McBell
Unbound
Huh?
Evidence does not for 'fact'.
Evidence helps int he process, don't get me wrong, but evidence does not equate fact.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why faith is evil
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
Evidence does not for 'fact'.
Evidence helps int he process, don't get me wrong, but evidence does not equate fact.
OK, evidence for me is proof. I see your point though, not all evidence is proof positive. I stand corrected.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Isn't belief in objective thought (such as I understand Dawkins as advocating) itself a kind of faith?
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
I can understand why Richard Dawkins would condemn faith as evil. It has to do wih why Tom Cruise condemns psychiatry as evil.
(Always consider the source!)
(Always consider the source!)
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
LOL Good point. Although I must admit to some sympathy (well a lot actually) with anti-psychiatry views such as those of Szasz.
Seems I've more in common with Tom than Richard
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
Quite right. Look what happened with Stalinist Russia. And Maoist China. And Franco's Spain.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You know that "objective truth" is always relative to our ability to interpret the evidence, and we're not infalliable observers.
What is at the bottom of this is the standard of evidence - you prefer "logically satisfactory evidence" but you know that logic is not the only standard of human existence. We don't experience art and music - and possibly even quantum and theoretical physics - with logical assumptions and constructs. And if we did, we'd be missing the whole point.
As for the ethical argument of Dawkins, we know that he is right. Religions have been used to harm people.
However, faith and (even!!) religion have enriched people's lives and given them hope - much like music can quiet the soul and art can inspire.
The positive aspects of faith - how it can enrich and inspire people - should be enough evidence to demonstrate that faith is not de facto immoral. The protest that faith is based on emptiness means nothing - we know that God cannot be proven, but we can see that faith in God can be constructive.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I agree with Dawkins with regard to his reason, but not with his definition of "faith." Faith, as I perceive it, is not belief in something w/o evidence. Faith is not blindly following the edicts of another person. Faith, for me, is a way of apprehending the world in Divine terms, and of couching human relationships in Divine terms. That's an oversimplification, but it'll have to do for now.
An example: It's because of my faith that I respect homosexuals. It's because of my faith that I espouse hospitality. It's because of my faith that I have been able to approach wholeness. Faith, for me, isn't about some formulaic, magical belief. It's a way of life.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I like what Merleau-Ponty had to say about objective thought - his critique of intellectualism and of empiricism. I also like his conclusion that the lived world is always ambiguous.
Thank God he was an atheist and so can't be accused of reaching for the comfort blanket in his arguments
His argument doesn't make sense. All the negative consequences he gives for faith are actually consequences of societal attitudes toward religious faith, not religious faith itself.
As a possibly wonky analogy... I can't fly a plane, and I've got some very poorly-founded notions about flying planes that may actually be completely wrong. Still, by itself, this isn't dangerous at all. Danger only arises when someone puts me in a pilot's seat.
The problem isn't with groundless faith; it's with not questioning groundless faith when it impacts our lives, or giving societal esteem to faith like it's a source of authority or knowledge. That's not a problem with the faithful; that's a problem with society as a whole.
jmvizanko
Uber Tool
Atheists require evidence before they believe something posited to exist actually exists. No such evidence has ever been presented. Most atheists don't believe that no god exists, they simply don't have a a reason yet to think he does exist. The atheist requirement for evidence is exactly the opposite of the claim you are making about the stance. They require evidence that there is or is not a god, and until there is evidence there is one, the default stance is that there isn't a reason to think there is one.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Momentarily letting aside my view that talking about atheists as a group is absurd.
No they don't.
Dawkins believes in aliens.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Holy moley
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Gotta agree with you Victor. I think he's a fundie too.
McBell
Unbound
Just gotta love those who quote mine and those who quote quote miners.
Whatever it takes to keep the faith, right?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
What's the problem - did he or did he not say that he did?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I did't think that was a quote.
But for someone who demands positive evidence for God, it's unusual that he would assent to the existence of aliens without logically sustainable proof.
I think he sometimes makes good points, but I agree that he's out of bounds here.
I wouldn't call what he espoused in the OP to be "secularism", though.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Non-theist fundy? Didn't know what else to use.