Why faith is evil

[LuisDantas]

I agree it's a type of knowledge but it is a type of knowledge which allows me incorporate stories about God which would stretch my version of knowledge into what most skeptics would classify as faith - wouldn't it?

IMO, it doesn't matter if it does. It is well supported by facts and discernment at that point. That it allows for God and for inspiration on that belief does not macculate it at all.

 

[no-body]

I don't know at worst I see faith as intellectual laziness, at best a psychological coping tool.

The real problem is the people who think they have "the truth" (tm) and present no real evidence as evidence. These people seem far more dangerous and psychotic than people who at least acknowledge that they have no evidence and only believe because of a feeling they get.

You know the type, after presenting their non-evidence they usually end up throwing their hands up in the air and saying no proof would be good enough anyways to the non believer.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm questioning your statistics.

And you should as they are not statistics. Just my opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I get that different people are motivated by different things, but as you rightly point out, it could be anything. While chess plays a positive role in many people's lives, we don't normally get politicians and community leaders giving speeches talking about the "virtue of chess" in glowing terms, or setting aside special funding for "chess-based initiatives".

It comes down to money. The big name televangelist and ministers have plenty of it, and plenty of people they have brain washed to give them more. It doesn't have to be religion though. Nazi Germany for example. Hitler was a very talented and gifted speaker, and he got people to commit horrendous acts of violence in his name.
The real problem lies in each individual person. It isn't what they believe in, it's that they allow for bad people to influence them. It just happens that religion is the opium of the masses, and it's easier to get people to do something when they think it's a godly cause, rather than straight up admit the real reasons of greed, bigotry, or whatever.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't know at worst I see faith as intellectual laziness, at best a psychological coping tool.

The real problem is the people who think they have "the truth" (tm) and present no real evidence as evidence. These people seem far more dangerous and psychotic than people who at least acknowledge that they have no evidence and only believe because of a feeling they get.

You know the type, after presenting their non-evidence they usually end up throwing their hands up in the air and saying no proof would be good enough anyways to the non believer.

It certainly can be a intellectual laziness, but not necessarily one. Most people of faith study science, too (I do). Don't you think that there can be more than one truth? I personally see faith for spiritual answers and science for physical answers. There is a big difference.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know at worst I see faith as intellectual laziness, at best a psychological coping tool.

I agree with this. Faith tends to lack any applied critical thinking. But not everyone is capable of doing so. As a psychological coping method is where it is very hard to call it evil. If it brings comfort from the loss of a friend or loved one, helps with coping over a chronic condition, or most notably gives people peace upon death then what evil is there to be had? Saying religion is evil is like saying money is evil. Both religion and money are at best abstract ideals that have a physical manifestation. What people do with these is where any since of good or evil can be perceived. It's very similiar to the 9/11 mosque debate. Not all Muslims supported or condoned the attacks. It wasn't the religion, but rather a political cause that was glossed over with a religious cause to get the weak minded to carry out the attacks.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't view faith as evil, so your point does not really apply to me.

Honestly to me, it has about the same substance as saying, "homosexuals are not evil, it is the homosexual lifestyle that is evil." To me it is a worthless distinction. People are the sum of their beliefs; if having faith in God is evil, then people who have faith in God will consequently be viewed as evil. It is a worthless, splitting of the hairs, and it will be no more effectual then "hate the sin, love the sinner."

That is a good point. I would say that the difference is that homosexuality is not, in fact, evil.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you have anything worthwhile to say, or is this just a contest of who has the biggest ego?

Wanting someone to at least give you a fair reading is a reasonable request.

 

[Copernicus]

I just read through the whole thread quickly, and I noticed that very few people actually discussed Dawkins' argument. As usual, they just reacted to the most inflammatory parts of it when taken out of context. Here it is again:

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.

When you read Dawkins, you need to look at the way he qualifies his statements. He did not say that any kind of religious faith was evil. He did not say that people of religious faith were inherently evil. He was talking about a very specific kind of faith--...faith, where...

And he did very explicitly say why he thought that that particular kind of faith was evil. It was the kind of faith where belief without evidence was promoted as a good thing--something to be proud of. The danger was not that evil behavior would inevitably result but that faith of that sort undermined the basis for moral behavior. It removes the basis for questioning evil behavior. To me that is a very cogent argument. It is an argument that behavior requires reasoned justification.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I just read through the whole thread quickly, and I noticed that very few people actually discussed Dawkins' argument. As usual, they just reacted to the most inflammatory parts of it when taken out of context. Here it is again:

When you read Dawkins, you need to look at the way he qualifies his statements. He did not say that any kind of religious faith was evil. He did not say that people of religious faith were inherently evil. He was talking about a very specific kind of faith--...faith, where...

And he did very explicitly say why he thought that that particular kind of faith was evil. It was the kind of faith where belief without evidence was promoted as a good thing--something to be proud of. The danger was not that evil behavior would inevitably result but that faith of that sort undermined the basis for moral behavior. It removes the basis for questioning evil behavior. To me that is a very cogent argument. It is an argument that behavior requires reasoned justification.

An atheist such as yourself would agree with anything Dawkins says, so I'm not suprised by the answer you gave.

 

[LuisDantas]

It comes down to money. The big name televangelist and ministers have plenty of it, and plenty of people they have brain washed to give them more. It doesn't have to be religion though. Nazi Germany for example. Hitler was a very talented and gifted speaker, and he got people to commit horrendous acts of violence in his name.
The real problem lies in each individual person. It isn't what they believe in, it's that they allow for bad people to influence them. It just happens that religion is the opium of the masses, and it's easier to get people to do something when they think it's a godly cause, rather than straight up admit the real reasons of greed, bigotry, or whatever.

I'm afraid this isn't a particularly clarifying example. A good argument can be made that Nazism was a religion, or at the very least that Hitler presented it as such.

Besides, we were talking about blind faith, and that unfortunately makes your example that much poorer. If anything, you are illustrating Dawkins' point.

 

[LuisDantas]

An atheist such as yourself would agree with anything Dawkins says, so I'm not suprised by the answer you gave.

You give a lot of credit for atheists' reciprocal support. What about the actual argument he presented?

 

[McBell]

Excuse me for taking this discussion to the next logical step.

"Next logical step"...

Is tht what they call a strawman in your neck of the woods?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Besides, we were talking about blind faith, and that unfortunately makes your example that much poorer. If anything, you are illustrating Dawkins' point.

My point is is that you don't need religion or faith. Humans are quiet an evil species without faith. Faith, even blind faith, on it's own is neutral. When it produces evil is when an evil person takes control. But it doesn't have to be a religious faith. A few investors nearly destroyed the global economy. It wasn't religion, but greed. There are plenty of racist groups that are evil because of skin color.
The human race is a very violent, extremely aggressive, and quite often an inhospitable species. Humans will always use any excuse they can to justify evil. Religion and blind faith just happen to be a very convenient medium to brain wash the masses.
It's like money. Money on it's own is neutral. You can do good with it, and you can do alot of evil with. Money purchases weapons that destroy cities and kill millions of people. Money fuels the war machine. Money nearly destroyed the global economy. You will find more detailed explanations to this, but in the end it is ultimately the violent nature of humans that can make anything evil.

 

[Copernicus]

An atheist such as yourself would agree with anything Dawkins says, so I'm not suprised by the answer you gave.

Ad hominem argument. I could just as well argue that a believer such as yourself would disagree with anything Dawkins said, and such an argument would be equally irrelevant. We all have questionable motives, but the argument is not about what motivates us to make it. It is about the logic of the argument that we are motivated to make.

 

[LuisDantas]

My point is is that you don't need religion or faith. Humans are quiet an evil species without faith. Faith, even blind faith, on it's own is neutral. When it produces evil is when an evil person takes control. But it doesn't have to be a religious faith. A few investors nearly destroyed the global economy. It wasn't religion, but greed. There are plenty of racist groups that are evil because of skin color.

I'm afraid you misunderstood the point.

 

[Autodidact]

An atheist such as yourself would agree with anything Dawkins says, so I'm not suprised by the answer you gave.

How about responding to the substance, instead of a classic ad hominem? What do you think about the idea of believing something--anything--without evidence?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm afraid you misunderstood the point.

No, I didn't. We would still have mass murders, wars, and violence even if we didn't have any religions. Faith may be used to manipulate people, but it can be anything. The reasons given on why faith is evil can be furthered to many things throughout society. Money and resources are evil. Nationality is evil. Race is evil.
People are lead to believe that their faith is justifying said evil acts, but is it the religion, or the person who is in control? Faith can be dangerous. But you have to have other factors in place before it can present a threat.

 

[kiwimac]

Presence of faith is no more immoral than it's absence. But really that is not what the good professor is discussing here. He is setting up a strawman

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

which he then demolishes.

But that is not how faith works, people don't just have generic 'faith' so that anything goes, faith exists within a community which puts borders around it, a Christian's faith has boundaries, places where they are not supposed to go as does the faith of Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians et al.

A person's faith is generally in something or someone, it is not some nebulous philosophical concept which floats about in the ether looking for a place to land. The examples he gives are also flawed, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the 9/11 attack are not simply rooted in faith, they are also rooted firmly in socio-political realities, in the politics of power and revenge.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Ad hominem argument. I could just as well argue that a believer such as yourself would disagree with anything Dawkins said, and such an argument would be equally irrelevant. We all have questionable motives, but the argument is not about what motivates us to make it. It is about the logic of the argument that we are motivated to make.

Fair enough.