It's tedious. And we all know the game plan. — Banno

Oh well. :grin:

the sort of psychological discrediting we see here between Leon and Fire. — Banno

Super crazy. Stuff like this:

On a philosophy forum my request is actually extremely meager. It's that evangelistic begging-the-question does not happen again and again and again. For example: that we could have a discussion about faith without constantly begging the question and assuming that it must be irrational. — Leontiskos

Apparently this is, "Psychological discrediting." :roll:
"Leontiskos asked that we give arguments for our claims. How rude."

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. — Hanover

Yes, I agree.

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. — Hanover

I think you've written a number of good posts and I've mostly fallen behind in this thread, but I nevertheless disagree with the bolded. Well, I don't have a strong desire to modify Tom's atheism, but that's mostly because it feels like a fool's errand. But I think a desire to modify our interlocutor's position is healthy and normal. It just has to be done within proper constraints, such as valid argumentation and the absence of impositions, begging the question, ad hominem, etc.

@Tom Storm, Leon is talking about you behind your back, again. Seems he wants everyone to agree with him. Except you.

Not sure why he singled you out.

Tom Storm, Leon is talking about you behind your back, again. Seems he wants everyone to agree with him. Except you.

Not sure why he singled you out. — Banno

Because when @Hanover said, "I trust wholly in the sincerity of your atheism, have no desire to modify it..." he was speaking to @Tom Storm. So when I commented on Hanover's statement about Tom Storm, I referred to Tom Storm.

Yikes man, what's your deal? These are pretty wild attempts to discredit me. "Ready, fire, aim"?

(Note that if you think referencing someone without notifying them is "talking about them behind their back," then you've just failed your own test.)

Agree. Although I would cautiously add, that it may only be known first-person, but it's not a matter of personal prediliction. — Wayfarer

I don’t know, the term ‘samadhi junkie’ suggests that practitioners may develop a strong personal predilection for the experience.

Bottom line, I think you are too hard on faith and acting without sufficient evidence. Plenty of good and reasonable outcomes follow many acts of faith.

The basic premise:
Faith involves
1.) believing something despite insufficient evidence,
2.) and acting on said belief anyway.

And then there is 3.) “the point here is to bring out the immoral acts that are sometimes the result of faith unfettered.” -Banno

Believing without evidence is one thing.
Acting on said baseless belief is another thing.
Acting immorally because you believe things without evidence is a third thing (really a sub category of the second thing).

To start, I see your general point - believing something without good evidence is fraught with peril, and then acting on what is already perilous is reckless, and further, we’ve seen horrible atrocities committed based on such perilous recklessness.

But immorality is not always what happens in every act of faith, so there must be something else to “what is faith.” I’d say that, of the trillions of acts done by billions of believers acting on their faiths, the vast majority are not atrocities such that you or anyone must be skeptical of all acts of faith. Looking at the faith healers and terrorist martyrs is just a tiny narrow picture of actions driven by faith.

I mean, based on insufficient evidence, having only faith in God, people said “take me instead” to the Nazi that wanted to kill someone else, given their lives and saved others. People have turned their other cheek where others would seek vengeance. People have ministered to the sick hoping for miracles risking their lives where no one else would go. Faith builds comfort and hope to those mourning a lost loved one everyday. That isn’t as impactful as some terrorist?

I simply don’t see all acts of faith as bad.

I know you aren’t saying all acts of faith are bad. But I think you are saying something like, because of their reckless disregard for better, sufficient evidence, any good outcome that follows an act of faith is accidental, and the faith component was merely foolishness. But I simply disagree. I think many faith driven acts and the good outcomes hoped for that followed would not have happened without precisely that faith.

So my point here is, a decision to act based on faith in something despite insufficient evidence is not per se bad.

Here is a better way to make this same point.

Prong 1 of your premise: “believing something despite sufficient evidence.”

People do this all of the time outside of the context of religion.
People take things on faith that could otherwise be supported by sufficient evidence - they just don’t do the math. That is still the same thing as an act of faith. Such belief still involves faith because the person doesn’t have the evidence and didn’t use reason to form their belief. This is like when you trust someone giving you directions on the side of the road. You don’t know the person, you have no real reason to believe them, and you could get your own, better evidence, but instead, you believe their word and act, possibly driving off a cliff around the next corner.

So the very act of believing something without sufficient evidence needs to be further analyzed to determine its relative value, its practicality, its prevalence in daily decision-making, usefulness and predictability of outcome, etc. - basically there is no necessary connection between whatever reason you might have to forgo sufficient evidence and yet make a decision to believe and act anyway. In the moment, what could otherwise be a sufficiently evidenced decision, is instead more quickly made with insufficient evidence. So maybe you call it following your gut or intuition, and not faith, but either name here, there is a need and prevalence for all of us to act based on insufficient evidence all of the time.

So again we see that acting on insufficient evidence itself is not per se bad.

If all acting based on insufficient evidence is bad, we should probably not listen to what anyone else ever says.

Second point others are trying to make here is this, I never do anything based on insufficient evidence. I don’t follow Zeus, or Pan. I believe the words of a man who said great things, and the people around him who saw him do many impossible things. I have evidence. I get that I can’t hand you the proof of these things and allow us both to retest veracity, but like the person who gives me directions, when those directions make some sense, I believe them despite insufficient evidence.

Basically, you can’t just conclude that because you don’t see the evidence doesn’t mean it is not there. I see it. I base my decisions and actions on what I see.

It is just not an accurate description of my thought process to call my acts of faith essentially always “based on insufficient evidence.” I see that evidence can be weak, but I also see that there are many decisions we make in our day where evidence will be weak, so the faith muscle needs to be exercised to become a good one.

Religious faith is trust in another person based on your evidence of who that person is. Faith is a gift (just like the other way we make decisions, reason, is a gift). Persons are wild cards - and require faith to know, believe and follow (act upon).

Plenty of good and reasonable outcomes follow many acts of faith. — Fire Ologist

I have not said otherwise. I've just pointed out that the opposite is also true, that obscenities also can be acts of faith.

I see your general point — Fire Ologist

Appreciated. Would that we could have started here.

I never do anything based on insufficient evidence. — Fire Ologist

Really? I do. I've found we often must act despite not knowing the consequences. Seems to be part of the human condition. But such leaps of faith need to be mitigated by other considerations.

That's pretty much the whole of what I had to say on the issue, pages back.

you can’t just conclude that because you don’t see the evidence doesn’t mean it is not there. — Fire Ologist

Sure. And there is also the other option, that we can withhold consent. We can say "I don't know".

I don’t know, the term ‘samadhi junkie’ suggests that practitioners may develop a strong personal predilection for the experience. — praxis

Hardly representative. Attachment to any experience is discouraged in Buddhist training. Samma samadhi is the guiding principle.

Nobody has brought up William James The Will to Believe. It's rather a modern classic in this context.

All we have is the information that a 13th king is listed. It's unconfirmed. — frank

I totally get that it's unconfirmed, but perhaps we could say that the sourcebook has some degree of credibility to it?

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. — Ludwig V

Right. And the odd thing is that when religious people consistently take the bait they too become confused about thinking that religions have only to do with a single proposition - lol.

It's no coincidence that atheists who fixate on that question are unable to differentiate one religion from another. "God doesn't exist, so they're all the same, namely false!"

Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, it's a good point.

Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer? — BitconnectCarlos

I was trying to get at the same thing with this:

The weird thing in these cases is that the atheist has made their atheism unfalsifiable. They don't seem to even recognize the possibility of counterfactual falsifications. If one's atheism is not to be unfalsifiable then they must be able to say, "Well, I guess if thus-and-such happened then I would be rationally compelled to question my atheism." — Leontiskos

I totally get that it's unconfirmed, but perhaps we could say that the sourcebook has some degree of credibility to it? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't see what's at stake here. Why would it make any difference?

Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer? — BitconnectCarlos

This conflates two sorts of faith: (1) faith in God's existence and (2) faith in God's guidance.

Recall the biblical account. The Israelites were present at Mt. Sinai, and they had seen the miracle of the plagues, water from rocks, bushes burning unconsumed, manna from heaven, and seas parting. Despite this evidence, they became restless at Moses' absence while in the process of receiving the 10 Commandments and built a golden calf.

They lacked "faith," but they never questioned God's existence. How could they? He was as obvious as anything before them.

They lacked faith in his guidance and so they disobeyed.

Today's lack of faith, doubting the very existence of God, would be absurdly anachronistic in a biblical setting.

My point is asking why faith #1 is at all worth having without #2? What do you do with this cosmic discovery? You've found a new planet, you've found God, and you found your missing keys. Seems like there's a whole lot more to this faith thing that has us all talking about it.

That's fair and all, but on the other hand, why the need for Jesus if "simul iustus et peccator" is all one anticipates; snow-covered dung? — Leontiskos

Apparently, "simul iustus et peccator" is originally an Augustinian concept. Anyway, I'm not the one to be asking about the need for Jesus. I enjoy Luther's insights on humanity and the Bible, but when it comes to Jesus, he loses me completely. I understand justification by God's grace; that's about as far as I get.

I don't see what's at stake here. Why would it make any difference? — frank

He has presented a few bits and pieces as if he had presented an argument.

, have you a conclusion for us? A page later?

I'm not trying to convert an atheist. I'm interested in how you all think, and the differences could lead to an interesting dialogue. For example, if we were to start with, e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah and work backwards, when would the atheists start taking issue? Now that would be interesting. It could expose some interesting points of difference.

I'm not trying to convert an atheist. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't think you were, and couldn't care less anyway.


I've really got no idea what you are attempting to do here.

It started with

A few questions for the atheists: — BitconnectCarlos

...which I answered, then a long pause filled with empty posts, now

if we were to start with, e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah and work backwards, when would the atheists start taking issue? — BitconnectCarlos

Have you a point, or are you just trying to running a bible study group for atheists? 'cause I'm not keen.

If you're ever genuinely interested in grappling with the concept of God, the Bible is how you do it. Not internet debates.

A waste of my time and yours.

My point is asking why faith #1 is at all worth having without #2? — Hanover

Or conversly, is it possible to have faith#2 without faith#1? A sort of practical faith that's not very concerned with the source? Just a deep-rooted sense of "this is the way"? As an atheist who grew up among lots of atheist-accepting, ecumene-favouring Christians, I've often wondered how important "faith in the existence of God" is. Faith in the guidance seemed more in evidence in the people around me (and I wonder if this "in-evidence" is a result of selctive intention, or maybe incomplete interpretation).

I may well be underestimating the importance of a "personal God", though. That does come up. I wonder if it's possible to follow the guidance with deep conviction, while, say, holding some sort of ironic distance towards the "God exists" discourse, as whatever you say on that issue feels... inadequate. It sometimes feels like that (not with my parents, but I've met people who gave me the impression).

I don't find this an easy topic.

[Aside: I originally typed "discurse" rather than "discourse". I almost want to believe in Freudian slips.]

Nobody has brought up William James The Will to Believe. It's rather a modern classic in this context. — Wayfarer

According to James, religious faith can occur when:

The belief is psychologically possible.
The choice cannot be avoided.
The consequences matter deeply.
Evidence is incomplete.
And faith could open the door to real experience of the divine.

Much if not all of that is dependent on or highly influenced by society, which suggests that it’s the social aspect that makes faith necessary.

You didn’t address the more substantive parts.

People take things on faith that could otherwise be supported by sufficient evidence - they just don’t do the math. — Fire Ologist

Therefore “belief based on insufficient evidence” happens everyday.

You admitted that. Doesn’t that mean your connection between faith acts and immoral behavior may just be correlated, but not causal? I think it does.

Acting without sufficient evidence is a good now. You said yourself you do it all of the time, and I’m sure with great success.

I've found we often must act despite not knowing the consequences. — Banno

That’s my point!

You sound like a man of faith now.

(And if you don’t know the consequences, you didn’t have sufficient evidence - same behavior - so you can’t avoid my point that way.)

I know you aren’t saying all acts of faith are bad. But I think you are saying something like, because of their reckless disregard for better, sufficient evidence, any good outcome that follows an act of faith is accidental, and the faith component was merely foolishness. But I simply disagree. — Fire Ologist

Apparently so might you:

I have not said otherwise. I've just pointed out that the opposite is also true, — Banno

So if both are true, we can’t use good acts or bad acts as some kind of measure of the faith those acts were based on.

So there is no reason to pause a decision and not to act just because that decision is based on faith.

And so bringing up heinous acts, or only heinous acts, or good acts or any acts is irrelevant and unhelpful when saying “what is faith.”

I think your whole disparagement of faith, your argument, is toast.

But such leaps of faith need to be mitigated by other considerations. — Banno

Mitigated leaps of faith. You must be a lot of fun at a party.

(Thought that was funny. I’m a nerd.)

You didn’t address the more substantive parts. — Fire Ologist

The most substantive part was where you agreed with my general point.

...believing something without good evidence is fraught with peril, and then acting on what is already perilous is reckless, and further, we’ve seen horrible atrocities committed based on such perilous recklessness. — Fire Ologist

That'll do.

Acting without sufficient evidence is a good now. — Fire Ologist

An odd thing to say. A lesser evil, sometimes.

Good and bad things follow from acts of faith, but not

So if both are true, we can’t use good acts or bad acts as some kind of measure of the faith those acts were based on. — Fire Ologist

A non sequitur. I will happily judge that a faith sufficient to murder a child is not a good faith. If you can't do likewise, that's on you. Your argument is invalid.

It seems to me that secularists and religionists are equally capable of seeing purpose, meaning, and beauty, as well as order and truth. — praxis

Of course. Both are equally human. Adopting a world-view, such as a religion, does not change that, except perhaps for some people, at the margins. For the most part, human life plays out, with all its faults through the framework. I know that many believers want very much to believe that they have a better handle on things and lead better lives as a result. That may or may not be empirically true, but there's no reason to assume that it is is.

A non sequitur. I will happily judge that a faith sufficient to murder a child is not a good faith. If you can't do likewise, that's on you. Your argument is invalid. — Banno

But will you happily judge a faith sufficient to risk one’s life to save another as good?

If so then there is nothing good or bad necessarily involved in acts of faith qua acts of faith.

So your argument’s reliance on child murder is smoke.

You are avoiding.

But will you happily judge a faith sufficient to risk one’s life to save another as good? — Fire Ologist

Based on faith? A third woman has died under Texas’ abortion ban as doctors reach for riskier miscarriage treatments

A non sequitur. I will happily judge that a faith sufficient to murder a child is not a good faith. — Banno

It's not murder, it's ritual sacrifice. Nothing in the text suggests Isaac resisted or didn't cooperate. Many interpretations portray him as a willing participant.

It's not murder, it's ritual sacrifice. Nothing in the text suggests Isaac resisted or didn't cooperate. Many interpretations portray him as a willing participant. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that ritual sacrifice by wililng participants is ok? Seems like something we would want to eliminate. Whether it falls within the purview of "murder" is a very legalistic concern that ignores the fact that it's highly immoral regardless of how we pedantically classify the act.

If, though, you want to go down the path of drawing factual distinctions (as in Isaac might have wanted his throat slit), there's also good argument Isaac was in his 30s at the time, meaning he wasn't even a child.

Notwithstanding all of this, the best argument is that under no hermeneutic has any Abrahamic religion used the binding story to suggest infanticide or sacrificial killing was morally justified. In fact the story is typically used as the opposite, which explains why Abrahamic religions prohibit human sacrifice clearly and historically, without exception. Infanticide has been more common in secular societies (although still largely forbidden), particularly Victorian Britain in the 1800s and China very recently, meaning we as a people have found all sorts of ways to do horrible things. In this instance of infanticide and ritualistic killing, the Abrahamic religions happen to have a much more admirable history though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

But generally I read the comment your responded to more innocuously, as in it was indicating that child murder is condemnable under any scenario, which I'd agree to.

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that ritual sacrifice by wililng participants is ok? — Hanover

No, I am merely distinguishing between murder and the institution of sacrifice. God lets us know very early on that murder (including the murder of animals) is wrong. Yet animal sacrifices were offered throughout the Second Temple era and were offered by many of the forefathers. Giving an animal as a sacrifice is not the same as murdering it, even though the animal is slaughtered in both.

there's also good argument Isaac was in his 30s at the time, meaning he wasn't even a child. — Hanover

This strengthens the idea that Isaac was a willing participant.

But generally I read the comment your responded to more innocuously, as in it was indicating that child murder is condemnable under any scenario, which I'd agree to. — Hanover

I read Banno as referencing the Akedah story as he has often done, and equating the institution of sacrifice with murder.