Is "Faith" dangerous?

[tommjames]

Is 'faith' dangerous? Is it as some say, a 'brain virus'? Does faith cause more problems than it 'solves'?? Is it dangerous to believe something for which you have no empirical evidence, relying instead on a pastiche of quasi-philosophical pontifications??

My questions are not rhetorical, and I would appreciate your sincere views.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by tommjames
Is 'faith' dangerous? Pragmatically, I'd say faith is mostly harmless. It only really gets dangerous when people rely on faith rather than good judgement, like praying instead of going to a doctor when sick.

[tommjames]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Pragmatically, I'd say faith is mostly harmless. It only really gets dangerous when people rely on faith rather than good judgement, like praying instead of going to a doctor when sick.

But what about, say, when a muslim decides he would like to perform a suicide bombing, driven by his faith that he will be rewarded in heaven by 72 vestal virgins?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by tommjames

But what about, say, when a muslim decides he would like to perform a suicide bombing, driven by his faith that he will be rewarded in heaven by 72 vestal virgins? See, I would call that relying on faith rather than good judgement.

[tommjames]

Originally posted by Upchurch
See, I would call that relying on faith rather than good judgement.

Erm, but relying on faith is the whole point I'm getting at. The whole point of faith is that you rely on it rather than judgement, be it good judgement or any other.

Perhaps I should clarify my question...

Is a reliance on 'faith' as opposed to personal judgement dangerous? Is it as some say, a 'brain virus'? Does faith cause more problems than it 'solves'?? Is it dangerous to believe something for which you have no empirical evidence, relying instead on a pastiche of quasi-philosophical pontifications??



:)

[Marc]

Faith is like wandering around blindfolded in a trap filled maze. Maybe nothing bad will happen by following it, maybe tragedy will strike, but it is plunging ahead without reason. It will not help you avoid the traps or find the exit.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by tommjames

Is a reliance on 'faith' as opposed to personal judgement dangerous?Oh, well, if you put it that way, then yes.
Is it as some say, a 'brain virus'? Does faith cause more problems than it 'solves'?? Is it dangerous to believe something for which you have no empirical evidence, relying instead on a pastiche of quasi-philosophical pontifications?? Does faith cause more problems than it solves? That's hard to say. Depends on the context you put it in, I suppose.

If you were to ask, do organized religions cause more problems than they solve, I'd have to say no. For every suicide cult or fundamentalist extremists, there are probably a hundred churches out there that actually help the poor and the sick, that bring comfort and community to their members, and that genuinely try to practice the morality that they preach. I have the feeling that if religious wackos didn't have religion, they'd just be some other kind of wacko.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Marc
Faith is like wandering around blindfolded in a trap filled maze.


No, it is not, as that is a metaphor of your choosing, probably somewhat biased to reflect the fact that you believe faith is dangerous, as I could easily say that faith is like walking in a peaceful open meadow with blue skies and fresh air, and enjoying the scenery and not looking where you are going so sometimes you walk in circles. :)

I think faith can be dangerous, and that it all depends on what you believe in, but mostly how you believe in it. I think if someone believes in homeopathy, somewhat of a big deal. But it is more important if they are fundamental in their belief, or if they still have an open mind about them.

[Eos of the Eons]

I just think of all the fighting over Israel **shudders**

[evildave]

One may as well ask if electricity is dangerous: Normally it's just a useful tool, but in the hands of lunatics and morons, YES, it's dangerous.

Is lightning dangerous? If you take simple precautions, it's just pretty lights and noise. If you run around with a metal pole in the rain on top of a mountain....

[Yahweh]

What good is faith?

Some might argue faith can give comfort when tragedy strikes, but comfort can come from anywhere. The faithless are no out in the cold as others would have you believe when it comes to tragic episodes that are bound to occur in life.

For all the churches who help the poor and feed the hungry, that is very nice. Just as many of these organizations would help just as many needy with or without the religious significance.

Having faith is a rather "dumb" reason to rationalize a false view of the reality.

I wouldnt call faith a "brain-virus", that seems a little extreme. It seems more like a brickwall in rationalism that just doesnt need to be there.

Is faith dangerous? There are degrees of danger, it seems faith for the most part isnt dangerous but it just doesnt do any good (and it hurts the critical thinking muscle), it seems like most faith is level 1 or 2 on a danger scale of 1 to 10. (Sometimes you get the extremist... that point has already been brought up in the thread...)

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by tommjames
Is 'faith' dangerous? Is it as some say, a 'brain virus'? Does faith cause more problems than it 'solves'?? Is it dangerous to believe something for which you have no empirical evidence, relying instead on a pastiche of quasi-philosophical pontifications??

My questions are not rhetorical, and I would appreciate your sincere views.

What do you all think of this distiction between being rational, having faith, and being delusional?

being rational - believing something because we have good evidence pointing to that belief.

having faith - having a belief that doesn't have strong evidence for or against it.

being delusional - believing something when there is good evidence
against it.


Hmm, I realize that the content of the belief is a huge factor, so if it is possible , assume that we're talking about the same belief. i.e., for a given belief x, you are rational to believe it if there is good evidence in support of it. you are demonstrating faith if x doesn't have evidence either for or against it. finally, you are delusional if you believe x even though x has strong support against it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
See, I would call that relying on faith rather than good judgement. But still in the act of exercising our good judgment that requires faith doesn't it? For we don't in fact "know," although we might have a good idea, what the actual outcome is going to be when we act upon it.

So in that sense when we say man is a creature of faith, then that makes a great deal of sense.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But still in the act of exercising our good judgment that requires faith doesn't it? For we don't in fact "know," although we might have a good idea, what the actual outcome is going to be when we act upon it.

So in that sense when we say man is a creature of faith, then that makes a great deal of sense.
There are 2 types of faith:

1. Blind Faith
2. And Evidenced Faith

The only thing Blind Faith requires is blind belief. Blind Faith can never be used to assert positive belief or disbelief, it is perfectly justifyable for "personal belief". It doesnt mean anything in terms of determining what is "true" or "untrue".

Evidenced Faith requires evidence. When you say "I am going to throw this ball, and it will travel a parabolic path through the air", then you need evidence to back that claim up. You can cite the Laws of Physics as your evidence, or you could perform an experiment, or you could cite examples where this observation in similar conditions has always been correct.

However, when you assert a positive claim that requires evidence, but the Evidenced Faith is contradicted by currently existing evidence, you must reject the faith. Refusing to do so, and that Evidenced Faith becomes labeled with a term called "Willful Ignorance".

Exercising Good judgement is a form of Evidenced Faith, not Blind Faith. If we are creatures of faith, we ought to be creatures of Evidenced Faith.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Exercising Good judgement is a form of Evidenced Faith, not Blind Faith. If we are creatures of faith, we ought to be creatures of Evidenced Faith. Yes, if it wasn't "self-evident," then it would be unknowable. ;)

[fishbob]

I'd say faith is mostly harmless. Earth was mostly harmless too. And look what happened when the Vogons got there.

[tommjames]

It always amuses me when religious types proclaim that science all comes down to faith, and that fundamentally, science is just another religion like theirs :rolleyes:

I see science as what Yahweh called 'Evidenced Faith'. Obviously when we perform scientific experiments and form scientific conclusions we are submitting to faith in some small way (faith that the laws of physics won't just, erm, change etc), but I don't think it's hard to see this is largely irrelevant given that the laws of physics, the universe as we know it, quantum mechanics, spacial relativity etc etc is all we humans have to go on, and all we have ever had. What relevance has faith to our everyday lives?? I'm not talking about the notion of letting, say, faith in Christ guide you through life... I'm talking about when we make our literal everyday decisions,... when we walk, talk, eat, sleep, fill our car up, take the dog for a walk, balance our cheque book etc etc. What use is faith then? None whatsoever I'd say, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suppose most religious people would agree with me on that. Given that faith plays virtually no part in our lives in this context, why do people give faith such credence when it comes to broader issues of religion, morality, world views etc? Where and when does it suddenly cross the line from being simply a dangerous nonsense to some kind of advantageous or righteous way of thinking? Why do so many people build their way of life based on something that plays no part in the SUBSTANCE of what they get up to day in day out?

[Iacchus]

If you don't have any faith in "your" being here, then why bother? You see that's the whole point, there's nothing about the human experience which is not "subjective." Except for my statement here of course. ;)

[tommjames]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you don't have any faith in "your" being here, then why bother? You see that's the whole point, there's nothing about the human experience which is not "subjective." Except for my statement here of course. ;)

Indeed. I say the only thing we can truly be sure of is our subjective experience.

One thing though..... so what?

Should we just shut our brains off and do nothing because we can't truly be sure what we are doing or where or what we are? Should we not take a trip to the shop to buy food because we can't truly be sure we are not driving off the edge of a cliff in some absolute reality to which we may or may not be blind?

Our subjective perceptions are all we have. Therefore it makes sense to have 'faith' in them. My point about faith being dangerous though was based inside this subjective universe, where things that have no empircal evidence, within the context of the laws of our subjective experience, are to be beleived blindly.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tommjames

Should we just shut our brains off and do nothing because we can't truly be sure what we are doing or where or what we are? Should we not take a trip to the shop to buy food because we can't truly be sure we are not driving off the edge of a cliff in some absolute reality to which we may or may not be blind?No, that's where the faith comes in. If I knew that the world was going to end tomorrow, why would I bother to get up and go to work in the morning?


Our subjective perceptions are all we have. Therefore it makes sense to have 'faith' in them. My point about faith being dangerous though was based inside this subjective universe, where things that have no empircal evidence, within the context of the laws of our subjective experience, are to be beleived blindly. But then again, as you say, it's all subjective. Yes, I believe people can be "brainwashed" in the name of religion -- or, anything else for that matter -- it happens all the time. But, does that mean all religion is inherently bad? I wouldn't think so, though I believe much of it is predisposed this way. And do you know why? Because man is a creature of faith.

[jimlintott]

Ideas aren't dangerous, people are dangerous.

Many of these ideas, like religion or faith, spawn different behaviours in people. Faith causes one person to want to feed all the starving people in some third world country and yet it causes another to have his cult drink poison kool-aid and die with him.

An idea is helpless on its own. It takes a person to interpret it and act on it.

[jimmygun]

The human being is a social animal. It forms societies and tries for the most part to get along because it is programmed that way. We distain killing of our own kind but faith allows one group to kill another group by simply putting that group into another category.

We have an instintive behaviour to get along with others, faith over rides that instinct and gives permission to kill, imprison, beat, torture, you name it, because "GOD" says its okay.

Is that dangerous? Duh.

[c4ts]

Blind faith isn't dangerous, it's the people taking advantage of it that are.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by c4ts
Blind faith isn't dangerous, it's the people taking advantage of it that are.

Very well put.

Blind faith makes people easy to control. It's usually harmless, but if the right person comes along...

[Upchurch]

Analogously, we're at the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" stage of the argument. A contributing factor, however, is that if there were fewer guns, there would be less opportunity for people to kill other people. Likewise, if there where less blind faith, there would be less opportunity for others to take advantage of their blind faith.

When blind faith is used by unscrupulous people, I think there is plenty of blame to be shared by all involved.

[Marc]

blind faith does not require someone to take advantage of it to be dangerous. True believers have lead themselves to their own dooms often enough.

[jimmygun]

Faith doesn't kill people, people kill people. All faith does is give them permission to kill.

Faith sometimes demands that people kill people as in Fatwah or crusade or killing of witches or you name it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people but you never hear a gun demand the death of another human being. Or excuse it. Or rationalize it. Or sidestep responsibility for it.

Is faith dangerous? Duh.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Yahweh

There are 2 types of faith:

1. Blind Faith
2. And Evidenced Faith

The only thing Blind Faith requires is blind belief. Blind Faith can never be used to assert positive belief or disbelief, it is perfectly justifyable for "personal belief". It doesnt mean anything in terms of determining what is "true" or "untrue".

Can you give some examples here? Are you talking about things that are only a matter of taste (for example, I like oranges better than apples)?

Originally posted by Yahweh
Evidenced Faith requires evidence. When you say "I am going to throw this ball, and it will travel a parabolic path through the air", then you need evidence to back that claim up. You can cite the Laws of Physics as your evidence, or you could perform an experiment, or you could cite examples where this observation in similar conditions has always been correct.

However, when you assert a positive claim that requires evidence, but the Evidenced Faith is contradicted by currently existing evidence, you must reject the faith. Refusing to do so, and that Evidenced Faith becomes labeled with a term called "Willful Ignorance".

Exercising Good judgement is a form of Evidenced Faith, not Blind Faith. If we are creatures of faith, we ought to be creatures of Evidenced Faith.

I do not think that the use of the word "faith" is appropriate in your definitions.
Faith doesn't involve taking into consideration evidence http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:faith

What you are describing is what philosophers call "being a good epistemic agent". You should believe in things that has strong evidence for, disbelieve in things that has strong evidence against, and suspend judgment if the issue is undecided. That's why I made the disctinctions I made in my previous post.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by tommjames
It always amuses me when religious types proclaim that science all comes down to faith, and that fundamentally, science is just another religion like theirs :rolleyes:

I see science as what Yahweh called 'Evidenced Faith'. Obviously when we perform scientific experiments and form scientific conclusions we are submitting to faith in some small way (faith that the laws of physics won't just, erm, change etc), but I don't think it's hard to see this is largely irrelevant given that the laws of physics, the universe as we know it, quantum mechanics, spacial relativity etc etc is all we humans have to go on, and all we have ever had. What relevance has faith to our everyday lives?? I'm not talking about the notion of letting, say, faith in Christ guide you through life... I'm talking about when we make our literal everyday decisions,... when we walk, talk, eat, sleep, fill our car up, take the dog for a walk, balance our cheque book etc etc. What use is faith then? None whatsoever I'd say, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suppose most religious people would agree with me on that. Given that faith plays virtually no part in our lives in this context, why do people give faith such credence when it comes to broader issues of religion, morality, world views etc? Where and when does it suddenly cross the line from being simply a dangerous nonsense to some kind of advantageous or righteous way of thinking? Why do so many people build their way of life based on something that plays no part in the SUBSTANCE of what they get up to day in day out?

Perhaps the distinction that needs to be made is "religion" versus "science". Religion in this regard involves setting up moral standards (like "thou shalt not kill"). Defined in this way, the term faith becomes irrelevant, unless it involves believing in unprovable tenets of the religion. Religion in this sense is akin to the term "philosophy" in the general sense. Science involves the enterprise of gaining empirical evidence to know about the natural world. If both terms are defined in this way, then both serve a role. One gives direction and meaning in our lives (and surely you can't be content in just eating, sleeping, and walking your dog?), the other informs us in better coping with the physical world.

[jimlintott]

Is Nationalism dangerous?

I find the gun analogy a bit weak. If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, the outcome is quite predictable. If I fill your head with the idea of blind faith, it is difficult to predict the outcome. It will still come back to what you decide to do with it.

To flat out generalise that faith is dangerous is to ignore the massive number of people who claim to be faithful but live ordinary mundane lives just like most of us.

[jimmygun]

Yes nationalism is dangerous. It does the same thing as religion, it gives permission to hate and kill others simply because they are not of your nation.

Is faith dangerous? Yes. Is it the only danger? No. But nationalism aligned with faith is dangerous in the extreme.

As far as the vast majority of people of faith going about their daily business, not causing harm personally, the danger is that the faithful are expected to stand idly by and allow dangerous activities to happen. They must have faith that their leaders speak for god and it is god's intention that people should suffer and die.

When you have a system which allows and encourages radical and harmful behaviour and a broad base of docile supporters you have the formula for evil and suffering. When the ordinary masses of the faithful rally to the faiths defense inspite of all the atrocities committed in its name then the atrocities continue.

As far as the good deeds done in faith, I could point out that Al Capone set up soup kitchens during the depression but that did not make him any less a murderer. Of course good has come from faith. Does it balance out the evil done in its name? Nowadays more and more light is being shed on the so-called good that faith does and the evils are more evident.

Mother (soon to be saint) Teresa was touted as the be all and end all of good deeds, but did she really do all that? It comes to light that the millions collected on her behalf did nothing to ease the sufferings of her minions, but to erect buildings and churches for her own gratification. Is this the good you speak of?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by tommjames


Erm, but relying on faith is the whole point I'm getting at. The whole point of faith is that you rely on it rather than judgement, be it good judgement or any other.

Perhaps I should clarify my question...

Is a reliance on 'faith' as opposed to personal judgement dangerous? Is it as some say, a 'brain virus'? Does faith cause more problems than it 'solves'?? Is it dangerous to believe something for which you have no empirical evidence, relying instead on a pastiche of quasi-philosophical pontifications??



:)

Faith is required in almost any effort, yet acting upon 'faith' depends solely on the definition of 'faith'.

Faith is like giving , good giving is giving without taking. Faith is the process of learning to do any thing 'your better judgement' says not to. In any situation humans seem to be proffered a wide arrays of very poor choices and then some not so poor choices, etc. In my humble esstimation the root cause of suffering is to make choices that are based upon a total lack of better judgement.

An alcoholic who doesn't drink takes it on faith that it is going to make them feel better to not drink. When I go to bed at night, I am taking it on faith that I will awake the next day. I try to live my life as though there is no tomorrow, but there are choices my better judgement says I should do because it will benefit me in the future.

Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that seems to be what I call faith. Not some blind self sacrifce to blind authority of any sort but faith in wisdom. If I always do the best thing then I never have to worry about the future.

Faith in god, well gravity seems fairly consistent, as does inertia, I will take them as my gods since they seem less capricous than most.

[fishbob]

I find the gun analogy a bit weak. If I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, the outcome is quite predictable. If I fill your head with the idea of blind faith, it is difficult to predict the outcome. It will still come back to what you decide to do with it.
I like the gun analogy. Which is more dangerous - the predictable hazard or the unpredictable hazard? The phrase "loose cannon" refers to an unpredictable hazard - you don't know who is going to be damaged more when the thing goes off.

[jimlintott]

These are some good points but ultimately my point is that it is people who are dangerous not ideas. People have murdered over the outcome of sporting events. People have murdered to steal a piece of clothing. Is vanity dangerous? People have murderd for love. Is love dangerous?

I have this thing about personal responsibilty. Ideas only become dangerous when people choose to make them that way. I will certainly agree that some ideas like faith and nationalism may not always bring out the best behaviour in people but people are far from predictable. Blame the people not the ideas.

If some rational skeptic decides to pummel Kent Hovind during a debate would we consider skepticism to be dangerous? There is a large group of people who consider skeptics and atheists to be very dangerous and are likely to be having a very similar debate right now.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, if it wasn't "self-evident," then it would be unknowable. ;)
Absolutely wrong.

Are you aware of something scientists would call "discovery"?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Can you give some examples here? Are you talking about things that are only a matter of taste (for example, I like oranges better than apples)?
Deism is a fine example.

Dualism is another example. However asserting Dualism is more likely than Materialism is where that belief suddenly morphs into Evidenced Faith, and that is where the trouble starts.

Most metaphysical Philosophies fit nicely into the real of "Blind Faith" (only as long as they remain blind faith, and nothing more than that).

I dont have a problem when people say "I believe in the Christian God", however I will likely take issue when someone says "I have proof of the existence of the Christian God". I would equally have a problem when someone would deny some aspect of science *coughEVILUTIONcough* because they want to preserve their religious convictions.

I do not think that the use of the word "faith" is appropriate in your definitions.
Faith doesn't involve taking into consideration evidence http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:faith
I thought the word "Evidenced Faith" was a bit oxymoronic.

In actuality, I was trying to call "science" by a name which Iaachus could relate to.

I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned. (Creationists hate that logic... heeheehee...)



I particularly dislike the "Evolution requires faith" type arguments. I find it applied with a dishonest doublestandard. I dont like the idea of denying the occurence of evolution because it requires faith, yet upholding religiously beliefs with the same faith.

I dont particularly like the idea of mixing around Evidenced Faith (or science) with Blind Faith in the same argument.



Keep in mind, the word "faith" does not always refer to the supernatural. Being a skeptic, its very easy to begin associating the word "faith" with supernaturalism.

What you are describing is what philosophers call "being a good epistemic agent". You should believe in things that has strong evidence for, disbelieve in things that has strong evidence against, and suspend judgment if the issue is undecided. That's why I made the disctinctions I made in my previous post.
And I very much agree.

[Zero]

I think the defining attribute is the outcomes of behavior. If the faith in question has negative outcomes, then it is dangerous. If you believe that God looks out for you, but you also believe that God helps those who help themselves, then the two ideas cancel each other out, and you are ok. On the other hand, if you engage in dangerous behavior with the idea that you are untouchable because of faith, then that faith is dangerous.

BTW, idiot Iacchus needs to look up the definitions of "faith" and "confidence". I don't have "faith" in things like gravity or my seat belt, but I do have "confidence" based on evidence.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned. (Creationists hate that logic... heeheehee...)


A very nice strategy!

[tommjames]

Originally posted by Dancing David

An alcoholic who doesn't drink takes it on faith that it is going to make them feel better to not drink.

I disagree. Everybody knows that alcohol is harmfull to the human body. Everybody knows that becoming addicted to substances has a negative effect on quality of life, and that hence breaking free of that addiction will make you feel better. I don't really see how faith comes into it.

Originally posted by Dancing David

When I go to bed at night, I am taking it on faith that I will awake the next day.

Again I disgree. For you not to wake the next day, you would have had to either slipped into a coma or be dead. We know from observations in everyday life that this is very improbable. Therefore, a beleif that you will wake the next day is reasonable. Since you have awoke every day in your entire life, it is not unreasonable to assume you will awake the next day. You cannot say for SURE that you will wake up, but 100% confirmation is not required in order to come to a reasoned conclusion based on evidence.

Originally posted by Dancing David
Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that seems to be what I call faith..

Same applies here I feel.

[espoirpaz]

I think the process in which one arrives to a conclusion is very important. Faith, "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," is what i consider to be a flawed process for arriving to conclusions. Instead we should look to science, which is at least self-correcting.

While many people who use faith as a process for coming to conlusions tell me that faith is harmless, I can not ignore that faith is what drives many people to be anti-abortion, against homosexuals, and against the advancement of scientific knowledge. In the end, people's faith is leading them to conclusions that affect my life in negative ways.

[nelsondogg]

I think faith is dangerous, to my health at least. The drive to ban research on cloning or research using fetal stem cells is driven primarily by religion/faith. It very well may be that the development of medical cures or treatments of some disease I may come down with in the future will be blocked because of a group of people's faith.

[jimmygun]

People of faith got together in Britain in the early part of the 1900's and forced the authorities to withhold the new miracle drug penicillin from syphylis sufferers. How many died from the lack of a simple needle is beyond comprehension.

In the early 80's people of faith tried to block the investigation into the aids epidemic stating that it was god's way of punishing gays. How many withered and died because of this prejudice is unimaginable.

Is faith dangerous? Duh!