Is Faith Harmless?

Gilgamesh writes:

quote:

---

Within the realms of their faith, there is little to no critical thinking or responsible discourse. And this can involve critically important social aspects of their lives, like politics and science, so depending upon the nature of their faith, they may be valueless contributors to society.

---

Excellent point. There seems to be an effort to separate the faith of fanatics and moderate believers, as if the unreflective nature of faith could somehow be responsible for the broadening of cognitive horizons. "Moderate" believers are those who have allowed the modern world to intrude on their perspective, at the expense of their faith. Their faith itself had absolutely nothing to do with their ability to recognize the validity of modern science and the beliefs of others. It's only their skill at compartmentalizing that allows them to pay lip service to undeniable realities on the one hand, and assert that their faith should still be immune to criticism on the other.regards,
Esteban Hambre

But faith focuses on the higher. With many people's faith - they rely and trust on God because no critical thinking or other humans can help sometimes. Faith is a trust in God - hope against hope, by the nature of faith alone we are required to ignore the realities of some situations. For example, Christ said beware of the yeast of the pharisees, - when the disciples had no bread. Therefore - God is higher than any man's critical thinking.So - when we are an hungred - in the bible - it is wise to have faith in God etc...Critical thinking is the lower, it's the best of the lower beings. " My thoughts are higher than your thoughts and my ways are higher than your ways " is what God says - therefore - critical thinking comes under "self-righteousness" to us - in that, some of you unbelievers think you can out-think God. Erm - the modern world? We all accept the reality of the present age - and therefore, are as aware as you that we breathe oxygen - but the modern world isn't our master like it is yours. All your sayings are "new" - but Christ's words of peace shall never pass.Listen - I'll think critically - but like the frog says - they're not mutually exclusive. None believer's don't own thought.--> I don't force you to accept Jesus - even he said the choice is ours, and these minorities of extremists are clearly fruitcakes of a higher level.Don't forget - 90 odd% of the world are believers - probably some of your relatives - and maybe crashfrog's parents, and the nice girl next door. Most, if you're honest Hambre - are harmless.

Mike says,

quote:

---

We all accept the reality of the present age

---

Oh, sure, Mike, that's why the verse "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" is the defining cant of 21st century believers. If people believe that there are big magic beings who feel human emotions, that these beings reproduce and sacrifice their young, that people who believe in these things never die, and that there's a magic place waiting for these believers, I think it's safe to say that this adds up to less-than-complete acknowledgement of currently understood realities. And this shortcoming carries over into the way they understand society and the world, their responsibilities as citizens, and the sometimes counter-intuitive disciplines of science and math.My point about believers (and you seem to agree) is that your beliefs are somehow considered above criticism. Your deity can take on any form convenient for you, and elude any conceivable argument or attempt to make belief in the concept rational and realistic. You quote your holy books as if we're supposed to accept the wisdom as given, but then you conveniently 'interpret' any part of scripture that is obviously mistaken, outdated, or appalling in its bigotry. Worst of all, you deny responsibility for the 'fanatics' who are simply taking the words and spirit of such obscurantism to its predictably horrible end.If believers are harmless, Mike, it's only those who have put the myths in the cognitive time capsule where they belong. However, there are far too many who reinforce and implicitly condone the crimes of the fanatics by making faith answerable to no earthly authority. By choosing to denigrate critical thinking and celebrate irrationalism, you're loading the guns for the fanatics.regards,
Esteban Hambre

How am I loading the guns for the fanatics if I disassociate myself with them? MrHambre, have you forgotten Oook's comment? He said that we can believe what we want if we don't take it out on others. Since Christ gives a choice as to whether you believe or not - I fail to see how my beliefs need judging by you. Since you don't have a scriptural inkling - I doubt you can make any theological conclusions about Christ - and your "rational" thinking and unbelief is but a recent second in a day of belief. Most of the people on this planet have faith in something other than their five senses. For us to believe that we "don't know it all" is highly rational in my book - and you can quote me on that. Listen - you can criticise my beliefs all you want - and indeed - ahem, you just have. But how is having faith convenient?Example - I'm hungry and dying. Is faith practical and convenient - infact it's tough - darn tough in a situation like that.I realise your knowledge concerning faith is limited - so your reply of intolerance is to be expected. Can you provide a quote from me, to back up this assertion? There is many places where interpretation is needed, it is purposeful - Christ himself spoke in parables so that certain people wouldn't understand. This is NOT a convenience, and no evil is justified as JESUS SPOKE PLAINLY about how to treat others."Outdated" - as in - During this present age, Mr Hambre thinks he is king of the morals - yet he only understands things according to the age he lives in - and the laws he believes in were different yesterday and will be different tomorrow - and what will he call this - evolving morals? Hmmmmmmmm.Listen - we tell it how it is - the unescapable truth. Since you believe in this "indifference" - your bizarre morals don't surprise me. I suppose if something innocent is killed - would you justify it with this "indifference". Indeed, are you harmless?

Mike asks,

quote:

---

How am I loading the guns for the fanatics if I disassociate myself [from] them?

---

Because you're insisting that God's reason is higher than man's, that scripturally-based religious belief should be absolutely immune from rational discourse, and that unbelievers are people with "bizarre morals." Now when the believer wreaks God's vengeance (following the command of Deuteronomy 13:7) on the people who he thinks are trying to sway him from his faith through their cynical rationalism, believers like you deny responsibility for the violence. Your characterization of skepticism as "intolerance" is typical: should we be tolerant of every claim, regardless of how irrational or outrageous it is, merely because the claimant believes it strongly?

quote:

---

For us to believe that we "don't know it all" is highly rational in my book

---

Except that you believe you do know it all, just on a "higher" level than we know anything else about our lives, our world, and our universe. It's wrong of you to claim that you're merely exercizing reasonable doubt about empiricism being the be-all and end-all of knowledge. You're claiming that what you know through personal revelation is just as valid as what the rest of us know through the painstaking historical process of empirical evidential inquiry. You believe strongly in a being and an afterlife for which there exists not a shred of conventional evidence. You criticize any attempt to cast the light of human reason on your beliefs as being motivated by cruelty and insensitivity.Arguing for total freedom of belief is like arguing that my neighbor upstairs should be allowed to own radioactive elements in any quantity, because only their misuse could result in the irradiation or destruction of the entire neighborhood. I'm arguing that since faith never claims to be rational, responsible, or realistic, that it essentially is a pernicious and harmful concept.regards,
Esteban Hambre