Agnostics' view of religious believers

[TObul]

The bit about "metric time" (really decimal time, as Lisa might have observed; but that would be much less funny) is just a minor detail in the episode, but it's my favorite joke in it.

I hope you will get around to reading Plato's Republic eventually. I didn't cite the title because the political system that Plato promotes is not a republic at all (the translation doesn't correspond in meaning to the Greek title Politeia anyway) but rather a dictatorship.

It's my favorite joke too, (skinner has some excellent delivery and the line "80 past ten" has such great impact), but also I felt a good example of how people can mistake Utilitarianism with needless academic exercises/over-sciencing day-to-day things and the like. I will make a point of looking up this Plato work, thank you.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

What do you mean, "technically"? It's not a technical term. Besides that, your definition does not agree with the common use of the word. As several posters in this thread have pointed out, an essential element of the meaning of the word "faith" is "trust," whether you are talking about religious faith or faith in a person or an institution. Having faith in someone or something is not primarily a matter of having a belief about the person or the thing but of trusting him or her or it in some fashion. Keeping faith, or being faithful, means fulfilling someone's trust. Lacking evidence has nothing to do with any of this.

Your supposed example of faith illustrates your own definition, but it is not an example of faith as that word is commonly understood.

Of course, the person who has faith in God has to believe that God exists; but it doesn't follow that his or her faith consists in that belief. To have faith in God is also to trust in God, and to do that simply has nothing to do with evidence or the lack of evidence.

Further, even to take the element of belief by itself, there are plenty of people who have religious beliefs and who also claim that they have evidence that supports those beliefs. They claim, e.g., that miracles recounted in the Bible are evidence of the divinity of Jesus or that the narrative of the Exodus is evidence that the Israelites are God's chosen people, or that the appearance of design in nature is evidence of God's existence. I believe, as I'm sure you do, that they are deluded on all of these points, and that none of these facts constitute rational support for their beliefs. But that is beside the point, which concerns the definition of faith. These people may be deluded about what they have in the way of evidence, but I see no reason to believe that they are deluded about what they mean by "faith." They profess faith, and they claim to have evidence that supports what they believe. On your definition, they are speaking in a self-contradictory fashion. They are not. It is your definition that is at fault.

<resurrects the topic>


I'm talking "faith" in terms of epistemology, which is a technical branch of philosophy to do with knowledge. Therefore it is a technical definition that would be excepted while discussing this in terms of knowledge.

In this way, evidence is central to having faith.

Yes, Faith has the meaning "trust" in common usage (infact it's the first definition listed in my dictionary, but my definition is the second definition listed).

Anyway, since we were discussing what one can and cannot know, I think that the epistemological definition of faith, that is the definition of faith which refers directly to belief systems, is the most appropriate one to use. In this way, one can have a faulty definition of faith or be using faith in a slightly suspect way when discussing knowledge and belief.

 

[Calboner]

Yes, Faith has the meaning "trust" in common usage (infact it's the first definition listed in my dictionary, but my definition is the second definition listed).

I found the same thing at The Free Dictionary, which surprised me, and defeats my claim that your definition does not reflect common usage. But the question remains whether this is the sense pertinent to what is called faith in matters of religion. The fact that religious believers commonly claim to have evidence for their beliefs seems to me to show that it is not. As I said, they may be mistaken in thinking that what they cite as evidence -- scripture, personal experience, reports of supposed miracles, etc. -- provides genuine support for their beliefs; but they are not making a verbal mistake.

On the other hand, I find it interesting that I had to use the word "belief" here rather than "faith." Many religious believers will say, "I have evidence that supports my beliefs," but I don't think that they would say, "I have evidence that supports my faith." That sounds wrong somehow. My own view is that this is because the word "faith" here implies "trust," which is not the kind of thing that can be supported by evidence. But the observation would also be explained by interpreting the word "faith" to mean "belief without evidence." I'm not sure how to resolve the issue.

 

[LeeEJ]

Going all the way back to the opening post --

...and now I find myself thinking that religious people are gullible or stupid to believe stuff that is closer to fairy tales than reality.

Yup, that's what I think, too. It's not always true, but definitely more often than not.

I end up coming at it from the opposite direction than usual, though. Instead of wondering, "Are religious people stupid?", I wonder if people that I already know to be stupid turn out to be religious as well. When it turns out that they are -- and they almost always are -- it seems to explain a lot.

 

[JustAsking]

...In truth, religions MUST offer answers from an authority that must not be questioned. Period.
Science offers answers from an authority that must be questioned. period.

That is the fundamental difference between science and religion... they both seek to explain the universe and our place in it... but one brooks no disagreement, and the other embraces it.

Phil,
You are starting to really disappoint me. You are saying things about religion that anyone involved in a mainstream denonination would immediately realize that you have no idea what you are talking about. It reminds me of when a Creationist checks into the comment section of a biology science blog and boldly announces that there are no fossils of transitional forms or something.

 

[rheno]

But do you show your faith like the owner of this license plate?

/Jealous

 

[JustAsking]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "Born OK the first time, thank you."

 

[rheno]

<resurrects the topic>


I'm talking "faith" in terms of epistemology, which is a technical branch of philosophy to do with knowledge. Therefore it is a technical definition that would be excepted while discussing this in terms of knowledge.

In this way, evidence is central to having faith.

Yes, Faith has the meaning "trust" in common usage (infact it's the first definition listed in my dictionary, but my definition is the second definition listed).

Anyway, since we were discussing what one can and cannot know, I think that the epistemological definition of faith, that is the definition of faith which refers directly to belief systems, is the most appropriate one to use. In this way, one can have a faulty definition of faith or be using faith in a slightly suspect way when discussing knowledge and belief.

Consider then this perspective, nothing is a fact, you don't know anything for a fact. Think of "my hair is black", what if it's painted blue and you're monochromatic? (you can only see black and white) Or perhaps you can say your hair is black and forget the fact that "colour" is an arbitrary term, what about the differences of colour bees see on the ultraviolet spectrum? Every fact is relative, you can't be sure of anything being a fact. You can also think of the fact that the earth is flat (an old fact!), as such, you can have faith on everything, even facts. And that's a rather complicated way to justify faith under your definition of fact.

Anyways, some facts are just closer to the truth than others, like the fact that the world isn't 5 thousand years old.

Phil,
You are starting to really disappoint me. You are saying things about religion that anyone involved in a mainstream denonination would immediately realize that you have no idea what you are talking about. It reminds me of when a Creationist checks into the comment section of a biology science blog and boldly announces that there are no fossils of transitional forms or something.

I think what phil said is accurate, if you consider the fact that whenever there's a disagreement, instead of settling it, you just make a new religion. (or denomination...)

 

[rheno]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "Born OK the first time, thank you."

I saw a Jesus fish with legs that said Darwin instead of Jesus.

 

[whatireallywant]

I suppose I may feel a little less comfortable around somebody who proclaims their religious beliefs to me, as I see faith as irrational and irrationality as a weakness of character. The same feeling is evoked if somebody tells me they believe the moon landings were faked, etc.

If somebody is racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever then I have no time for them. If that should be accompanied by a religious "validation" then they are still scum. I also despise being preached to. I would never confront a religious person and tell them "YOU ARE WRONG!" because why should I care? I expect no less from them. Mind your own feckin business.

That about covers it. May you be touched by His noodly appendage.

This is pretty much 100% like how I feel about it! :smile:

However, I unfortunately grew up going to a church that I later found out was fundamentalist, and was sexist, racist, homophobic, and sexually repressive. After I stopped going to church for those very reasons at the age of 17, I became very anti-religious for quite a few years. However, now I have returned, sort of... I go to a Unitarian Universalist church, and that's about as liberal a church as you can get! I also know that many mainline Christian denominations and Reform Judiasm aren't too bad on these issues (although even they may be a bit too conservative about sex for me). (Don't know as much about Buddhism, etc. to say one way or the other). So basically, I'm not anti-Christian, or anti-religious, but I AM anti-fundamentalist (of any religion!)

Yeah, I used to work with someone who thought the moon landings were fake, because she said that "The Bible says that God created the sun and moon to be lights for us, and so the moon would be too hot to land on" There seems to be a lot of overlap between the "moon landings were faked" people and fundamentalists. (not saying that all of one group are in the other group, but there does seem to be a lot of overlap...) She was also sexist against women (this is something I never understood - women who are against themselves! But I've known a LOT of them!)

I can't stand being preached to either! That's why I tend to avoid my relatives other than my dad. :biggrin1: (They're also fundamentalists, and sexist, racist and homophobic...ugh...)

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "Born OK the first time, thank you."

I've seen that one too... I've even seen it at church! (gotta love UU's! :biggrin1

 

[whatireallywant]

I saw a Jesus fish with legs that said Darwin instead of Jesus.

I've seen that one at my church too! :smile:

 

[michaang]

My views (and this is of course my personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt) question these things: Is the Bible the word of a deity, or just an extraordinarily popular fiction book that has evolved into a religion? And do you argue that there must be a God because we "can't simply just exist/have always existed, something or someone must have created us"? If so, how can you argue that a God simply exists/has always existed?

Those questions are why I refuse to turn interest into deity-based religions. Currently I'm atheist, and I may look into Buddhism later on.

 

[JustAsking]

I saw a Jesus fish with legs that said Darwin instead of Jesus.

I do have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Intelligent Design" crossed out with a big red X, and written over it, "Retarded Nonsense".

I do like the Darwin fish one, but being a Christian myself, I can't quite bring myself to put that on my car. Most of the Christian world embraces science and evolution. That doesn't mean the fundies are not worthy of ridicule on the science front, though.

 

[JustAsking]

This is pretty much 100% like how I feel about it! :smile:

However, I unfortunately grew up going to a church that I later found out was fundamentalist, and was sexist, racist, homophobic, and sexually repressive. After I stopped going to church for those very reasons at the age of 17, I became very anti-religious for quite a few years. However, now I have returned, sort of... I go to a Unitarian Universalist church, and that's about as liberal a church as you can get! I also know that many mainline Christian denominations and Reform Judiasm aren't too bad on these issues (although even they may be a bit too conservative about sex for me). (Don't know as much about Buddhism, etc. to say one way or the other). So basically, I'm not anti-Christian, or anti-religious, but I AM anti-fundamentalist (of any religion!)

Yeah, I used to work with someone who thought the moon landings were fake, because she said that "The Bible says that God created the sun and moon to be lights for us, and so the moon would be too hot to land on" There seems to be a lot of overlap between the "moon landings were faked" people and fundamentalists. (not saying that all of one group are in the other group, but there does seem to be a lot of overlap...) She was also sexist against women (this is something I never understood - women who are against themselves! But I've known a LOT of them!)

I can't stand being preached to either! That's why I tend to avoid my relatives other than my dad. :biggrin1: (They're also fundamentalists, and sexist, racist and homophobic...ugh...)

Fundamentalists give all Christians a bad reputation. Most mainstream Protestant denominations ordain woman as clergy, and have done so for some time. They all have official policies that welcome gay congregation members. The Episcopalians' head Bishop for the USA is gay. The ELCA Lutherans just voted to ordain gay clergy people who are in a committed relationship. The Bishop of the region that my Lutheran church is in is a woman and she is highly respected in the national organization.

As for science, some 80% of the world's Christians belong to denominations that embrace, encourage, and even vigorously fund science. Their doctrines include social statements that formally accept Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.

I have said this many times before, so I apologize if I would like a broken record on this. Here is a typical social statement on science.

My beef with mainstream denominations is that they are so quiet about all this stuff that their lack of presence in the public dialog leaves a vacuum that gets filled by the very vocal fundamentalists. The real danger is not only to organized religion, but also to the public sector in general, because a lot of this affects public policy.

If the public really was aware that the influence that fundamentalists have on public policy is way out of proportion to their actual numbers they would react differently. There is a huge proportion of regular people who are unduly influenced by all this fundy noise. These are people who would no otherwise castigate gays and deny science, but end up in the gravitational pull of fundamentalist blather.

I see this every day living here on the northern edge of the Bible belt in Ohio.

So forgive me if I am overly defensive about mainstream Christianity. I just want to help people build a better immune system when it comes to the arguments of fundamentalist Christians. Atheist or believer, there is no reason why you have to think that Christian doctrine deems it necessary to hate gays, subjegate woman, deny science, and read the Bible as a literally true inerrant science textbook. The mainstream denominations consider this as heresy.

/soapbox

 

[Calboner]

I saw a Jesus fish with legs that said Darwin instead of Jesus.

My sister had one of those on a medallion on the back of her car. When she got a new Airedale, her son, then about ten years old, named it "Darwin," having got the idea from the medallion. The boy has since graduated from college with a degree in biology.

 

[424365]

I think that no matter the argument it is at least safe to say "I'll believe whatever I want to and you'll believe whatever you want to and neither of us is really worse off for it unless we strap a bomb to our chest or create a miniature black hole".