Posts by AllTimeJeff

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Kate, Little Toe, and RAF thanks for your replies. I will adress Kates remarks first.

You disagree with the fact that JW's are Christian. Fair enough, I will concede that point, as it isn't my main arguement anyway. Thousands of years have been spent in the Christian community where one denomination or sect argues with another over which one is in fact Christian. But that highlights my point on faith. Why are you right? JW's take those same scriptures, as do Catholics, Protestants, LDS, etc, they will look at the same scripture and DISAGREE! Its really amazing to see. I am nuetral as to what JW's claim to be, because they are a cult. It is an accident of history that the Catholics or Protestants today are viewed as mainstream, only because they have been around longer. The fact that you used the bible though Kate doens't answer my question as to why I should trust the bible, thus putting faith in it as the authority of truth and the nature of god.....

Little Toe, it looks like we will have a debate!

Kate: The fact is as far as authentic Christian faith, it is not about the Christian but all about Jesus.
You: Thanks for sharing this. I would respectfully disagree for this reason...
Whether you disagree or not, she's correct. That is exactly what Christian faith is about. It's not about being a member of a religion or denomination. It's simply about Christ. Any faith that doesn't have Christ completely at the heart of it is not considered by any other Christian.

Respectfully, the reason I gave (which you did not include in your reply) is that Jesus said at John 13:35 ""By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." I thought the point was self evident, but you disagree. Ok, why? As you can see above, your reason is that "Any faith that doesn't have Christ completely at the heart of it is not considered by any other Christian." That in no way answered my point or contradicted it. If it isn't about the Christian as Kate said, why did Jesus say that a disciple, i.e. a Christian, would be identified by this criteria? Jesus himself set the criteria, why do you put it upon yourself to disagree with what Jesus said at John 13:35 Little Toe? Isn't Jesus saying here that it IS about the Christian? Please answer this.... If your answer is that you have the right to your thoughts on the matter, please know that I am happy that you do. It seems to me that such a belief about what it means to be a Christian contradicts John 13:35.

Kate: Some find mystery, contradiction and a lack of science in the Bible, I don't.
You: I will let that statement alone. I would be remiss to say that in my view, that statement is wrong.
So why did you proceed to say it then? By your own standards you admit that you are best served by silence on the matter, but then forge ahead. Say what you mean and mean what you say...

No, I am happy to respond, it is just that these threads quickly change discussion if they aren't kept on subject, and my subject was on the nature of faith, not the contradictions and lack of science that appear in the bible. Thus I will say in general that there is little to no evidence of the creative days in Genesis, and the account of a world wide flood is totally without scientific merit. There are doctrinal views on scripture that many consider a mystery, such as our little example above, and contradictions in the bible??? With all respect, I will use my other thread today if you like to argue about biblical contradictions, but surely you know they exist and that much controversy and commentary has surrounded them for centuries. And at the end of the day, what must a believer do when scriptures contradict? They must have FAITH. Which is the whole point of this thread. Where answers are lacking, faith is there as the bridge. Is that good enough for some? Great! I am just asking if there is anything more to faith then that. I am getting many answers, which I appreciate.

I have met God, have faith in what I have seen [subjectively, and thus am unable to prove], and consequently enjoy a religious life through choice. I don't "believe" in religion at all. Every one of your questions is constructed the wrong way around, from a believer's perspective...

Well, there isn't a lot that we can talk about their. Why you and not most others would be my first question, but be that as it may, no one can argue with you. You said you had a discussion with someone you believe to be god. Out of necessity, that can only be good enough for you, I can't take your word for it alone. As far as how my questions are constructed, why are they wrong from a believers point of view? Is it because it demands evidence first before belief?

In fact I'd go so far as to say that if you take all of your questions and reverse them 180* you might come to understand more about believers than all of our words could supply. Life isn't about big rocks, its about every small stone. When you can drown in a couple of inches of water an ocean makes little greater difference.

Feel free to 180 my questions then, and I will be happy to answer. To quote Edie Brickell as to the dangers of water:

I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Do do ya

Chuck me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep
Chuck me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep

EDITED FOR RAF AND NARKISSOS

RAF, I apologize if I didn't understand your point. I do respect your right to belief, just asking for reasons for your faith, if you care to share. If not, that is fine, and I had no intent to ridicule your right to faith.

NARKISSOS, I am most defenitly not a follower of Socrates at all, I haven't read 8 paragraphs attributed to him. I think that as you put it, if I am guilty of jumping from the issue of "benefit/harm" to that of "truth/error", then it might have something to do with the fact that those ideas are related, if not the same thing.

Why may I ask, is it so wrong to ask believers for the reasons as to why they believe. Why is it bad if it is pointed out that no one has answered why I should believe or given persuasive evidence and fact?

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Hello BlackSwan....

It would be impossible to tackle all of your replies to my statements, some of which I feel you may not have understood in their context. One thing that came through loud and clear to me though, is it appears that because so many people get through the day because of faith, you argue that we should .... what.... leave it alone? Just let people believe what they will? If you could clarify that in a sentence or two, that would be great.

Why should you have to justify your faith or lack thereof to anyone? If you have no need for faith or God, then fine. Don't believe. Who cares?

Well, this is a forum about religion, god and faith. I care. Many others do. I asked a question. If it offended you and you don't care, why did you reply?

The fact that a higher power could exist is not an excuse to put faith in it just because it would be nice.
Tell that to a man whose 7 year old daughter dies painfully of cancer and his wife dies of cancer 3 years before. To you it is no big deal. Perhaps you have been through just as much and have come out with no faith. To another faith is what sustains them. Maybe you missed that part. Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster WON'T come DOWN and heal all and bring peace and blah blah blah. But to people, throughout the centuries who have suffered, faith is what sustained them. Is that wrong?

Please sir, allow me to point out that while such tragedies are both sad and common, and I have personally been through a few of them myself, it seems to muddy the waters a bit as to the question. My question wasn't "Do humans have a need to believe in something to get them through the day?" because the answer is an overwhelming YES! Faith in oneself, or the idea that tomorrow could be better then today is not the kind of faith I am referring to. It is faith in the ideas of the supernatural that come from ancient scrolls. I know what you were implying with referring to a fictional hero as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but is he less fictional? If it makes someone feel better to believe in fiction to get him through the day, it still doesn't make it non fiction. For that matter, let me add to your own example: What if your faith/religion/belief mandated that for the rest of the grieving family to feel better, they would have to burn alive the widow of the husband who recently passed away? This is an example of Sutee that is taught in the Hindu religion. Not all Hindu's believe or do this, but some do. Would I be allowed to point out the facts? Would it even be possible, since faith in this unproveable, untestable idea would likely win the day. History teaches us that when you put aside truth for a fantasy, no matter how noble the motive, does a long term dis service to mankind, not the opposite. I would suggest that how to deal with illness and death is something that most of mankind will be dealing with for a long time.. Unfortunatly.

On the flip side why should a person who has faith feel the need to justify their faith to anyone other then themself? In your reality, there is no room for God. Ok. As I said, to a person who is suffering, their reality demands faith to survive. Perhaps it itself is a great product of the mind to keep us alive during times of distress. Who are you to demand that they prove anything to you? If they evangelize that's one thing, but not every person of faith feels the need to do that. If a person tries to evangelize you, you have every right to ask your questions and get answers and if the answers are not rational, you have every right to tell them to let you be. Otherwise........what am I missing?

They don't have to. I was inviting those that wished to answer the question I asked to feel free to do so. I didn't demand anything because I asked, and again, feel free to excuse yourself from this discussion if that is how you feel. If someone doesn't want to offer evidence for what they believe, that is their right. Great! I hope they can go to bed at night safe in the knowledge that somewhere in the world, AllTimeJeff didn't get the answer he demanded of them.... C'mon, re read my posts please. Are you sure you got that right? I asked a thought provoking question, and concluded that first post by saying

I look forward to a lively debate on this. I think about it often. Please note that it is not my intention to attack believers, but rather, to ask believers to defend their beliefs. I hope that it will not be taken personally.

Sorry if you took it personally. Some like to defend what they believe, others don't. I was ready to assume that if they joined in the discussion, they were the kind who wanted to defend their beliefs. Please, if you don't mind, don't defend those that aren't attacked. I didn't attack those who lost daughters and wives to cancer. You are defending pure fiction, because I never said that! Defend an idea or answer the question. You could have framed that example better without implying that it is my goal to take away a persons hope. Sheesh......

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Gee, papa, I'm a danger to society!!

LOL! Not you Little Toe, the idea that you can and should put faith in ideas no one has any idea about. Thanks for allowing me to clarify that.

What about other untestable claims that the bible and other holy books claim? What scrutiny and testing are they held to? That is a key question to me.
Why?
Why is that key? What is this insatiable need to unearth every stone in other peoples' lives? Residual proselytising after a lifetime of training?
Question your questions - why are you asking them? What's my motivation?

You didn't answer my question first. Please allow me to ask you, are you a believer in a religion and thus, have faith in god? If yes, what do you use as evidence? If you haven't given that a lot of thought, would you be willing to admit that?

My motives are explained in my opening salvo on this thread, but it isn't to unearth every stone in others lives. If you could please point out to me in my posts where you get that inference, I will correct it immediatly. I am not going after small stones, but rather, I am investigating the big rocks that constiute faith in untestable and unprovable ideas concerning the nature of god and religion.

If I may ask,why do you believe the way you do? If evidence that you can explain and quantify doesn't matter to you, but you would rather believe with a minimum of evidence, that is your right. Just please make a statement saying such. I am sure you will clarify where you stand, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify myself!

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Thanks Kate!

Jesus Christ has never done any harm to anyone or it would not have been faith in Jesus but something else.

I am not clear on what you mean by this. I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus has done no harm to me or anyone personally. Please allow me to point out though that sincere faith in Jesus as the son of god runs throughout the JW's. Correct? That being the case, all of these millions of sincere JW's are essentially wrong as far as you and I have judged. Their faith motivates a weird view of prosytelizing, of blood, of shunning, of limited contact with the world. Yet, it is precisely their belief that they have faith in Jesus that motivates them. In addition, I know many JW's as well as other more traditional Christians who live life exactly the way you do, who love Christ even more then Jehovah. (they have admitted this to me) Yet, their faith also allows them to practice hurtful things. All in the name of Jesus. That is what the evidence points to. With respect, such a conclusion seems to be a little simplistic. You might feel that others use Jesus and/or hijack "christianity", but that is the precise problem one encounters when you use ancient scrolls about people who lived thousands of years ago, and make the untestable and unproveable claim that from such sources lie the enlightenment and answers for us all.

The fact is as far as authentic Christian faith, it is not about the Christian but all about Jesus.

Thanks for sharing this. I would respectfully disagree for this reason. You make a claim, whether you realized it or not, to know what is authentic, and what isn't authentic Christian faith. In addition, it contradicts what Jesus said

John 13:35 ""By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." NAS 1995 version

By Jesus own teaching, how could it not be about the Christian? And what evidence of this kind of Christianity do we see from Christian religions today? Surely what is authentic to any belief can't be left up to the individual totally. You are for sure an excellent person Kate, but it doesn't in any way defend the claim to truth that Christianity promotes, such as Jesus being the way, truth and life. Nice people exist in the Islamic, Taoist, Buddhist, and yes, Atheist worlds. So one cannot use one persons behavior alone as the measuring stick as to where truth exists and whether or not to put faith in such theologies.

It is a one on one personal relationship that can be measured in tangible ways. There was just a study done that proves that those who live lives of giving and charity live longer healthier happier lives than any other group!

Again, this isn't the exclusive property of Christians. Many live such lives outside Christianity. It essentially proves nothing about the truthfullness of the religion or explain the contradictions.

Some find mystery, contradiction and a lack of science in the Bible, I don't.

I will let that statement alone. I would be remiss to say that in my view, that statement is wrong. Their are many contradictions in the bible, and certainly a lack of science. But that isn't the point of this thread, we will agree to disagree on that one, ok?

Thanks again Kate.

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Hello Proplog2. I just wanted to clarify something. I hope that my attempt at arguing a point isn't being misinterpreted by you or others as an attack, or that I believe that I am in charge. I think however, that the superior arguement should win the day. Thus, I am attempting to quantify my own statements, and merely ask others, believers or otherwise, to please quantify their own statements as well. I am also asking that we try to be as honest as we can, and thus not only promote what we think we know, but also admit what we don't know, as honesty demands...

With that said, I am not going after any particular belief system. What I suggest is dangerous is faith in unproveable, untestable concepts about the nature and beginning of god, of mankind, of planet earth, etc. Faith is acting with certainty on things that no one can be certain of. Doesn't history teach that this is dangerous to do?

This isn't about labeling anyone. If anything, it is the great religions and belief systems of this world that have done the majority of the labelling of others. If you re read my posts thus far, I have not labelled any one. I am making an arguement about the premises of faith and belief systems, and the kind of scrutiny that we (don't) apply to them.

Faith vs Fact is a long fight, but Science has been turning the tide, although frankly, it has been only in the last 2-300 years that Science has been unimpeded by religion trying to use Science for their own ends. Thus, we have accelerated our gathering of facts and knowledge, while supersititious ideas have been the main casualty. With this in mind, I leave off with another quote from a Sam Harris blog that I think sheds some light on our ability to choose what we believe in. I like this quote very much and agree with it.

What does it mean to say that a belief is "freely chosen"? If our beliefs purport to represent any state of the world (physical, historical, contemplative, or even fictional), we do not "choose" them. They tend to be forced upon us by compelling chains of evidence and argument. Did you freely choose to believe that Jesus was crucified rather than guillotined? I doubt it. The biblical account just happens to specify crucifixion, and you find this account compelling. (I presume it is also relevant that Jesus predates the guillotine by over a thousand years.) The point, of course, is that you are not free to believe whatever you want. And people who would avail themselves of such freedom are demonstrably crazy. Consensus really is the gold-standard here, as elsewhere. Consensus, of course, admits of exceptions. It is possible for a solitary genius to have the truth in hand before anyone else realizes it. Eventually, however, others will authenticate his/her results. This is also true of contemplative or classically "mystical" results. Yes, subjective experience is private to a significant degree, but it isn't merely so. Language allows us to form a consensus about what is reasonable to believe even about one's private experiences.

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Hello Apostate Kate!

I realize that this is a sensitive subject, so again, I would like to repeat for your sake and Blackswan as well, that I hope you won't interpret this thread as an attempt to mock or attack you. Again, I am interested in discussing the merits of these ideas.

Because you have faith, it no doubt brings you comfort as you look at a very mad world. You were very sober in your analysis of yourself. We all have to admit there are parts of our personalities that aren't always ethical, nor do we always act the way we would like to. Human behavior is what it is. Religion and faith has long been used as a lens to intepret both good and bad behavior, admittedly, with mixed results.

I would therefore suggest that the evidence says suffering is a result of the powerful lording it over the powerless. Almost universally, religion of all stripes are used to imply god is on the side of the powerful, and Christianity is no exception.

Christ taught many noble things. The passage you quoted about feeding and clothing the hungry and naked is a great example. You then make the immediate jump and say afterward"

Does faith have to more complicated than this? Can Jesus be dangerous? The only ones who thought so were the ones that killed him. My faith is in Him

With all respect, your arguement in the last post wasn't even simple enough to make the link between Jesus humanitarian teachings and the need to put faith in him. And with all respect, Jesus isn't dangerous. According to all available evidence, he died over 2000 years ago. I know Christians say he is alive. Fine. I conceded that this belief comes from ancient scrolls. What other reason do I have for believing that these scrolls are accurate and true?

So again, when I ask for evidence or reasons for belief and faith, what I typically find with believers are platitudes and pithy sayings. But nothing that can be logically argued or supported. That isn't meant to be an insult to believers, but I am curioius at the same time how much intellectual honesty is in evidence (or missing) that allows one to believe such things.

I do appreciate both you Kate and Black Swan sharing your thoughts though.

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Dear Blackswan,

Some comments on your reply:

Faith in a higher power of sorts (fill in defnition of your choice) is not dependant on any holy book.

Over 2 billion alone believe in Christianity or Islam precisely because of a holy book. While theoretically, what you say is possible, from an honest look at those who have faith, they all base it on religous books. Would Christians know to venerate Jesus if the bible didn't say to do this? The fact that a higher power could exist is not an excuse to put faith in it just because it would be nice. It would make me feel better if I told myself over and over again that I have buried treasure in my backyard that I have never seen, but I am sure that it is there. If I really believed that and put faith in it, that would make my day. Is it right to believe so? Am I justified in doing so? Am I justified in thinking that god exists simply because I am alive? It might make me feel better, but what is the justification for the faith itself? Because I would like it to be so? To put faith in something or someone, again, what reasons should I do this? What can a person of faith tell me on the matter?

Before holy books there was faith. Was it absurd? Depends on how you define absurd. To them it was not. To millions who practice earth based religions be it a form of celtic paganism or Native American spirituality, faith is based on the certainity that is found in the cycles of life and death and rebirth. Is that absurd?

History as best man can tell is littered with the solid evidence of ignorance and war that faith promulgated, with or without holy books. As far as the Native Americans go, lets take an example. The rain dance. To be sure it is a part of their culture and history. But with what we now know about weather, are any of us justified to believe that the weather is caused by rain dances of the Indians? Surely if I were investigating the faith of the Native Americans, I would be compelled to ask them to compare their religion and belief system on the weather with what science now knows about it. Who would win that arguement based on fact? Can we base weather forecasts on faith?

Faith in itself is not dangerous. It just is a matter of what you have faith in.

Which is what this is about. Lets look at the evidence. Faith in unproven and unproveable assumptions about the spirit world has dominated mankind. The nature of Jesus (not the historocity of Jesus) is a great example. I don't doubt he was real. But there is no data to suggest that how he is described in the bible is in any way real. The same is true of Muhammed with the Koran. Other religous traditions are very quick to point to the inconsistencies and holes in other faith systems, yet slow, almost blind, to their own.

So is faith in the form of Christianity dangerous? Would the world be a better a place without it?

To (nearly) quote Ghandi: "I love Christ, but I hate your Christians. They are so unlike Christ." Again, faith based on intepretation of unproveable concepts = war, prejudice and discord. For that matter, is it necesarry that I believe that Christ is my savior before I accept the Golden Rule, or to love thy neighbor as thyself? Is it possible that Jesus had a very enlightened view of how man should treat one another? Sure! Does that mean I have to believe he was born of a virgin, executed and resurrected on the third, day and is now god to follow the Golden Rule? Religion is not necesarry for me to treat someone as I want to be treated. It shouldn't be a requirement for me to believe in something absolutely no one can prove before I am a "nice person". It is amazing to see through the lens of the past how quickly Christians forgot the Golden Rule and to love thy neighbor and turn Jesus into the millenial judge when it came to their own political purposes. All because people had FAITH that he was ruling in heaven, thus unspeakable crimes resulted. Where do they get these contradictory ideas about Christ as lover of man and judge of man? The same source, the bible. The only way then I could accept Christ is to turn off what I look at as evidence and say "I am through looking at the facts and am now willing to believe this ancient idea about Jesus. I don't require evidence. I have faith." The evidence and facts point to something else, that Jesus was nothing more then an unusually enlightened man living in a less then enlightened time of human history. His words were recorded, his works, exaggerated. So I need faith to believe in him, or I won't be able to believe that Jesus is savior at all, because their is no factual reason to belive this concept otherwise. Of course, you probably wouldn't be willing to do that with any other major world religion, but you are more likely to do so with Christianity, as it is the religion you grew up around and are familiar with. That does made a difference, doesn't it?

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Hello RAF. I want to use a comment that you made to illustrate a point and ask a question:

Since faith is a personnal thing - to me it should stay as a philosophy forme seen from outside .
The fanatics are Dangerous in many ways

Faith is personal, until someone acts on the precepts of their faith. Whether islamic jihadists, abortion clinic bombers, homosexual bashers, or even the turning down of blood based medicine by JW's, faith as I just demonstrated is never personal, it always seems to be inflicted and enforced. If a political party is more identified as having faith, like is what happening within the Republican party in the USA, can we in all intellectual honesty make the claim that THEIR faith is PERSONAL? Isn't the opposite true, that they are ENFORCING their faith on others?

What if religous moderates admitted: "In all honesty, we have no clue whether Jesus was born of virgin, other then the fact that these old scrolls tell us that." Then the fundamentalists would have no curtain to hide behind. They always had as their arguement, "Its in the bible." But because no one holds the claims the bible makes to the same standards we use to accept belief in anything else, the fundamentalists get a free pass. "We just need to have faith." Thus, the extremists hide behind the fact that most people believe, but the believers don't know for sure why...

If muslims around the world would say "In all honesty, the conversion of Muhammed is unproveable, other then the fact that the Koran says it happned, and the fact that we mistreat women all over the world by the millions and treat them as property is immoral. We need to examine our beliefs and see if they stand up to scrutiny." Where would Bin Laden hide behind? He would have no allies, and it would 1000 times easier to arrest him for his murderous crimes.... You would have hundreds of millions of women who would be able to contribute as world citizens. It is often the ones who are oppressed who make the greatest strides in the world when it comes to human rights and living conditions, because they understand, they haven't been living the high life. What a great thing that would be.

But we won't have that as long as religion of any stripe enforces ancient, immoral ideas that keep people down and enforces discriminatory ideas. The fact that moderates have pruned a few discrininatory ideas doesn't get rid of the rest of them. Why should we believe in such a circumstance? It doesn't promote world citizenship, it promotes a narrow minded view of the world that puts millions of people down without any rights whatsoever. That is the legacy of faith, right?

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

Interesting thought Narkissos. I believe that all remedies are poison when they needlessly follow the same premise. If insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting different results, then it is clear that to look to faith based intitiatives to solve complex social problems and war isn't likely to get us very far. That being the case, if all the remedies have been based on faith and religion, (and I think you can make that arguement) then it is time for a broader, inclusive world view, one that desgnates and relegates religion of any stripe, belief and faith of any stripe as subordinate at best.

My question continues to be, what criteria do you subject your beliefs and faith system? The fact that a nice person may have absurd beliefs doesn't make his beliefs any less absurd. Nor does it suggest that a person acting "nicely" in one context will turn into an "un-nice" person in a different circumstance.

The fact that there are people who don't believe in god or lack faith in religion and yet engage in criminal activities doesn't mean that they are wrong to not believe that god doesn't exist. The purpose of this thread isn't to highlight divisions as to what people believe or to charecterize them. Rather, it is simply to put belief and faith under a microscope, get under the hood, and find out what reasons believers have for believing, and if these reasons stand up to scrutiny, worthy of being believed.

85

Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff in

i hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible.

here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex jw's on this board.

that means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of jw to one degree or another.

AllTimeJeff

I hope this will be as respectful a debate as possible. Here is the premise: many of us (most) seem to be ex JW's on this board. That means, whatever your motivation, for a time you bought into the theology of JW to one degree or another. Doubtless, we all had to have some faith in an unseen god, believing that he has revealed himself through the bible....

Since that time, (if you have left) you have re-examined what you believe, and why you do so. Many still believe in god upon leaving, others feel that they either can't or shouldn't. For my part, I consider myself an agnostic, and by that, I mean that I haven't yet ruled out god, but have seen no evidence put forth that would persuade me to believe in god. Does it matter what one believes or not? Do we have the right to believe whatever we choose to?

I would argue that we do not, esp if one believes and then ACTS based on beliefs that are indefensible and dangerous. That is what I want to talk about. I read Sam Harris book, "The End of Faith" several months ago, and am getting ready to purchase "Letter to a Christian Nation." I think that his arguements are very solid and respectful. After several months of thought, I do believe that his suggestion of a world that is no longer divided by religion truly is mans best hope in a time of terrorism and war. (btw, if you have read much of what Harris has to say, you will probably recognize much of what I write below as his arguements, but I think the arguements themsevles are so powerful that they merit some discussion for those leaving JW's)

His arguement, which I agree with, is that religous moderates are as much to blame for the fundamentalists and extremists that cause so much damage today. Moderates will acknowledge that they cannot defend everything they put faith in. Since most people consider themselves religous and Christian, they have no choice but to accept many propositions on the basis of faith. They were born and raised in a theological tradition that profoundly affects them on at least some level. But these believers are also moderates, so for example, they will not keep women down and deny them their civil rights, (rights that were denied to them until the 20th century because of religous traditions found in the bible...) or propose that disrespectful children be stoned to death, or that someone who commits fornication be stoned, as Dueteronomy commands. Why don't they obey the bible in these cases? Because it is offensive and non sensical. Could anyone who is a believer today make an arguement for stoning of children or that women should be viewed as the property of their husbands? Yet, you can't argue that it isn't in the bible. But moderates will disobey this passage out of a sense of enlightenment. What about other untestable claims that the bible and other holy books claim? What scrutiny and testing are they held to? That is a key question to me.

I think a good way to illustrate the power and danger of faith is what we see in the religion of Islam. For sure, there are moderates, esp in the West, who condemned tge 9/11 attatcks. But look at the terrorists and the jihadists themselves. Even Bin Laden. These aren't stupid, dumb, men. They are educated, often in the West, with billions of dollars. What caused them to hate the West, give up their fortunes, kill themselves and give up their fortunes and comfortable life? Their own holy book, the Koran. What caused 19 men on 9/11 to kill themselves and 3000 others? FAITH in a concept from an ancient book that gave them license to do what they do. FAITH that at the time of their death they would live again and have several dozen virgins take care of their every need in heaven..... Of course, Christianity has no freeness of speech here. They might be 3-500 years ahead of Islam, but it wasn't that long ago that because of their own peculiar faith and understanding in the bible, we had witch burnings, book burnings, and the supression of free and scientific thought (as Galileo famously experienced), all because of FAITH in an ancient book that described god exisiting in a certain way..... What about Christian terrorists today, who feel totally free to kill homosexuals or bomb the occasional abortion clinic. Why? What could motivate them to do such things? They are just as rephrehesible as Islamic Terrorists. And of course, you have to have your head in the ground to be unaware that the current Pres of the USA is so resolute because he has FAITH that the actions of the USA in the fight against terror is approved by Jesus.... WHAT? WHY?

I highlight FAITH because frankly, what other reason is there to belive that Muhammed flew away to heaven on the back of a horse, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, was resurrected, and will return to judge the earth? People believe in such things for a variety of reasons, but why? Isn't it a fact that we all assimilate the faith and culture of our land of birth? We have to be honest and say that if we were born in the middle east, we would likely be Muslim, and many of us would probably in all sincerity think Islam was THE way, and that Christians were pagan, desrving of death through Jihad. Those of middle eastern descent who are born here in the west and absorb western culture, values, and religous beliefs, so they too believe in the cause of the USA against terrorism...... Other then the accident of ones birth, how can one quantify claims to faith and truth? Look at the damage it causes.

I look forward to a lively debate on this. I think about it often. Please note that it is not my intention to attack believers, but rather, to ask believers to defend their beliefs. I hope that it will not be taken personally. I leave here with a quote from Harris that I hope will further stimulate this discussion. Thanks!

"It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: Either people have good reasons for what they believe, or they do not. When they have good reasons, their beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" sciences here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines, like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely on "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque-that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the Bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to Heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower."