme Court murder trial, it's never a virtue.

Also, is it a virtue when applied to all Gods, or only yours?

I recognize only one God.

 

[Autodidact]

Not the same thing, as the existence and nature of his illness provide counter-evidence.

Yes, and many factors provide counter-evidence of the personal internal experiences of religionists.

I'm saying he's probably using a different definition of evidence.

What do you say, Pete? Do you believe what you do for a reason, or is it totally arbitrary?

No one has said those things. What he said is, he believes in God without evidence, and he calls that faith.

Now we could have a conversation about what is and is not evidence, but Pete is not saying it's "arbitrary" or for no reason. He merely says it's without evidence. And, as he says, that's why they call it faith. Many religionists feel this way.

 

[Autodidact]

Correct.

It depends on what is being believed without evidence, and when. But when it's about God, faith is always a virtue. When it's about deciding who the murderer is during a Supreme Court murder trial, it's never a virtue.

O.K., that's interesting. For some reason, God is a special subject, where we don't use the same way of figuring things out that we do in all other areas. Why?

O.K., I have faith that there is no God and that Jesus was just a preacher man. Is that virtuous?

So is all religious faith virtuous? Aztec? Muslim? Pagan?

I recognize only one God.

I didn't ask you what you recognize. After all, I don't recognize any God, but I can manage to answer your questions. I asked you whether faith in any God is virtuous, or only yours? You don't have to share their faith, I just want to know whether you see it as virtuous or not.

 

[Storm]

Yes, and many factors provide counter-evidence of the personal internal experiences of religionists.

Really? Like what?

No one has said those things. What he said is, he believes in God without evidence, and he calls that faith.

Now we could have a conversation about what is and is not evidence, but Pete is not saying it's "arbitrary" or for no reason. He merely says it's without evidence. And, as he says, that's why they call it faith. Many religionists feel this way.

This is precisely why I was asking what constitutes valid evidence.

I don't have any hard, scientific data supporting my theology, nor do you. Nobody does. But the Dawkins quote makes it sound like us filthy "religionists" believe for no reason at all, which is just stupid.

So, what's a good reason to (dis)believe in God?

 

[Jeremiah]

People have faith in a government full of proven liars,
enough to vote anyway.

Is this evil? immoral? or just stupid.

I think they do it more or less out of apathy rather then any of the above.

 

[Midnight Pete]

O.K., that's interesting. For some reason, God is a special subject, where we don't use the same way of figuring things out that we do in all other areas. Why?

Religious faith is not quite like faith in everyday things like the skill of a doctor (who is operating on your loved one) or the competence of a baby-sitter (who is responsible for your children while you're out for the evening). Faith in God is different from faith in human beings. Even atheists place their faith in human beings.

O.K., I have faith that there is no God and that Jesus was just a preacher man. Is that virtuous?

Faith in God is a virtue, but faith in no God probably isn't.

And even in his own time, many people thought Jesus was just a guy.

So is all religious faith virtuous? Aztec? Muslim? Pagan?

That is a trick-question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a trick-question.

No, it's not. It's the key question.

 

[Autodidact]

Really? Like what?

The strong correlation between childhood indoctrination and internal experiences. The lack of external corroboration. What we know about the brain's ability to perceive things that never happened.

Again, in general, in life, we do not consider other people's purely internal experiences to be evidence of something outside the person, for the precise reason that they are not subject to being verified by other people.

Here's what I mean. If I say I see a giant pink octopus hovering over the patio, you're going to ask me to show it to you. If you don't also see it, then you're going to deny that there is any such real external object, and attribute it to some kind of hallucination inside me.

And I'm saying we should apply the same standard to Gods as to giant pink octopi.

This is precisely why I was asking what constitutes valid evidence.

I would answer, whatever you consider evidence in all other areas of your life. I don't think you would invest your hard-earned savings based on my private internal experiences, would you? Would you choose a medical treatment based on my private internal experience? Or would you ask for solid, well-conducted, double-blind research? Why would you risk your soul on flimsier stuff than your body?

I don't have any hard, scientific data supporting my theology, nor do you.

I don't have a theology, and that's why.

Nobody does.

Exactly. And what Dawkins and I are saying is that it's wrong--immoral--to believe things without hard external evidence.

But the Dawkins quote makes it sound like us filthy "religionists" believe for no reason at all, which is just stupid.

He merely states, which Pete and many others agree with, that religious faith is belief without evidence. Which is not the same thing as no reason at all, but is the same thing as insufficient reason.

So, what's a good reason to (dis)believe in God?

What's a good reason for you to disbelieve in anything? If I claim something exists, especially something amazing, super magical, never seen by anyone, what would you consider a good reason to disbelieve in it? To believe?

For example, the Loch Ness Monster. How should we go about figuring out whether there is any such thing? Send cameras down into the lake? Or stand beside the lake and wait for someone to have a vision of it?

 

[Autodidact]

Religious faith is not quite like faith in everyday things like the skill of a doctor (who is operating on your loved one) or the competence of a baby-sitter (who is responsible for your children while you're out for the evening). Faith in God is different from faith in human beings.

In what way?

Even atheists place their faith in human beings.

When they seem worthy of it.

Faith in God is a virtue, but faith in no God probably isn't.

ON what basis? How did you come to this conclusion? Why is believing that God exists without evidence a virtue, but disbelieving in God without evidence not a virtue?

My point, Pete, is that your argument is nothing but special pleading, and I think that's Dawkin's point as well. In all other areas of our life (even including, for you, other beliefs about the same entities) believing without evidence is not a virtue. But for some reason, when you do it about God, specifically, Pete's God, it becomes a virtue. Why?

Or, to put it differently, in general we decide whether things exist based on whether there is evidence to that effect. If God existed, wouldn't there be evidence of that?

What does it even mean for something to exist without creating any evidence? Is that existence?

And even in his own time, many people thought Jesus was just a guy.

And they were right, but that's not relevant to our discussion here. My point is not about Jesus, but about faith--belief without evidence. What makes your faith virtuous, and mine not?

That is a trick-question.

And by that you mean a question that reveals the fallacy in your argument?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Auto, you're getting kind of nasty and I don't like it.

 

[Storm]

The strong correlation between childhood indoctrination and internal experiences.

Correlation does not equal causation. You know that.

The lack of external corroboration.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What we know about the brain's ability to perceive things that never happened.

When it's malfunctioning, sure. Perfectly healthy people who are not on drugs have no reason to suspect this is happening.

Again, in general, in life, we do not consider other people's purely internal experiences to be evidence of something outside the person, for the precise reason that they are not subject to being verified by other people.

Ah, but when countless millions of people throughout history have similar experiences, is that not verification?

Here's what I mean. If I say I see a giant pink octopus hovering over the patio, you're going to ask me to show it to you. If you don't also see it, then you're going to deny that there is any such real external object, and attribute it to some kind of hallucination inside me.

And I'm saying we should apply the same standard to Gods as to giant pink octopi.

And if God were something that could be pointed to and clearly seen, that would be perfectly reasonable, but it's not.

This is more like me demanding you show me a virus or an atom (without the aid of technology) before it's acceptable for YOU to believe in it.

I would answer, whatever you consider evidence in all other areas of your life. I don't think you would invest your hard-earned savings based on my private internal experiences, would you? Would you choose a medical treatment based on my private internal experience? Or would you ask for solid, well-conducted, double-blind research?

No, but nor would I say you're immoral for doing so.

That's the crux of the matter: you're not content to have a difference of opinion. You're declaring ME immoral for disagreeing with you. It's just more bigotry.

Why would you risk your soul on flimsier stuff than your body?

Who are you to say I can't?

I don't have a theology, and that's why. Exactly. And what Dawkins and I are saying is that it's wrong--immoral--to believe things without hard external evidence.

Strong atheism takes faith, too. Does that make YOU immoral?

He merely states, which Pete and many others agree with, that religious faith is belief without evidence.

Which is why I asked you to define evidence.

Which is not the same thing as no reason at all, but is the same thing as insufficient reason.

For YOU. What constitutes "sufficient reason" for ME is MY call.

What's a good reason for you to disbelieve in anything? If I claim something exists, especially something amazing, super magical, never seen by anyone, what would you consider a good reason to disbelieve in it? To believe?

Depends on the claim.

For example, the Loch Ness Monster. How should we go about figuring out whether there is any such thing? Send cameras down into the lake? Or stand beside the lake and wait for someone to have a vision of it?

Well, gee, that's absolutely nothing like God, is it?

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, you're getting kind of nasty and I don't like it.

What do you think it indicates when, in a polite debate, one party refuses to answer a question they don't like?

 

[Autodidact]

Correlation does not equal causation. You know that.

Not necessarily. But when we have strong correlation plus an explanatory mechanism, and it accounts for all the facts, we can draw that conclusion.

And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's another piece of the puzzle. Usually, when something exists, more than one person can see it.

When it's malfunctioning, sure. Perfectly healthy people who are not on drugs have no reason to suspect this is happening.

On the contrary. It happens to all of us, every day.

Ah, but when countless millions of people throughout history have similar experiences, is that not verification?

It would be if they had the same experience. They don't. Each of them experiences what they were indoctrinated as children to believe. Now do you see how it all begins to come together?

And if God were something that could be pointed to and clearly seen, that would be perfectly reasonable, but it's not.

If God could be pointed to and seen, He would exist.

Or, as a smart person said, the invisible and the non-existent bear a strong resemblance.

This is more like me demanding you show me a virus or an atom (without the aid of technology) before it's acceptable for YOU to believe in it.

If there were no evidence for atoms, it would not be reasonable to believe they exist.

No, but nor would I say you're immoral for doing so.

What if a parent chose voodoo to treat their child's appendicitis, instead of relying on evidence? What if you invested someone else's money in a bank account belonging to a Nigerian prince? What if it was the taxpayer's money?

That's the crux of the matter: you're not content to have a difference of opinion. You're declaring ME immoral for disagreeing with you. It's just more bigotry.

It's not disagreement, but the means you use to evaluate claims. What I'm saying is that to say something is true, without being responsible about figuring out whether it's true, is immoral in the same way that lying is immoral.

Who are you to say I can't?

I'm not. I'm asking you why you would want to.

Strong atheism takes faith, too. Does that make YOU immoral?

No, it doesn't. I don't believe things without evidence. I apply the same standard to supernatural beings as to other areas in my life.

Which is why I asked you to define evidence.

Which I did.

For YOU. What constitutes "sufficient reason" for ME is MY call.

Of course it is. That doesn't make you right.

Depends on the claim.

Why? That is my point. It doesn't depend on the claim. That's cheating. If evidence works, then it works for everything. Saying, "I'll rely on evidence over here, to decide whether to get a new carburetor, but when it gives me an answer I don't like over here, I'll throw it out the window," is cheating. It's wrong. That's my point.

Well, gee, that's absolutely nothing like God, is it?

Not if it exists, no.

 

[blackout]

I think they do it more or less out of apathy rather then any of the above.

That's an awful lot of people to speak for.

Voting is downright IMPORTANT for many many people.
When ''their guys' lose,
they get VERY upset.

When their guys 'win'
they see it as a true and important victory.

If they did not believe, believe in...
the Promise/Word of their candidate
(and the other candidates)
WHY would they get so excited and upset over it all?