I've given you more consideration than your posts deserve. — Banno

Well then, on behalf of myself, and all those who muddle through my posts, thank you for that extra consideration you’ve given.

meh. — Banno

You’ve given us all back something to consider here that’s for sure. :rofl:

Astonishing.

They're the ones who often call the worshippers of other faiths idolaters. They are rigid, — Tom Storm

they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths. — Tom Storm

Lousy people to talk to about any religion, be it their own or the ones they rigidly belittle. Shake the dust off of your sandals when leaving those discussions.

Basically, who cares what they think? And yes I know people who sound that way - most of them, if pressed, realize they don’t understand their own faith let alone the faiths they belittle.

…in my humble opinion regarding this theological, so not philosophical, subject.

Basically, who cares what they think? — Fire Ologist

People who live in societies where such theists are trying to set the government agenda have good reason to be concerned with the thinking of such people.

People who live in societies where such theists are trying to set the government agenda have good reason to be concerned with the thinking of such people. — wonderer1

Yeah, but not about those theist’s thoughts about God and religion - concerned about those people’s thoughts about policy, law and enforcement. We were talking about what is faith and God, not what lousy arguments might support bad public policy.

Mostly I think it would be great if we could discuss religious topics without anti-religious evangelization constantly occurring. But that's the way it seems to go on the internet: the atheists require that every religious discussion must be reduced to a discussion (or assertion) about whether God exists. — Leontiskos

I do agree. One can only go over the same argument so often. Reducing religions to a single proposition distorts them and makes them almost pointless.

For me it often just comes down to worldviews. People can draw different inferences from the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions about the existence of God. Debate about the matter isn’t always helpful and often ends with disparaging the other person’s view. — Tom Storm

It isn't just a matter of world-view, but of ways of life. I mean by that, that it's not just an intellectual matter, but a matter of how to live one's life, day by day.

It isn't just a matter of world-view, but of ways of life. I mean by that, that it's not just an intellectual matter, but a matter of how to live one's life, day by day. — Ludwig V

Sure - I take worldview to include the quotidian and to be the source of our day-to-day choices and actions.

Maybe religious people seek out environments where they can argue with atheists to help exorcise their own faithless demons? — frank

Don't know. There's probably many explanations including this.

And yes I know people who sound that way - most of them, if pressed, realize they don’t understand their own faith let alone the faiths they belittle. — Fire Ologist

Yes, I think this definitely applies to some of them.

Maybe religious people seek out environments where they can argue with atheists to help exorcise their own faithless demons? — frank

I was thinking about this one and it occurred to me that atheists (like me) also test ideas and arguments to see how they hold up. I don't believe we ever arrive at a foolproof set of beliefs in life (well, I certainly haven't) and therefore I often bounce around concepts out to see how they land with others who do not share my views. It doesn't always mean I am committed to those ideas personally, what I am interested in is giving them a run to see what others make of them.

, ... isn't it a bit rich for theists to seek out a place where there will be a lot of atheists, then complain that there are too many atheists?

Just plain rude.

That would be a friendly sort of discussion though. I was responding to this:

We see this happen here all the time, as people are often accused of bad faith because dogmatic atheists and theists tend to perceive persecution, ill intent or hostility in any form of dissent. — Tom Storm

Why would a religious person enter into a discussion on a philosophy forum and become angry and insulting? I don't think it's to bounce ideas around. In Jungian terms, it's some kind of complex: a tangle of jagged emotions. There's probably a brewing crisis of faith, looking out at humanity wondering how to make sense of it. Just speculating.

isn't it a bit rich for theists to seek out a place where there will be a lot of atheists, then complain that there are too many atheists?

Just plain rude. — Banno

:lol:

isn't it a bit rich for theists to seek out a place where there will be a lot of atheists, then complain that there are too many atheists?

Just plain rude. — Banno

This site seems to contain a lot of strong voices advocating theism or views related to higher consciousness or transcendence. I'm not sure how many atheists are on this site. As long as the theists are not evangelizing, or abusive, I don't mind.

Why would a religious person enter into a discussion on a philosophy forum and become angry and insulting? I don't think it's to bounce ideas around. — frank

I think people often become abusive when their confidence or authority is threatened in some way.

There's probably a brewing crisis of faith, looking out at humanity wondering how to make sense of it. — frank

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out.

This site seems to contain a lot of strong voices advocating theism or views related to higher consciousness or transcendence. — Tom Storm

Well, have a look at the "philosophy" section in your bookshop. If there is one, it will almost certainly be between "self-help" and “religion"...

As long as the theists are not evangelising, or abusive, I don't mind. — Tom Storm

Nor do I, except that almost universally, when one points out a flaw in their position, the comeback is a denigration of the critic rather than a response to the criticism.

So I presented here a brief and fairly obvious criticism of faith. And here we are. @Hanover was the only one to address the actual argument presented.

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out. — Tom Storm

That would be fine on Facebook.

Ah well. They will doubtless see this conversation as me stirring the possum. Perhaps it is. But I find it difficult not to see many of their comments as disingenuous, in bad faith.

This site seems to contain a lot of strong voices advocating theism or views related to higher consciousness or transcendence — Tom Storm

I've noticed that also. It's a far cry from the milieu I encountered when I first started posting on forums (mind you the first one I joined was the now-defunct Richard Dawkins forum which as you can imagine was hysterically atheistic.) But it might also be a sign of the times - I think the new atheism is nowadays considered passé and culture is increasingly pluralistic and open to varying perspectives.

I just realized my frustration with many atheists over subjects relating God and faith: It’s either bad philosophy or bad theology that we struggle with when trying to bridge the gap between the theist and the atheist. And theology has no real place here on TPF anyway. — Fire Ologist

I mentioned in the Hotel Manager thread, that I was attempting to maintain a philosophical rather than confessional perspective (not always succesfully). Also that philosophy of religion is not quite the same as theology. I think philosophical theology has a place in philosophy provided it is not overtly evangalistic.

I concentrate on a specific issue, namely, that of the necessity of an heirarchical ontology or degrees of reality. Which is a fancy way of saying that there is a real dimension of value - in Platonist terms, that there is a true good, one which is neither subjective, objective or social, but transcendent of these distinctions, and that classical philosophy was grounded in the understanding that these 'levels of being' have corresponding 'levels of knowing'. Whereas the naturalist assumption is of a 'flat' ontology within which moral judgement is justified on subjective, social or pragmatic grounds.

But then, anything said about transcendent values runs into the overall antagonism towards a religious metaphysic as it is associated with religious philosophy. The deeper dynamic of that is that secular philosophy is antagostic to the possibility of the transcendent because it is fearful that it might be real after all (compare Thomas Nagel's 'fear of religion'). Better to leave the whole question sealed.

It isn't just a matter of world-view, but of ways of life. I mean by that, that it's not just an intellectual matter, but a matter of how to live one's life, day by day. — Ludwig V

What that characterizes the religious life do you think is missing in the secular life?

Nor do I, except that almost universally, when one points out a flaw in their position, the comeback is a denigration of the critic rather than a response to the criticism. — Banno

:100: Yep apart from one or two religionists on these forums that is just what almost always happens.

The other thing I would note about religionists is that their investigatory enterprises are almost always aimed at finding confirmation via authority (since argument seems to be a lost cause) for their beliefs, rather than holding up their beliefs to critical examination The latter attitude is what I see as the admirable disposition in scientific enquiry, and it is the only way to improve the understanding. Dogma equals stagnation.

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out. — Tom Storm

I hadn't thought of that. That makes me feel sympathy.

The deeper dynamic of that is that secular philosophy is antagostic to the possibility of the transcendent because it is fearful that it might be real after all (compare Thomas Nagel's 'fear of religion'). Better to leave the whole question sealed. — Wayfarer

I expect I'll do as a representative secularist, and I have never in my entire life been afraid that one or another religion might turn out to be true.

You (and Nagel, I guess) are just making this up.

And the evidence for that would be.....?

I asked ChatGPT to summarise my argument in this thread. Here's the result.

Banno's argument that faith may bring about immoral acts unfolds through a critical and pragmatic lens, emphasizing the consequences of acting on belief without sufficient justification. His argument can be outlined as follows:

1. Faith involves acting on belief without sufficient evidence
Premise: Faith, particularly religious or blind faith, is often characterized by belief in something without (or beyond) empirical or rational justification.
Banno frequently targets faith that forgoes critical evaluation, emphasizing that such belief is often sustained despite contrary evidence or lack of evidence.

2. Actions based on such faith can have real-world consequences
Premise: Beliefs are not isolated—they lead to actions.
Faith is not a passive attitude but something that motivates behavior, often with social or moral implications.

3. Those consequences can be harmful or immoral
Premise: Because faith-based actions bypass critical scrutiny, they can lead to outcomes that violate ethical norms or cause real harm.
Examples alluded to in discussion:
Religious extremism
Faith-driven violence or discrimination
Obedience to divine commands (e.g., Abraham and Isaac) without moral deliberation

4. Therefore, faith is not inherently virtuous and can lead to immorality
Conclusion: Faith, contrary to popular or religious belief, is not a moral good in itself. Instead, its value depends on its consequences.
Banno argues that faith should be assessed pragmatically—by its effects in the world—not held as a virtue independent of outcomes.

Supporting moves in his argument:
He challenges interlocutors who define faith as inherently good or virtuous.
He uses philosophical and theological examples (e.g., Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac) to show how acts praised as faithful might, under ordinary moral reasoning, be considered repugnant or immoral.
He stresses that if one is "never fully informed", then acting on such incomplete faith is especially dangerous.

Meta-point: Faith resists correction
Another subtle but important part of Banno's critique is that faith-based beliefs are resistant to revision, since they are often held as immune to counterevidence.
This makes it harder to check or restrain immoral consequences once someone is acting in faith.


Summary:
Banno’s structure is a pragmatic-ethical critique:
Faith motivates action
Action has consequences
Faith bypasses critical scrutiny
Therefore, it can lead to harmful consequences
Thus, faith is not inherently good and may be a source of immorality — ChatGPT

Not too bad a rendering.

I then asked it to list replies to this argument. Here's an edit:

Others argue that faith is a rational response when evidence is lacking but action is required. They suggest that faith allows individuals to make decisions and maintain emotional stability in the face of uncertainty.

Some contributors redefine faith as trust in authority or societal systems, which is often necessary for functioning in complex societies. This interpretation challenges the notion that faith is exclusively religious or inherently prone to leading to immoral acts.

Another line of response views faith as an a-rational or experiential phenomenon that transcends empirical evidence. Participants discuss faith in terms of personal experience, intuition, or as a necessary component of certain practices like Zen koans. This perspective suggests that faith can be a meaningful and purposeful aspect of human experience, not necessarily leading to immorality.

Some forum members express concern that Banno's argument may oversimplify the concept of faith by focusing solely on its potential for harm. They advocate for a more nuanced understanding that considers the various forms and functions of faith in human life. This highlights the complexity of defining faith and the importance of context in evaluating its moral implications. — ChatGPT

Pretty nuanced.

The justification for doing this is that folk have suggested that I haven't presented an argument. Here it is, summarised by an algorithm.

The evidence for what? For your assertion not applying to me?

The evidence for what? For your assertion not applying to me? — Srap Tasmaner

Evidence that Thomas Nagel is 'making it up'. So I will flesh it out a bit. Now might be the place to bust out the often-quoted passage from Thomas Nagel in his essay, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion. The essay starts with a passage from C S Peirce, a deep meditation on science, belief, and truth, which ends:

The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that the universe has to teach it. In Induction it simply surrenders itself to the force of facts. But it finds . . . that this is not enough. It is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. . . . The value of Facts to it, lies only in this, that they belong to Nature; and nature is something great, and beautiful, and sacred, and eternal, and real,--the object of its worship and its aspiration.

The soul's deeper parts can only be reached through its surface. In this way the eternal forms, that mathematics and philosophy and the other sciences make us acquainted with will by slow percolation gradually reach the very core of one's being, and will come to influence our lives; and this they will do, not because they involve truths of merely vital importance, but because they [are] ideal and eternal verities. — C S Peirce

Nagel calls these views 'alarmingly Platonist' in that they 'maintain that the project of pure inquiry is sustained by our “inward sympathy” with nature, on which we draw in forming hypotheses that can then be tested against the facts.' He says it is alarming, because 'it is hard to know what world picture to associate it with, and difficult to avoid the suspicion that the picture will be religious, or quasi-religious. Rationalism has always had a more religious flavor than empiricism. Even without God, the idea of a natural sympathy between the deepest truths of nature and the deepest layers of the human mind, which can be exploited to allow gradual development of a truer and truer conception of reality, makes us more at home in the universe than is secularly comfortable. The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.' This is the prelude to the passage in question:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. — Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, Thomas Nagel

That pretty well describes my overall attitude towards naturalism in philosophy as a whole. And it's important to note that Thomas Nagel professes atheism - he's by no means a religious apologist.

The deeper dynamic of that is that secular philosophy is antagostic to the possibility of the transcendent because it is fearful that it might be real after all (compare Thomas Nagel's 'fear of religion'). Better to leave the whole question sealed. — Wayfarer

A lot of if is designed to inspire fear, I'm afraid.

On the flip side, believers have a lot to fear as well, such as:

• Fear of Doubt and Unbelief
• Fear of Divine Judgment
• Fear of the "Other" or the Secular World
• Fear of Nihilism
• Fear of Social or Familial Consequences

My guess is that ... — Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion, Thomas

And you ask me for evidence!

A lot of empty chin-stroking. How you can take this seriously --

When you have something useful to add, perhaps you might come back.

I do fear divine judgement. Not so much the others.

I do fear divine judgement. Not so much the others. — Wayfarer

As a Buddhist? That's cause & effect and not divine judgement, isn't it?

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out. — Tom Storm

Explain how this isn't pure ad hom.

I say this because even if you're entirely right, it might be they're theists because theism is true.

It'd be like me opining that atheism is borne from trauma and alienation and whatever else sounds right. Wouldn't your response simply be, sure, all of that, but that you're atheist because that position is correct.

Not to mention it sounds like you care for the souls of the misguided. Ironic.

I expect I'll do as a representative secularist, and I have never in my entire life been afraid that one or another religion might turn out to be true.

You (and Nagel, I guess) are just making this up. — Srap Tasmaner

I think Wayfarer may be right about this but conversely there's also many a theist who is afraid that perhaps there's nothing to this God caper. Having watched Christians in palliative care (an aspect of my work) it is not unusual to find people having no confidence in God at the end, often to the surprise of relatives and friends.

Explain how this isn't pure ad hom. — Hanover

Well it's not my original thinking. I got this from a Catholic Priest friend of mine and it sounded reasonable. I can't do much about your seemingly sour reaction to it.

Not to mention it sounds like you care for the souls of the misguided. Ironic. — Hanover

I actually think if theists feel this way, it is entirely understandable. No irony.

I do fear divine judgement — Wayfarer

Really? Why?

There's also the point, made a few times by a few folk, that the motivation for some position is (usually) not relevant to the validity of the position.

's Nagel, even if he is right, makes no difference to the content of the arguments involved.

That stuff about psychologising, again.

t'd be like me opining that atheism is borne from trauma and alienation and whatever else sounds right. Wouldn't your response simply be, sure, all of that, but that you're atheist because that position is correct. — Hanover

Oh, and this... why not? I believe some people are drawn to atheism because they feel a sense of disconnection from the world. Perhaps they haven't experienced deep love or meaningful connection with others or maybe their temperament swings towards nihilism. For those people, a godless, meaningless world may seem to make more sense because it aligns with their emotional reality. I have certainly met such folk.

That stuff about psychologising, again. — Banno

I can't help it either.

Well it's not my original thinking. I got this from a Catholic Priest friend of mine and it sounded reasonable. I can't do much about your seemingly sour reaction to it. — Tom Storm

OK, then the Priest provided an ad hom, and you responded to my comment about an ad hom with another ad hom, suggesting it wasn't that it was an ad hom, but that i was just sour. Like I'm at all upset.

I actually think if theists feel this way, it is entirely understandable. No irony. — Tom Storm

The irony is that theists justify their judgment upon others based upon concern for their souls. You offered a similar concern for the souls of theists but from an atheist perspective.

My suggestion is that we stop being so concerned for each other's differing views. I trust wholly in the sincerity of your atheism, have no desire to modify it, and don't believe that but for some unfortunate circumstance you'd be different. Different strokes.