Why faith is evil

[JP of PA]

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

"anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed -- that clearly is evil."

Now wait a minute. Wait, wait, waaaaaaaaaaaait!

How can he, you, or anyone talk about the terms "evil" or "immoral" without beliving that we are subject to a set of standards outside of the bounds of our own logic?

What if "evil" to one man is not "evil" to another man? The 9-11 hijackers didn't think it was "evil" to do what they did. They thought it was the right thing to do. And they can give reasoning and justification for why they thought it was the right thing to do.

Who's to say that this fellow's idea of what is "evil" is any more "right" than theirs?

And if you say to me that most rational thinking people just know that it's wrong to murder people, then, I say to you, what of the "ad populum fallacy?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Non-theist fundy? Didn't know what else to use.

That doesn't work either... not unless there are some fundamental principles of non-theism that a person could strictly adhere to... though I do see the irony in your difficulty in finding a group label for someone you complain tars others with a wide brush.

Sorry - misuse of the term "secularism" gets my back up, because I don't think it should be seen as a threat to people's personal religious belief. Secularism is about limiting the political power of religions and religious organizations, not about limiting the political voice of religious people or about eradicating religious faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed -- that clearly is evil."

Now wait a minute. Wait, wait, waaaaaaaaaaaait!

How can he, you, or anyone talk about the terms "evil" or "immoral" without beliving that we are subject to a set of standards outside of the bounds of our own logic?

What if "evil" to one man is not "evil" to another man? The 9-11 hijackers didn't think it was "evil" to do what they did. They thought it was the right thing to do. And they can give reasoning and justification for why they thought it was the right thing to do.

Who's to say that this fellow's idea of what is "evil" is any more "right" than theirs?

And if you say to me that most rational thinking people just know that it's wrong to murder people, then, I say to you, what of the "ad populum fallacy?"

Whereas attributing morality to God is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Morality's a difficult thing. It doesn't get any less difficult with the introduction of God. Nevertheless, humanity does generally have a shared set of standards for what we as people and societies tend to accept as moral and immoral.

This is one of the few areas where I actually like Sam Harris' approach: the fact that there's some grey area about what is moral does not mean that morality is a meaningless concept... any more than the fact that the concept of "food" is fairly fuzzy around the edges doesn't mean that it's valid to call cyanide "food".

 

[McBell]

Why faith is evil

Personally, I find that the word "evil" is far to subjective to be worth anything other than to elicit an emotional reaction.

 

[Jeremiah]

What I want to focus on is what sort of foundation is required for a belief to be morally justified. To me, it requires evidence, and believing things without evidence is immoral--it's too careless with the truth. And that leads to many bad things.

So believing is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, UFOs, Bigfoot, leprechauns, and Elivs' ghost is evil?

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. - Albert Einstein

 

[Autodidact]

If you use this argument then atheists are evil because there is no evidence that there isn't a God, which means they have to not believe in God by faith.

But in fact there is lots of evidence that there is no God, at least, not your God, who clearly does not exist.

Further, it not reasonable to behave as if a myriad of possible imaginary entities existed, on the off chance that one of them does. Rather the burden is on the assertion that something does exist to provide evidence that it does. Otherwise no one could get out of bed in the morning, for fear you might be trampling invisible baby kittens hiding under your bed.

 

[Autodidact]

So far I am on the same page as you and agree.

But then it would not be a belief anymore, it would be a fact backed by evidence.

Correct me if I am wrong, what you are basically saying is, there should be no such thing as blind faith in something?

We might as well throw the first amendment out the window then, right?

No, I don't think something rises all the way to the status of "fact" until the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be unreasonable to deny it. I would say a belief is where you have evidence, but not such overwhelming evidence.

I absolutely think there should be no such thing as blind faith. It does not follow that I want to prohibit it. On the contrary, I would risk my life defending your right to hold and practice your unreasonable beliefs. I just reserve the right to point out why I think they're unreasonable.

 

[Jeremiah]

Just take a look at this picture of sin. Just look at all those little children be indoctrinated with evil, by that evil man with his evil book. It just turns my stomach.

It's so evil.

 

[Autodidact]

Isn't belief in objective thought (such as I understand Dawkins as advocating) itself a kind of faith?

I think so, but I also think it's a reasonable, well-founded faith. It's also the faith that everyone shares in all other areas of their lives; religionists just set it aside when it comes to their God.

Another way to put what I'm saying is that I wish everyone would apply the same standard to putative deities as they do to automotive repair and cold remedies--evidence.

 

[Jeremiah]

Evil is irrational adherence to hurtful dogma, whether it comes from the Bible or the mouth of Dawkins.

 

[Autodidact]

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!)

You could use a pure ad hominem fallacy, or you could consider the content.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you use this argument then atheists are evil because there is no evidence that there isn't a God, which means they have to not believe in God by faith.

Not at all. Disbelief in God, even if you decide to call if "faith", does not imply a duty to do things that would otherwise be recognized as wrong.

 

[McBell]

How can he, you, or anyone talk about the terms "evil" or "immoral" without beliving that we are subject to a set of standards outside of the bounds of our own logic?

Because there is no evidence to indicate that we are.

What if "evil" to one man is not "evil" to another man? The 9-11 hijackers didn't think it was "evil" to do what they did. They thought it was the right thing to do. And they can give reasoning and justification for why they thought it was the right thing to do.

Thus showing that the term "evil" is far to subjective to be worth anything outside eliciting an emotional reaction.

Who's to say that this fellow's idea of what is "evil" is any more "right" than theirs?

Again, showing that the term "evil" is far to subjective to be worth anything outside eliciting an emotional reaction.

And if you say to me that most rational thinking people just know that it's wrong to murder people, then, I say to you, what of the "ad populum fallacy?"

So you prefer the appeal to authority/appeal to divinity fallacy over the appeal to numbers fallacy.

Thing is that the reason murder is immoral is because it causes harm to others.
If you have to have a god to help you understand that causing harm to others is a bad thing, that is YOUR hang up, not mine.

 

[Quiddity]

That doesn't work either... not unless there are some fundamental principles of non-theism that a person could strictly adhere to... though I do see the irony in your difficulty in finding a group label for someone you complain tars others with a wide brush.

Sorry - misuse of the term "secularism" gets my back up, because I don't think it should be seen as a threat to people's personal religious belief. Secularism is about limiting the political power of religions and religious organizations, not about limiting the political voice of religious people or about eradicating religious faith.

I feel the same way about many words used for theist. They are used here all the time, but you're right, I'll try a more fitting word.

 

[Jeremiah]

Is believing life is worth living evil? Do we have any evidence that life is worth living?

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Is believing life is worth living evil? Do we have any evidence that life is worth living?

Yes there is, but some wouldn't believe it if I said it.

 

[waitasec]

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

what stuck out for me was this line...
"And the reason that's dangerous is that it justifies essentially anything."

faith, the belief in something unseen is a curious thing.
it drives people to do wonderful things and at the time, the most horrid of all things...
it isn't faith, i think it's the lack of faith people have in themselves
if people were have faith in themselves, then there would be no need to control, there would be no doubt and fear

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Sometimes things just need to be put in perspective. Richard Dawkins is a rich white guy due to the fact that he makes over $10s a day this puts him in the top 20% of wealthy humans on our planet. So he has the opportunity to worry about this type of thing. For the half of our brothers and sisters on this planet who make under $2.50 per day. They are unable to grasp the concepts that he talks about because they must spend most of their day trying to get a little food and clean water. If faith is evil it pails in comparison to the fact that so many of the worlds poor suffer,due to the fact, we rich folks use up all the worlds resources. If the religious or Atheists want to show their moral superiority let them compete to show who helps the worlds poor the most.

 

[Jeremiah]

I think this us vs. them mentality is the immoral position. This idea that someone is evil simply because they do or do not believe in gods, is ridiculous.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think this us vs. them mentality is the immoral position.

This idea that someone is evil simply because they do or do not believe in gods, is ridiculous.

I don't think that's what Auto or Dawkins was saying.

They said that faith is evil, not the person.

That's a HUGE difference.