Religious faith is not good

Are you talking about blind faith or religious faith? If you are suggesting that blind faith defines religious faith to any significant degree, it is a straw man argument.

Here are some tenants of christian faith;

Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you, ask and you shall receive.

The measure you give is the measure you receive, (stating a law of perception).

Do not judge by appearances but rather use right judgment.

Be charitable.

Faith without works, is dead.

Actually religion springs from the esoteric experience and doctrine is cultural interpretation.

I usually say all anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. I will mend a fence with dejavu and drop, all, from the statement.

Is it still a classic buddhist statement?
What if I say it this way, "the truth shall set you free"?
Hummm, not so sectarian a sentiment after all.

You have already allowed that belief in supernatural beings has no effect on humanity at large. By definition it cannot, supernatural not existing in nature.
Or do you claim this type of belief to be detrimental at large after all?

You can't expect yourself to be the measure of true faith.

 

Your point may be valid, but you've yet to provide substantiation for why it is inherently wrong to be open to the acceptance of unsubstantiated facts. I would make the opposite point, that atheism tends to train the human mind to be closed to any realm of thought that doesn't fit easily into an experimental method. I see that as a downfall.

If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that a person with an open mind to an idea is much more likely to learn and benefit from the idea than a person whose mind is closed to it.

 

Man's initial response to the universe is what he sees and interprets as the result of the other four senses. The only reasonable explanation for man's need to believe in a deity is his response to the unknown fact of his origins. Just because something cannot yet be explained by science does not automatically mean that a deity is involved. It is a very primitive thought process to automatically attribute a deity to anything that cannot be explained, especially in today's society.

 

Your premise is by nature, exclusionary and divisive, and it's conclusion is pseudo scientific.

The reason we are able to learn to the extent that we can manipulate the environment in our favor is that we are born wholly trusting. We learn our figures in school because we had accepted the information as authoritative.
This propensity to accept instruction is not caused by religious faith. The kind of blind faith you are talking about is an arrested development, a lack of curiosity and ambition, a failure to take responsibility for what is seen. Religion is not by definition, a hypnotic inducement to ignorance.

Sorry to hear that as I would like to hear your treatment of the questions I asked you.

 

I understand that without the personal experience of god, the idea may seem very strange and alien to you. I understand that you don't see any reasonable explanation for man's need to believe in a deity, other than the one you've presented.

Are you really so closed minded as to think that there can be no possible explanation if there isn't one immediately available to your mind? I believe in god because of a personal experience I had, and because I understand god in a way which doesn't automatically go against the grounding I keep in logic and reasoning. So would you call me a liar? Would you simply disregard the possibility that my faith stems from anywhere but my ignorance? The way you speak about the faithful is overtly derogatory and debasing. It shows your prejudices and heuristics which lead you to maintain a closed mind.

Just because something cannot yet be explained by science does not automatically mean that it must be ridiculous and untrue either.

 

I'd say there are more reasons than that. I think my religion is based on a sense that the experience of being alive, conscious and intelligent is amazing, and while I'm open to scientific explanations I also feel the sense of awe and exhilaration that scientists like Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Einstein and Carl Sagan have expressed about the laws of physics. I think it is remarkable that, against apparently extraordinary odds, we're here to be communicating on the internet--conscious, presumably intelligent life forms talking about God. That's something we may take for granted, but evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould tells us that if Pikaia hadn't survived the Burgess extinction we wouldn't be having this nice conversation. Of course, Gould would have said "so what?" So that's the choice. Is intelligent life too cool for school or "so what?" Who can ever "prove" that? It's a matter of attitude and opinion. But our attitudes and opinions can affect how we relate to people and make our way in the world. I think the teachings and example of Jesus serve me well in that regard.

True, but it doesn't mean that a deity isn't involved, that science will inevitably come up with a naturalistic explanation, and if it doesn't it's illegitimate to believe in anything. Despite the contention that atheism is simply non-belief in a deity, it's obvious that the atheists who post in this forum have a positive belief that there is no deity and/or that belief in one is primitive, childish and harmful. The "evidence" put forward is more impressionistic than scientific. Ironically, the OP illustrates the point with her theory that religious faith "is not good" because it involves belief without proof. Is there "proof "of her propostion? If not, should we dismiss it as ridiculous, primitive, and harmful? It certainly has the potential for being harmful, because it engenders animosity or disdain for people who make up the overwhelming majority of the world's population. But I defend the post because she's made a reasoned effort, based on a certain amount of personal knowledge, to think about reality, come to a conclusion about it, and share it with us. That is valuable, and her post was interesting. She obviously has a solid base of knowledge on which to form opinions, although that's not exactly "proof". I just think there is a lot of denial on the part of atheists that their own positions rest on impressions and assumptions not unlike the kind Christians call "faith". They're opinions, and they become dangerous only when they're uninformed and close-minded (Note: I didn't say the OPs were, I'm just making an analogy.

I use "faith" in the way Martin Luther did: as a "joyful bet". But I like my bets to be educated. I narrow the odds as much as I can--none of this "leap of faith" stuff; more like a hop. As Reagan said: "Trust, but verify". And getting back to Gould, he said: "I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise...Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition." Amen!

 

Uhh, Meagain's a guy right? lol

 

Sorry about the gender confusion. No slight intended.

As for the posts. Obviously the definition of "faith" given in the atheist primer, certainty without proof, is way different from my and Luther's "joyful bet." Nothing is certain, not even that. I gather that some Christians think "faith" is a shortcut to truth. While scientists struggle with their archaeological digs and laboratory experiments, we religious folks can simply say "I believe" and Presto! Instant knowledge! I even gather that some Christians think they're getting their faith from the outside, beamed to them by the Holy Spirit. That might be so, but unfortunately not for me, at least not to my knowledge. (I've had those "moments of clarity" but I view them cautiously.) I think of faith as a last resort, a bet placed on the basis of the available evidence and intuition--like the postulates of science. William James spoke of "working hypothises. That's the ticket.

And the burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. If I say: "I know that my Redeemer liveth", I'd have to prove it, which is why I'd never say that, because it's too much of a hassle and I don't know jack shit. If somebody says "I don't believe in God," I don't know where the conversation would go from there, but I wouldn't legitimately be able to say " You're wrong!" Burden of proof is useful for debaters and lawyers, but in the great courtroom of life, it doesn't necessarily mean much. I don't think "proof" is even a relevant concept. But I think beliefs should be consistent with reason and evidence (ergo, I'm not a fundamentalist), and I think beliefs should be supported by substantial evidence, broadly defined to include personal experience and intuition.

 

Okie:

Of course you'd legitimately be able to say it, as legitimately as you are able to "say" anything. lol

Try me for instance. I believe god exists for you. For me it only exists as a concept that exists for you because you believe in it. My not believing in it is my not having any need for it.

Everyone speaks for themselves. Is "religious" faith good in itself? Let those who find it good for them be the measure of that! Let all other defence of it fall by the wayside (which it does in any case ) :-D Religious faith is not good for me. How could it be when I'm not religious?! lol

I have faith in people, in their love. I don't know where else to place it!

 

Not to be confused with bad for you.

I also have faith in peoples' fear to produce certain effects in them. We can have faith in reality.

 

thedope:

How would you know?

Sure, but you believe love has more power of effect than fear, no?

 

For the same reason it is not good for you.

No

 

That I'm not religious? :-D Are you suggesting the world is... mine?! lol

I mean in yourself. The measure you are able to give it.

 

I can legally say anything, but I don't think I could legitimately (or should I say "properly"?) tell someone what they believe or don't believe. They're in a better position to know that than I am. If you tell me what you believe, no problem. If you tell me there is no God, I'd expect you to supply some reasons and evidence, just as I'd expect to do so if I said there is one.

On these points, we're in complete agreement. If it works for you, go for it! I don't believe in "one size fits all", and I know plenty of atheists who seem to have their shit together.

 

I wasn't but now that you mention it. The world is given you to be with as you will.

Again no. Fear's consistent signal to me is that I have missed the mark. That is, if I feel fear I know it is because I am not understanding.

There are no idle thoughts.

 

thedope:

But not to do with as I will? Is that reserved for god alone? lol That religious faith is not good for me because I'm not religious, doesn't mean it's not bad for me. Or is there an idle thought after all? :-D

Then let me doubt for you, if not to convince you otherwise. Fear is not only of the unknown, but of becoming unknown. At bottom, you are able to give more of yourself to love than to fear because life extends itself even unconsciously.

 

Can you stop the tide from turning? We are not free to decide what our inheritance is.

Are you claiming it is bad for you?

What bottom? Who is keeping score and why? Nothing happens in the future or the past. The only moment of power is now.