Then that's well clarified. I balk though at condemning my Christian brethren who adhere to a theology that includes a belief in eternal punishment under certain conditions.

As long as we agree that it is the act that defines the person, it hardly matters what supernatural belief motivates it.

Sure, . :roll:
Just keep burying your head in the sand forever.

Religious doesn't make one bad, but it makes one do bad, by most lights. At least, the ones unopen to update. — AmadeusD

It's a tough inference to go from Islam to religion more generally.

I have questioned the moral standing of those who believe in eternal damnation. — Banno

Like poor, benighted Wittgenstein:

When one of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s graduate students allowed how much he regretted the Church’s condemnation of Origen’s doctrine that God would eventually abolish hell and redeem the whole world (including the devils), the philosopher shot back: “Of course it was rejected. It would make nonsense of everything else. If what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with.” — Edward Oakes - Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy

I think when the restriction is "the ones unopen to update" its not a tough one. But in any case, its a formal claim, not an empirical one.
Beliefs, more than other forms of cognition, drive behaviour. If your beliefs are religiously-derived, they are, without some rather spectacular intercession, inarguable. That isn't a safe situation when most religions instill beliefs about out-groups.

I think when the restriction is "the ones unopen to update" its not a tough one. — AmadeusD

There are lots of traditional religious groups (not open to updating) which nevertheless do not engage in the sorts of things you pointed to.

out-groups. — AmadeusD

I would just point back to the same argument that Holland makes, namely that the West's compassionate attitude towards out-groups comes precisely from Judaism and Christianity.

There are lots of traditional religious groups (not open to updating) which nevertheless do not engage in the sorts of things you pointed to. — Leontiskos

The majority do. And in any case, they are the ones we are worried about - and so condemn. That some people can wield a knife while in a schizophrenic rage and not try to murder anyone doesn't mean we shouldn't be on guard for schizophrenics with knives in a rage.

the West's compassionate attitude towards out-groups comes precisely from Judaism and Christianity. — Leontiskos

This is wholly irrelevant. Religion/religious fervour is the chief source of global harm.

This is wholly irrelevant. — AmadeusD

But why would it be irrelevant?

You say <Religion/religious fervour is the chief source of global harm>.

Suppose I gave a parallel argument <Humans are the chief source of global harm>.

You respond, "But humans are also the source of global good." It would not make sense to say, "This is wholly irrelevant."

Just because a subset of humans do evil does not mean humans in general are the problem. We could get rid of humans and "solve" the problem, but that is not a reasonable way forward. It's fairly important to make distinctions between humans, and between religions, especially when you are talking to religious humans.

You are uncharacteristically missing the point in a way that feels like it must be on purpose:

Religious fervour is the chief cause of global harm.
Humans carry out the religious fevour.

Thus, removing the religious fervour reduces the harm for which humans are culpable. It's irrelevant because "Not all men, but always men" is a totally reasonable refrain. Not all religions/religious people - but always fucking religion.

but always fucking religion. — AmadeusD

Except for Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or any of the other counterexamples to your assertion that it's always religion. You've presented premises about a single religion, Islam, and you are drawing conclusions about religion generally. That is an invalid argument to be sure. If all of your premises regard Islam, then your conclusion is about Islam. In that context, shifting from "Islam" to "religion" is a form of subtle equivocation.

(It would make no sense for me, a Christian, to look at your articles and say, "Oh, Islamic adherents killed a bunch of Christians; therefore religion itself must be the problem.")

But supose that I have understood all you had to say, and yet still reject theism. — Banno

I’m not asking about theism. Never really brought up God first in this whole thread. I can’t seem to make you believe that I think there are non-theological ways to understand and act on, faith. And we haven’t even started that conversation.

Most of this thread has been theological/psychological and now political target practice with people shooting in different directions, occasionally hitting marks. But often off target. Like you bringing up theism to me here.

I’ve taken some steps to show you I understood what you had to say. I am trying to be clear about what is meant here, not suppose anything between us.

You ask me to “suppose you understand what I say.” No one here wants anyone to suppose what anyone else thinks - I want to hear it from you.

You said “faith is neither good nor bad.”

You said this. And I agree. That’s what I understand. What you said. So I suppose you understand what I said, because we said the same thing.

But if, as we both now agree, faith is neither good nor bad, why is it that everything else you bring up about faith has to do with fathers murdering their children and fools acting without evidence or reason? Or theism? Because that doesn’t sound “neither good nor bad” to me.

So the question is what do you think?

Me supposing you understand me won’t work, because “neither good nor bad” seems to contradict the murder, ignorance and irrationality involved in everything else you say involving faith.

I think we are all having the wrong conversation about faith.



Faith is belief in something particular. It is hard to see faith apart from having faith in. But it can be seen, but it cannot be seen apart from faith in.

If someone merely says “I have faith.” they have not formed a complete thought. No one knows much about the person who simply says that. There must be some context or content before this statement, or some after it, like “I have faith in X.”

Faith can involve belief in the existence of X.
It can be belief in the capabilities of X (whose existence you already assume or know).
You can have faith in another person.
You can have faith that another person knows something you don’t know, or can do something you can’t do, so you act on this faith and let the other person take the wheel, giving all control to the pilot, etc.

But faith is always the particular momentary act of believing in….X particular.

That now said, Banno, you also said it’s not the meaning or even the lack thereof that is most important (or most worrisome is how you put it), instead, it is what folk actually do that matters.

I agree with that.

But does this widen the precise, initial focus?

I do like keeping things action based and with as many empirical, measurable components as possible, as all acts do. So “what folk do” is good to keep close to “what is faith”.

But here, to me, the precise question is changed a bit to “what is a leap (act) of faith?” What does faith do or lead to?

If so, the conversation, to me, has to now involve two acts: 1) the act of believing that is involved in faith (belief in X without reason or evidence for instance) and 2) the act undertaken based on this faith as a springboard. It’s two acts now, so we have more work to do before we can start judging faith based on God and Abraham’s and jihad, and sacrifices and saints, and other particular “acts of faith.”

We are no longer just seeking to answer a question about faith; we are replacing this question with another two questions - faith and acts based on faith.

Right?

Everyone has leapt ahead. To do sketchy psychology, theology and politics.

So - how is faith “neither good nor bad” as you said before?

Or is faith really only weak justification for anything the faithful wants, mostly used in connection with heinous crimes?

Except for Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or any of the other counterexamples to your assertion that it's always religion. — Leontiskos

Right, I wouldn't say it's always religion, but it's always ideology, which includes religion. Ideologies are like religions in that they are faith, not evidence, based.

But if, as we both now agree, faith is neither good nor bad, why is it that everything else you bring up about faith has to do with fathers murdering their children and fools acting without evidence or reason? Or theism? Because that doesn’t sound “neither good nor bad” to me. — Fire Ologist

I'm not presuming to answer for @Banno but I couldn't resist giving my take on this. When faith is taken to be fact, then we have fundamentalism. Fundamentalists treat articles of faith as if they were empirical, evidence based facts, and that is where the trouble begins. If, instead, intellectual honesty prevailed and the faithful acknowledged that their faith is for them alone, between them and their God, so to speak, then they would not be arrogant enough to commit heinous acts purportedly in the name of God.

Fundamentalists treat articles of faith as if they were empirical, evidence based facts, and that is where the trouble begins. If, instead, intellectual honesty prevailed and the faithful acknowledged that their faith is for them alone, between them and their God, so to speak, then they would not be arrogant enough to commit heinous acts purportedly in the name of God. — Janus

Don’t you see how none of what you just said addresses what I asked?

All of what you just said contradicts “faith is neither good nor bad” because that all sounds bad.

I really don’t see evidence that many of you are any good at identifying heinous acts.

You’re not being very observant.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having. That’s what a “theist” actually is 99 times out of 100 - a whole person, mostly like the family down the street who really cares about other people and makes sacrifices for those others.

But I wish we could just finish the conversation about what is faith instead.

I can’t seem to make you believe that I think there are non-theological ways to understand and act on, faith. — Fire Ologist

I never though otherwise. I wasn't aware that this was a potential bone of contention.

...why is it that everything else you bring up about faith has to do with fathers murdering their children and fools acting without evidence or reason? — Fire Ologist

Simply becasue that is the argument I was pursuing.

So - how is faith “neither good nor bad” as you said before? — Fire Ologist

I'm not going over it again. Good to see you struggling with the conceptualisation, though. Keep going.

Right, I wouldn't say it's always religion, but it's always ideology, which includes religion. Ideologies are like religions in that they are faith, not evidence, based. — Janus

There's a lot in this. An ideology is another example of a belief that is not to be subjected to scrutiny.

Don’t you see how none of what you just said addresses what I asked? — Fire Ologist

That might be down to the what your question was phrased, since Janus/ answer seemed quite relevant.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having. — Fire Ologist

Pretty fucking rude. So atheists are none of them "moms and dads, loving their kids"?

Religion/religious fervour is the chief source of global harm. — AmadeusD

That is silly. Unless religion/religious fervor is also the chief source of global good.

Get rid of all religion, I guarantee you, harm by humans skyrockets.

Despite how it occurs to most people as they grow up and begin to think for themselves, Atheism is not a new discovery.

Ye who rebuke religion by excluding yourselves from it simply know not what ye do. I wish you knew.

And once the concern is all the things you say that are examples of religion, or how religion makes you immediately conjure up knife wielding schizophrenics in order to draw your pictures, you are really just talking politics, civil law, psychology, social crap. Not religion. Not even ethics.

I, like most of my churchgoing friends, speaking for all of them can tell you, 99 out of 100 of us want all the same basic rights, freedoms and laws and happiness for all people.

You cripple society by judging the religious so harshly. Just silly. Religious people invented “do not judge others”. Religious people invented “love your enemies.” Religion is also a source of hope for mankind. The source I would add, but certainly a source. Period. Historical fact.

Don’t be such a sour puss on those who are trying to love their neighbors as themselves.

So - how is faith “neither good nor bad” as you said before?
— Fire Ologist
I'm not going over it again. Good to see you struggling with the conceptualisation, though. Keep going. — Banno

Because, like I said, maybe you can’t.

You’ve been caught in a contradiction.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having.
— Fire Ologist
Pretty fucking rude. So atheists are none of them "moms and dads, loving their kids"? Fuck off. — Banno

What fallacy is the above?

What did I say about atheists? Nothing. How did you assume anything I was saying about atheists?

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having.
— Fire Ologist
Pretty fucking rude. So atheists are none of them "moms and dads, loving their kids"? Fuck off. — Banno

So, what I said was when I think of faith, I think of moms and dad living their kids.

When Banno and others around here think of faith, they think of murder and heinous acts.

I didn’t say what atheists do or think about their kids.

You take me in bad faith.

Over and over.

To avoid dealing with my refutation of your adolescent and unoriginal caricatures of false religion.

I wasn't aware that this was a potential bone of contention. — Banno

What an obtuse head you have.

“Faith is neither good nor bad.” - Banno
“For instance [insert heinous acts and atrocities]” - Banno
“Any examples of non-bad acts of faith, because you just said faith is neither good nor bad was so obvious? Anything good?” - FireOlogist
“[Insert some bullshit to avoid the simple question, or crickets].” - Banno

I’m happy for you that you have such certainty in your life about religion. It’s a big issue and you seem to have it all solid. Faith = shitstorm.

But then “neither good nor bad…”. Are you saying murdering martyr terrorists are neither good nor bad, because you are leaving me no other options.

@Banno @Fire Ologist

Break it up, you two. If you can't be civil, walk away, or I'll have to start deleting your posts.

I appreciate your work here. I used to moderate a forum once. And I manage a team of people. People are a nightmare.

So you know, I don’t feel any worse treated than usual, and I’d still love to hear Banno’s response. I thought we were on to something interesting.

But I’ll defer to you.

Thanks

when I think of faith, I think of moms and dad living their kids. — Fire Ologist

Interestingly, I imagine that a contemporary Western religionists tends to envision a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics.

More and more it's the extended family/(intentional) community, at least in the ideal case (for religious intellectuals).

But it's not like the alternatives don't enforce power dynamics. The power dynamic in more self-consciously "progressive" thought just tends to be the exceptional individual destroying other power relations so as to increase individual freedom on behalf of the "masses" (a move favoring the exceptional individual most of course), and then the (progressive) state stepping in to remove friction between individuals and to correct various "market failures."

However, since individuals liberated from culture (particularly exceptional ones) tend to have a lot of friction, and because markets fail a lot and entrench, rather than revalue existing disparities, the state (and activist) has to do a lot of intervention and reeducation. Hence, they need to have a lot of power.

Right, I wouldn't say it's always religion, but it's always ideology, which includes religion. Ideologies are like religions in that they are faith, not evidence, based. — Janus

I don't think this thread has ever moved beyond my observation:

If we are going to do real philosophical work then we have to have real definitions. What almost always happens in these discussions is that the atheist builds their petitio principii right into their definition of faith. This is how the atheist ends up defining faith:

Faith_ath: "Irrational assent" — Leontiskos

Faith_ath is a bad pathway to truth. The point is that if you can't stop appealing Faith_ath then you're just begging the question. You are committing fallacies, over and over. — Leontiskos

It could be, "Irrational assent," "Belief without sufficient justification," "Belief without sufficient evidence," etc. They all amount to the same thing.

Given the way that the anti-theists are consistently begging the question, what the theist can say, every time, is, "Yes, I agree that faith_ath is bad. We are in agreement with regard to your faith_ath. Let me know if you want to talk about a more relevantly defined concept." Telling me over and over that I engage in a religious act, namely faith_ath, which I obviously deny that I engage in, is nothing more than unphilosophical gaslighting. This sums up the whole latter portion of the thread. It's no coincidence that the religious get annoyed in the face of this obstinance.

NB: I admit that @Janus has a unique view where belief without evidence need not be irrational, and so things are a bit more complicated for him (i.e. he is a very strong coherentist). No one else holds that premise; therefore it doesn't fit the tenor of the thread; and therefore I haven't spent much time singling it out in this thread.

I would agree that there can be a substantial amount of faith in progressivism.

Incidentally, regarding intentional communities, I was curious about what you thought about Twin Oaks in The Myopia of Liberalism thread, if you have anything to say about it there.

But if, as we both now agree, faith is neither good nor bad, why is it that everything else you bring up about faith has to do with fathers murdering their children and fools acting without evidence or reason? Or theism? Because that doesn’t sound “neither good nor bad” to me. — Fire Ologist

Yes, exactly right. :up:
Banno is equivocating. One second he says that faith is neither good nor bad, and the next second he is back to construing faith as bad. It's a new rendition on what I described <here>.

I imagine that a contemporary Western religionists tends to envision a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics. — praxis

The point I am trying to make is, there is probably a more philosophic conversation about “what is faith” to be had than “what is religious faith” has turned out to be here on the forum.

When I think of faith, I don’t necessarily think of God or religion.

But most here seemed to want to talk about God and religious believers.

So what I am saying above is, when I think of religious faith, I think of moms and dads loving their kids. The point being love.

Many on this thread, when they think of religious faith seem to think only of Abraham attempting murder, terroists bombing schools, etc.

(And that has nothing to do with how atheists must love their kids, which of course they do, because kids are just lovable).

So so much of this thread has obfuscated a philosophic treatment of faith, without need or basis, mixing it with what I see as bad theology, and completely unnecessarily.

I am happy to apologize for offending anyone who thought I was speaking to how they love their families.

But praxis, “a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics” is, to me, completely off the topic of what is faith.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having. — Fire Ologist

Pretty fucking rude. So atheists are none of them "moms and dads, loving their kids"? Fuck off. — Banno

Banno here relies on a non sequitur in order to take offense. Fire Ologist says that religious people do not exhibit the traits that Banno is ascribing to them, and instead exhibit good traits. Banno claims that Fire Ologist has said that no atheists exhibit good traits. Banno is relying on the conditional <If FO says that religious people have good traits, not bad traits, then FO is saying that no atheists have good traits>. This is completely invalid, and the false inference is made in order to try to paint FO in a bad light, pretend that he has said something offensive, take offense, and lash out. That's a good example of a bad faith reading of Fire Ologist. As Fire Ologist has pointed out, Banno has been involved in this sort of thing for a very long time.

I don't think this thread has ever moved beyond my observation:

If we are going to do real philosophical work then we have to have real definitions. What almost always happens in these discussions is that the atheist builds their petitio principii right into their definition of faith. This is how the atheist ends up defining faith:

Faithath: "Irrational assent"
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Same.